[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8913-S8972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Specter, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1348. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 10th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of 
Columbia, as the ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building''; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with Senators 
Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Clinton, and McCain, a bipartisan bill to name 
the Department of Justice building in honor of the late Robert F. 
Kennedy. I am also pleased to join the bipartisan efforts of 
Congressmen Roemer and Scarborough, who are introducing companion 
legislation in the House of Representatives today.
  Robert F. Kennedy was a man of great courage and conviction. Of his 
many accomplishments during his life, the one we honor today is his 
tenure as Attorney General of the United States. Appointed by his 
brother, President John F. Kennedy, on January 21, 1961, he served his 
country admirably in the office of Attorney General until September 3, 
1964.
  During his tenure as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy led the fight 
against injustice and championed civil rights for all Americans. He 
ordered United States Marshals to protect the Freedom Riders in 
Montgomery, Alabama. He sent Federal troops to open

[[Page S8914]]

the doors for James Meredith to walk with dignity as the first African-
American to attend the University of Mississippi. He pushed Congress to 
enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to guarantee basic freedoms for all 
our citizens, regardless of race, religion or creed.
  Robert F. Kennedy's commitment to justice for all echoed in his fond 
saying: ``Some men see things as they are and ask why; I dream of 
things that never were and ask why not.''
  Attorney General Kennedy also was a determined prosecutor. His 
investigated organized crime throughout America and became the first 
attorney general to establish coordinated federal law programs for the 
prosecution of organized crime. From 1960 to 1963, Department of 
Justice convictions against organized crime rose 800 percent because of 
his efforts and dedication to bring organized crime figures to justice.
  As Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy represented President Kennedy in 
foreign affairs and closely advised the President in times of trouble. 
Attorney General Kennedy's wise counsel during the Cuban Missile Crisis 
in October of 1962, as well as secret negotiations with the Soviet 
Embassy, helped bring a peaceable end to the crisis.
  The memory of Robert F. Kennedy lives on in the work of others who 
care as much for justice as he did. As Attorney General, Robert Kennedy 
wrote these words: ``What happens to the country, to the world, depends 
on what we do with what others have left us.'' It is in that spirit 
that we honor him today.
  I am proud to led this bipartisan effort to name the Department of 
Justice Building after Robert F. Kennedy with the greatest respect, 
admiration and appreciation for his service to his country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1349. A bill to provide for a National Stem Cell Donor Bank 
regarding qualifying human stem cells, and for the conduct and support 
of research using such cells; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague John Ensign 
of Nevada in proud support of The Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 
2001, legislation aimed at committing our Nation to a bold investment 
in promising, ethical medical research with which we all can live.
  As my colleagues well know, the issue of stem cell research has been 
the subject of rigorous debate in Congress, within the medical, 
bioethical, legal, and patient advocacy communities, and on the pages 
and airwaves of the local and national media.
  Over the past several months in particular the American public has 
been witness and subject to a maddening barrage of charges and 
countercharges about how our public conscience may or may not 
countenance the deliberate destruction of a human embryo for the 
purpose of research.
  If one thing is clear on this controversial issue, it is that the 
country is divided about this wrenching dilemma, about whether or not 
the Federal Government ought to lend support--and thus communal moral 
sanction--to the speculative potential of stem cell research which 
involves the destruction of human embryos. This is a profound policy 
question which is fraught with considerable ethical, moral and legal 
questions. It requires that our body politic make the monumental 
determination that will forever brand our public conscience as to 
whether a human embryo is a life, or conversely, a property which can 
be destroyed and exploited for the advancement of science and research.
  I fervently believe that fertilization produces a new member of the 
human species, that it is a categorical imperative that human life be 
treated as an end and not a means. To use a human being, even a newly 
conceived one, as a commodity is never morally acceptable. Each person 
must be treated as an end in himself, not as a means to improve someone 
else's life.
  Indeed, current Federal law explicitly prohibits Federal funding of 
experiments that destroy embryos outside the womb precisely because 
individual human life begins at fertilization.
  But while President Bush continues to review the stem cell guidelines 
issued under the previous administration to determine whether or not 
they violate current Federal law barring the use of Federal funds in 
research that leads to the destruction of embryos, and it is my hope 
that President bush will uphold current Federal law and reject any 
semantical nuances or euphemisms with regard to what embryonic stem 
cell research is all about, the field of promising research behind 
which all Americans can unite, which is ethical and beyond controversy, 
is that which involves embryonic-type post-natal stem cells.
  Unfortunately, the opportunities for developing successful therapies 
from stem cells that do not require the destruction of human embryos 
have been given relative short shrift by the media. But adult and other 
post-natal stem cells have been successfully extracted from umbilical 
cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of 
the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. They can be located in numerous 
cell and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell 
and tissue types. And perhaps most important of all, these alternative 
cell therapies are already treating cartilage defects in children, 
systemic lupus, and helping restore vision to patients who were legally 
blind, just to name a few. By contrast, embryonic stem cell research 
has no equivalent record of success even in animal studies. Embryonic 
cells have never ameliorated one human malady.
  In order to move forward with and build upon the successes of this 
promising research, the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act would 
authorize $275 million for this ethical stem cell research which is 
actually proven to help hundreds of thousands of patients, with new 
clinical uses expanding almost weekly. This represents a 50 percent 
increase in current NIH funding being devoted to this stem cell 
research.

  This legislation would also establish a National Stem Cell Donor Bank 
for umbilical cord blood and human placenta to generate a source of 
versatile, embryonic-type stem cells that could be matched with people 
who need stem cells for treatment. These stem cells would be available 
for biomedical research and clinical purposes.
  No matter where one stands on the divisive issue of embryonic stem 
cell research, this issue and many others dealing with the rapid 
advancements in biotechnology are coming to define the very important 
choices which confront us as a society and the courses we must choose 
as policymakers. With stem cell research moving forward so rapidly, we 
have a duty to be well educated to be able to make informed decisions 
about these issues. For this reason, and because of biotechnology's 
prospects for affecting positive change in other areas of our lives 
such as in our agriculture community, I have recently joined as a 
member of the bipartisan Senate Biotechnology Caucus. Co-chaired by our 
colleagues Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, 
the Biotechnology Caucus regularly hosts educational forums for members 
of the Senate and their staff about a broad scope of biotech issues, 
from the increasing availability of genetically-engineered products to 
research, trade, and bioethics. The group also acts as a resource for 
information about biotechnology and encourage committee hearings on the 
topic.
  The possibility that biotechnology may help improve the health 
humankind holds great promise and must be examined closely. But there 
is no reason for our Nation to lie fallow with respect to the federal 
government's support for type of stem cell research which is life-
friendly and beyond controversy. It is my hope that our colleagues here 
in the Senate and in the House will pause from the rancor that has 
surrounded the stem cell research debate and come to support the 
Responsible Stem Cell Research Act, an aggressive initiative to fund 
and develop promising medical research with which we all can live.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAYTON:
  S. 1350. A bill to amend the title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
to provide payment to medicare ambulance suppliers of the full costs of 
providing such services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Medicare 
Access

[[Page S8915]]

to Ambulance Service Act of 2001. Reliable ambulance service is often a 
matter of life and death. This bill is designed to head off growing 
problems that are putting ambulance providers in Minnesota and across 
the country in financial jeopardy and affecting their ability to 
deliver emergency services to patients.
  The Medicare Access to Ambulance Service Act of 2001 will help 
ambulance providers whose service quality is threatened by inadequate 
Medicare payments and the inappropriate payment denials by Medicare 
claims processors. The continuing difficulties jeopardize the quality 
of care, and ultimately may increase the time it takes to respond to 
emergencies.
  Recently my staff in Minnesota met with ambulance providers and 
Medicare beneficiaries in Hibbing, Duluth, Moorhead, St. Cloud, 
Bemidji, Marshall, and Harmony, Minnesota to listen to their concerns 
over Medicare ambulance service. In every part of the State the stories 
were the same. The biggest concern was Medicare's denial of ambulance 
claims. Medicare has denied claims for such medical emergencies as 
cardiac arrest, heart attack, and stroke. One elderly woman from 
Duluth, Minnesota was so upset with the Medicare process and the year 
it took to get her claim paid, that when she needed an ambulance again 
she called a taxi. This is unacceptable.
  To make matters worse, when Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997 it required that ambulance payments be moved to a fee schedule 
on a cost-neutral basis. Moving to a fee-schedule makes sense, but not 
on a cost-neutral basis for a system that is already underfunded. The 
proposed fee-schedule is especially unfair to rural areas and will mean 
the end of small ambulance providers in Minnesota and throughout the 
country.
  My bill includes four components to address these problems. First, 
the bill requires that the Medicare fee schedule be based on the 
national average cost of providing the service. Second, the bill 
requires the General Accounting Office to determine a reasonable 
definition for how to identify rural ambulance providers and higher 
payments for rural ambulance services. Third, the bill includes a 
``prudent layperson'' standard for the payment of emergency ambulance 
claims. Simply stated, this provision means that if a reasonable person 
believed an emergency medical problem existed when the ambulance was 
requested then Medicare would pay the claim. Minnesota already leads 
the nation with this successfully implemented standard for all other 
patients, with the exception of those covered by Medicare. And finally, 
the bill requires Medicare to adopt a ``condition coding'' to be used 
by the ambulance provider.
  Medicare beneficiaries deserve more from the health insurance system 
than additional anxiety in an emergency situation for a system into 
which they have paid. When people in Minnesota and across the country 
have an emergency requiring an ambulance, they want to know that they 
will quickly and reliably get the care they need. However, current 
Medicare policies and procedures are putting quality ambulance service 
at risk and are forcing many ambulance providers to struggle to stay in 
business, especially in rural communities. My legislation addresses 
problems that threaten quality ambulance service for patients in 
Minnesota and across the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1351. A bill to provide administrative subpoena authority to 
apprehended fugitives; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would help Federal law enforcement track down and apprehend 
dangerous fugitives who are roaming the streets of America.
  I am pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Biden and Senator 
Hatch. Both of them are distinguished members of this Body with 
extensive knowledge in crime issues, and I greatly appreciate their 
support on this important legislation.
  Fugitives from justice pose a serious threat to public safety. These 
criminals are evading the criminal justice system with impunity, and 
many of them are committing more crimes while they are free. We should 
help law enforcement bring them to justice and prevent future crime.
  It has been estimated that fifty percent of the crime in America is 
committed by five percent of the offenders. It is these serious, repeat 
criminals, many of whom are fugitives, that law enforcement must 
address today.
  There are over 550,000 felony or other serious Federal and State 
fugitives listed in the National Crime Information Center database. The 
number has more than doubled since 1987, and is growing every year.
  This bill would respond to the growing fugitive threat by providing 
the Justice Department administrative subpoena authority for fugitives. 
Federal officers already have this crime-fighting tool in other areas, 
and this legislation would fill a serious gap that currently exists for 
fugitive investigations. Information such as telephone or apartment 
records may provide the missing link to track down a fugitive. Also, it 
can be critical to track down leads very quickly because fugitives are 
often transient and the trail can quickly become cold.
  The grand jury is routinely available to obtain information about the 
whereabouts of those who are suspected of committing crimes. 
Surprisingly, the same cannot be said for those who were caught but got 
away. The grand jury is generally not an option to get information 
about known fugitives who are evading justice.
  It is true that a Federal prosecutor can seek the approval of a judge 
for a administrative subpoena under the All Writs Act. However, it is a 
long, time-consuming process to get overworked federal judges with 
crowded dockets to act on these requests, especially if they are not 
rare. In any event, it may be too late by the time the court responds. 
Administrative subpoenas can prevent costly delays.
  Last year, we worked hard to give law enforcement tools to address 
the serious fugitive threat, holding hearings and moving important 
legislation. The Congress authorized $40 million over three years to 
create task forces led by the Marshals Service to apprehend dangerous 
fugitives. As part of this effort, the Senate passed administrative 
subpoena authority twice by unanimous consent last year. However, this 
authority was not included in the final legislation because it stalled 
in the House last year. I hope that, as we explain the need for this 
authority and how it is really a very narrow expansion beyond current 
law, we will receive widespread support in both Houses of Congress.

  Administrative subpoenas are not new to federal law enforcement. They 
have existed for years to help authorities solve various crimes, 
including drug offenses, child pornography, and even health care fraud. 
However, this bill places greater restrictions on the use of the 
subpoenas than currently exist in these other areas. These subpoenas 
could be used only to obtain documents and records, not testimony.
  None of us want a subpoena issued unless it is needed and fully 
complies with the law. This bill contains procedures for people to 
challenge the subpoena that they receive and have a judge review 
whether it should be issued. Judicial review is required in any case 
where the person requests it.
  The subpoena authority has no impact on the Fourth Amendment and its 
general prohibition on searches and seizures without a court-approved 
warrant. Courts have routinely upheld administrative subpoenas as 
entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Administrative subpoenas 
do not allow law enforcement to enter a home or business to conduct any 
search. They only allow the government to receive documentary 
information that they can show will help them find felons who are on 
the run.
  In summary, this legislation would help authorities get the 
information they need to find dangerous fugitives before it is too 
late. I am pleased that this proposal has the endorsement of law 
enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association.
  I encourage my colleagues to stand up for law enforcement and support 
this important 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:

[[Page S8916]]

                                S. 1351

       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 ``Fugitive Apprehension Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS TO APPREHEND FUGITIVES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 49 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Fugitive.--The term `fugitive' means a person who--
       ``(A) having been accused by complaint, information, or 
     indictment under Federal law or having been convicted of 
     committing a felony under Federal law, flees or attempts to 
     flee from or evades or attempts to evade the jurisdiction of 
     the court with jurisdiction over the felony;
       ``(B) having been accused by complaint, information, or 
     indictment under State law or having been convicted of 
     committing a felony under State law, flees or attempts to 
     flee from, or evades or attempts to evade, the jurisdiction 
     of the court with jurisdiction over the felony;
       ``(C) escapes from lawful Federal or State custody after 
     having been accused by complaint, information, or indictment 
     or having been convicted of committing a felony under Federal 
     or State law; or
       ``(D) is in violation of subparagraph (2) or (3) of the 
     first undesignated paragraph of section 1073.
       ``(2) Investigation.--The term `investigation' means, with 
     respect to a State fugitive described in subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of paragraph (1), an investigation in which there is 
     reason to believe that the fugitive fled from or evaded, or 
     attempted to flee from or evade, the jurisdiction of the 
     court, or escaped from custody, in or affecting, or using any 
     facility of, interstate or foreign commerce, or as to whom an 
     appropriate law enforcement officer or official of a State or 
     political subdivision has requested the Attorney General to 
     assist in the investigation, and the Attorney General finds 
     that the particular circumstances of the request give rise to 
     a Federal interest sufficient for the exercise of Federal 
     jurisdiction pursuant to section 1075.
       ``(b) Subpoenas and Witnesses.--
       ``(1) Subpoenas.--In any investigation with respect to the 
     apprehension of a fugitive, the Attorney General may subpoena 
     witnesses for the purpose of the production of any records 
     (including books, papers, documents, electronic data, and 
     other tangible and intangible items that constitute or 
     contain evidence) that the Attorney General finds, based on 
     articulable facts, are relevant to discerning the whereabouts 
     of the fugitive. A subpoena under this subsection shall 
     describe the records or items required to be produced and 
     prescribe a return date within a reasonable period of time 
     within which the records or items can be assembled and made 
     available.
       ``(2) Witnesses.--The attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of records may be required from any place in any 
     State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States at any designated place where the witness was 
     served with a subpoena, except that a witness shall not be 
     required to appear more than 500 miles distant from the place 
     where the witness was served. Witnesses summoned under this 
     section shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid 
     witnesses in the courts of the United States.
       ``(c) Service.--
       ``(1) Agent.--A subpoena issued under this section may be 
     served by any person designated in the subpoena as the agent 
     of service.
       ``(2) Natural person.--Service upon a natural person may be 
     made by personal delivery of the subpoena to that person or 
     by certified mail with return receipt requested.
       ``(3) Corporation.--Service may be made upon a domestic or 
     foreign corporation or upon a partnership or other 
     unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a 
     common name, by delivering the subpoena to an officer, to a 
     managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized 
     by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
       ``(4) Affidavit.--The affidavit of the person serving the 
     subpoena entered on a true copy thereof by the person serving 
     it shall be proof of service.
       ``(d) Contumacy or Refusal.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of the contumacy by or 
     refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, the Attorney 
     General may invoke the aid of any court of the United States 
     within the jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried 
     on or of which the subpoenaed person is an inhabitant, or in 
     which he carries on business or may be found, to compel 
     compliance with the subpoena. The court may issue an order 
     requiring the subpoenaed person to appear before the Attorney 
     General to produce records if so ordered.
       ``(2) Contempt.--Any failure to obey the order of the court 
     may be punishable by the court as contempt thereof.
       ``(3) Process.--All process in any case to enforce an order 
     under this subsection may be served in any judicial district 
     in which the person may be found.
       ``(4) Rights of subpoena recipient.--Not later than 20 days 
     after the date of service of an administrative subpoena under 
     this section upon any person, or at any time before the 
     return date specified in the subpoena, whichever period is 
     shorter, such person may file, in the district within which 
     such person resides, is found, or transacts business, a 
     petition to modify or quash such subpoena on grounds that--
       ``(A) the terms of the subpoena are unreasonable or 
     oppressive;
       ``(B) the subpoena fails to meet the requirements of this 
     section; or
       ``(C) the subpoena violates the constitutional rights or 
     any other legal rights or privilege of the subpoenaed party.
       ``(e) Guidelines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall issue 
     guidelines governing the issuance of administrative subpoenas 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Review.--The guidelines required by this subsection 
     shall mandate that administrative subpoenas may be issued 
     only after review and approval of senior supervisory 
     personnel within the respective investigative agency or 
     component of the Department of Justice and of the United 
     States Attorney for the judicial district in which the 
     administrative subpoena shall be served.
       ``(f) Nondisclosure Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by law, the 
     Attorney General may apply to a court for an order requiring 
     the party to whom an administrative subpoena is directed to 
     refrain from notifying any other party of the existence of 
     the subpoena or court order for such period as the court 
     deems appropriate.
       ``(2) Order.--The court shall enter such order if it 
     determines that there is reason to believe that notification 
     of the existence of the administrative subpoena will result 
     in--
       ``(A) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(B) flight from prosecution;
       ``(C) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     undue delay of a trial.
       ``(g) Immunity From Civil Liability.--Any person, including 
     officers, agents, and employees, who in good faith produce 
     the records or items requested in a subpoena shall not be 
     liable in any court of any State or the United States to any 
     customer or other person for such production or for 
     nondisclosure of that production to the customer, in 
     compliance with the terms of a court order for 
     nondisclosure.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 49 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives.''.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be able to join with 
Senators Thurmond and Hatch in introducing the Fugitive Apprehension 
Act of 2001. This bill authorizes the Attorney General to issue 
administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Its passage will 
provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to more effectively 
track and apprehend fugitives from justice, and I look forward to its 
prompt consideration.
  Crime across the country continues to trend downwards, though we have 
seen some mixed statistical signals of late. As chairman of the newly-
created Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I am extremely 
concerned by the Nation's fugitive problem. According to estimates from 
the Department of Justice, there are approximately 54,000 fugitives 
from justice in Federal cases. A total of 565,611 fugitives, including 
state and local felony cases, have been entered into the database of 
the National Crime Information Center, up from 340,000 10 years ago. 
But this figure only begins to measure the problem, as the National 
Crime Information Center receives just 20 percent of all outstanding 
State and local felony warrants.
  These fugitives from justice are a very real and dangerous concern. 
For example, last December, there was a shooting in Wilmington, DE. The 
shooter was charged with attempted murder and weapons violations and 
was jailed in Chester, PA, on a separate, earlier shooting charge. He 
then posted $500 bail on those charges, and promptly fled the 
jurisdiction. Members of Delaware's Violent Fugitive Task Force soon 
determined this violent criminal was hiding out in West Los Angeles. 
They alerted local FBI agents, who soon located the fugitive in a car 
and tried to stop him. He led the agents on a two-mile, high-speed 
chase, crashed into a pole, then tried to escape on foot. He was 
eventually captured, arrested, and he was recently returned to Delaware 
to face charges. This fugitive is particularly dangerous: he has a long 
record of drug and other offenses, including 52 arrests in Delaware 
dating all the way back to when he was 13.

[[Page S8917]]

  Unfortunately, this incident from my home State is not an isolated 
one, and we should not hamstring law enforcement when they try to catch 
these criminals. To better equip our Federal law enforcement agents 
with the resources they need to track and apprehend dangerous fugitives 
from justice, we need to make some changes to our criminal laws. The 
Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2001 gives the Attorney General, 
principally through the United States Marshals Service, authority to 
issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Last year, 
the Director of the Marshals Service testified as to the need for these 
subpoenas in fugitive cases; he noted that seldom is a grand jury 
available to issue a subpoena in these instances. In fugitive cases, 
time is often of the essence and successful investigations depend on 
real-time information, such as telephone subscriber and credit records. 
The time required to get a court order can make the difference between 
whether a fugitive is apprehended or remains at large.
  Given the privacy concerns that rightfully arise whenever Fourth 
Amendment protections are impacted, I want to take a moment to describe 
some of the safeguards in the bill we introduce today. First, and 
importantly, the bill's provisions apply only to those fugitives 
charged with or convicted of violent felonies or trafficking in drugs.
  Second, the bill in no way authorizes searches by law enforcement 
agencies; the subpoenas envisioned by the bill may be used only to 
obtain documents. Witness testimony and searches still must meet the 
Constitution's warrant requirement.
  Third, each administrative subpoena issued must be approved by the 
local United States Attorney for the district in which the subpoena 
will be served. I realize the Marshals Service and other law 
enforcement groups would rather this safeguard not be in the bill, but 
I insisted upon its inclusion at this point so as to ensure this new 
investigative power is not abused. I look forward to continuing my 
discussions with the Marshals Service and others concerning the effect 
this safeguard could have on their fugitive apprehensions.
  Fourth, the bill allows the person on whom an administrative subpoena 
is served to request to a court that it be overturned--judicial review 
is mandated each time an administrative subpoena is challenged.
  I am mindful of the fact that Federal law enforcement already has 
administrative subpoena power in other types of cases, including drug 
enforcement, child abuse and child pornography investigations. The need 
for administrative subpoena authority should be more clear in fugitive 
cases; there, the criminal being pursued has already proven his danger 
to society by committing a very serious crime. The bill we are 
introducing today is quite limited in scope, and its built in 
safeguards coupled with the opportunity for judicial review I believe 
balance well the rights of individuals with the clear need to catch 
those violent criminals on the lam, criminals whose very presence on 
our streets threatens us all. I thank Senator Thurmond for his 
leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him and 
Senator Hatch to see this bill signed into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 1352. A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 
1990 to carry out the Americorps program as a voucher program that 
assists charities serving low-income individuals, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill which 
reforms and expands service opportunities through the AmeriCorps 
program by transitioning the service program toward an individual model 
with voucher-like awards to individuals desiring to serve low-income 
individuals or communities. The goal is to decrease dependency on 
large, more permanent group service locations and dramatically increase 
the scope of service opportunities and charitable locations which would 
be eligible for voucher recipients to serve communities and to require 
that site locations be predominantly serving low-income communities or 
people.
  Under the leadership of former Senator Harris Wofford and the States, 
significant steps were taken to improve the management of the 
AmeriCorps program of the Corporation for National Service, CNS, and I 
recognize the dedication and contributions of AmeriCorps participants. 
I also believe that more can be done to expand the effectiveness of the 
AmeriCorps by expanding the opportunities for service and have been 
looking at a number of options for more than a year.
  The bill's approach to reform should better enable participants to 
get to know the communities that they are serving. It is also a goal of 
this initiative to place an additional emphasis on the importance of 
leveraging volunteers and providing technical assistance and capacity 
building skills for these organizations. This will increase the long-
term benefit which the organizations and the communities that they 
serve receive. The new proposal has some similarities to 
AmeriCorpsVISTA under the CNS but the scope of the proposed 
authorization is limited to AmeriCorps, although I believe that other 
restructuring may well be warranted.
  The reform proposal includes the following elements: The individual 
award or voucher would be for use at charitable organizations 
predominantly serving the poor (like the current AmeriCorpsVISTA 
focus). All eligible qualifying charities (consistent with IRS 
requirements for 501(c)(3)'s) predominantly serving the poor would be 
eligible locations for service. All receiving locations must comply 
with the current supervisory and reporting requirements (e.g., web-
based reporting system) of the Corporation for National Service. The 
voucher is awarded to the individual who chooses a qualified location 
for service and not the charitable organization. The current education 
and stipend benefits of AmeriCorps would remain the same and be 
included with the new voucher. The education award may be given to 
another individual chosen by the AmeriCorps volunteer without impacting 
the ability of the donee to receive other sources of grant and 
scholarship assistance, increasing the attractiveness for older 
Americans to participate. If the number of applicants exceeds the 
available vouchers, a lottery system established by the Corporation for 
National Service would be used to determine the selection of qualified 
voucher recipients. The bill provides for consolidation of Americans 
and AmeriCorpsVISTA state offices to better leverage resources. A one-
year transition period to the new system is provided.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this opportunity to reform 
AmeriCorps participants. I believe that refocusing the program on 
poverty alleviation efforts, expanded choice, and placing a greater 
emphasis on serving charities and the needy communities they serve 
through provision of expanded technical assistance and capacity 
building services will provide a brighter future for AmeriCorps and a 
more strategic contribution from this federally supported program for 
Americans in need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 1355. A bill to prevent children from having access to firearms; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Kennedy, Levin, Reed, and Schumer to introduce the Children's Firearm 
Access Prevention Act of 2001.
  My legislation is modeled after similar legislation that Texas 
enacted into law under then Governor George W. Bush in 1995. It is my 
sincere hope that President Bush will work with Congress to enact this 
important bill.
  While many in Congress have argued that the Second Amendment 
guarantees individuals the right to bear arms, there has been far less 
discussion about the corresponding responsibilities of gun owners to 
keep their firearms away from children.
  The Children's Firearm Access Prevention, CAP, Act of 2001 subjects 
gun owners to a prison sentence of up to 1 year and a fine of up to 
$4,000 when they fail to use a secure gun storage or safety device for 
their firearms and a juvenile under the age of 18 uses that firearm to 
cause serious bodily injury to themselves or others. The CAP bill also 
subjects gun owners to a fine of up

[[Page S8918]]

to $500 when they fail to use a secure gun storage or safety device for 
their firearm and a juvenile obtains access to the firearm.
  My legislation includes commonsense exceptions. Gun owners would not 
be subject to criminal or civil liability when a juvenile uses a 
firearm in an act of lawful self-defense; takes the firearm off the 
person of a law enforcement official; obtains the firearm as a result 
of an unlawful entry; or obtains the firearm during a time when the 
juvenile was engaged in agricultural enterprise. Gun owners would also 
not be liable if they had no reasonable expectation that juveniles 
would be on the premises, or if the juvenile was supervised by a person 
older than 18 years of age and was engaging in hunting, sporting, or 
other lawful purposes.
  CAP laws have reduced unintentional shootings in states that have 
enacted these laws. In Florida, the first State to pass a CAP law, 
unintentional shooting deaths dropped by more than 50 percent in the 
first year following enactment. 17 states, including my home state of 
Illinois, have enacted CAP laws.
  A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 
JAMA, in October of 1997 found a 23 percent decrease in unintentional 
firearm related deaths among children younger than 15 in those States 
that had implemented CAP laws. According to the JAMA article, if all 50 
States had CAP laws during the period of 1990-1994, 216 children might 
have lived.
  While I understand that some Americans feel safer with a gun in the 
home, the sad reality is that a gun in the home is far more likely to 
be used to kill a family member or a friend than to be used in self-
defense. Over 90 percent of handguns involved in unintentional 
shootings are obtained in the home where these shootings occur. Many 
unintentional shootings could be prevented if firearms were safely 
stored.
  Children and easy access to guns are a recipe for tragedy. I ask my 
Senate colleagues to join me in this effort to protect children from 
the dangers of gun violence.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1355

       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 ``Children's Firearm Access 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHILDREN AND FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(34)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``or removing'' after 
     ``deactivating''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Prohibition Against Giving Juveniles Access to 
     Certain Firearms.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Juvenile.--The term `juvenile' means an individual 
     who has not attained the age of 18 years.
       ``(B) Criminal negligence.--The term `criminal negligence' 
     pertains to conduct that involves a gross deviation from the 
     standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise 
     under the circumstances, but which is not reckless.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), it 
     shall be unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or 
     an unloaded firearm and ammunition for a firearm, any of 
     which has been shipped or transported in interstate or 
     foreign commerce or otherwise substantially affects 
     interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is 
     under the custody or control of that person if that person 
     knows or, with criminal negligence, should know that a 
     juvenile is capable of gaining access to the firearm without 
     the permission of the parent or legal guardian of the 
     juvenile, and fails to take steps to prevent such access.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (2) does not apply if--
       ``(A) the person uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
     for the firearm;
       ``(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed 
     Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the juvenile 
     obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance 
     of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
       ``(C) the juvenile obtains, or obtains and discharges, the 
     firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of one or 
     more other persons;
       ``(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on 
     objective facts and circumstances, that a juvenile is likely 
     to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept;
       ``(E) the juvenile obtains the firearm as a result of an 
     unlawful entry by any person;
       ``(F) the juvenile was supervised by a person older than 18 
     years of age and was engaging in hunting, sporting, or 
     another lawful purpose; or
       ``(G) the juvenile gained the gun during a time that the 
     juvenile was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.''.
       (c) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Whoever violates section 922(z), if a juvenile (as 
     defined in section 922(z)) obtains access to the firearm that 
     is the subject of the violation and thereby causes death or 
     serious bodily injury to the juvenile or to any other person, 
     shall be fined not more than $4,000, imprisoned not more than 
     1 year, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever violates section 922(z), if a juvenile (as 
     defined in section 922(z)) obtains access to the firearm that 
     is the subject of the violation shall be fined not more than 
     $500.''.
       (d) Role of Licensed Firearms Dealers.--Section 926 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Contents of Form.--The Secretary shall ensure that a 
     copy of section 922(z) appears on the form required to be 
     obtained by a licensed dealer from a prospective transferee 
     of a firearm;
       ``(e) Notice of Children's Firearm Access Prevention Act.--
     A licensed dealer shall post a prominent notice in the place 
     of business of the licensed dealer as follows:
       ``IT IS UNLAWFUL AND A VIOLATION OF THE CHILDREN'S FIREARM 
     ACCESS PREVENTION ACT TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN 
     UNINSURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE 
     AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM.''.
       (e) No Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to preempt 
     any provision of the law of any State, the purpose of which 
     is to prevent juveniles from injuring themselves or others 
     with firearms.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1356. A bill to establish a commission to review the facts and 
circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, 
European Latin Americans, and European refugees during World War II; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wartime 
Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act. This bill would 
create a Commission to review the United States Government's treatment 
during World War II of German Americans, Italian Americans, certain 
Latin Americans, and refugees of Nazi Germany.
  I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley 
and Kennedy, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I 
particularly want to thank them for their input and valuable 
contributions to this bill.
  The allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, 
and most of all, a triumph for human freedom. Today we rightly 
celebrate the contributions of what Tom Brokaw has called the Greatest 
Generation, the courage displayed by so many Americans in that terrible 
struggle should be a source of pride for every American.
  Those Americans fought, and often gave their lives, to restore 
freedom and democracy abroad. But, as brave Americans fought enemies in 
Europe and the Pacific, here at home the U.S. government was curtailing 
the freedom of its own people. Of course, every nation has the duty to 
protect its homefront in wartime. But, even in war, we must respect the 
basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives, 
including untold numbers of German and Italian Americans.
  Many Americans are by now aware that during World War II, under the 
authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 
100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and into camps. This 
evacuation policy forced Japanese Americans to endure great hardship. 
Approximately 15,000 additional ethnic Japanese were selectively 
interned in government operated internment camps. They often lost their 
basic freedoms, their livelihood, and perhaps worst of all, suffered 
the shame and humiliation of being locked behind barbed wire and 
military guard, by their own government. Under the Civil Liberties Act 
of 1988, this shameful episode in American history received the 
official condemnation it deserved. Under the Act, people of Japanese 
ancestry who suffered either relocation or selective internment 
received an apology and reparations, on behalf of the people of the 
United States.

[[Page S8919]]

  But, while the treatment of Japanese Americans has finally received 
the attention it deserves by the public, most Americans have never even 
heard about the approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans living in America, 
the 3,200 ethnic Italians living in America, or the scores of ethnic 
Bulgarians, Hungarians, Rumanians or other European Americans who were 
taken from their homes and placed into internment camps during World 
War II. Hundreds remained interned for up to three years after the war 
was over.
  Today I introduce legislation to convene an independent commission to 
examine this tragic history, try to understand why it happened, and to 
try to ensure that it never happens again. We must learn the lessons of 
history, however painful they might be for us, and for the families 
that endured this shameful treatment. In a time of American heroism 
abroad, here at home we faltered. We failed to protect the liberty of 
all Americans. Through our restrictive immigration policies, we also 
failed to offer safe harbor to European refugees fleeing Nazi genocide. 
We turned away thousands of refugees fleeing Germany, delivering many 
of them to their deaths.
  As a Nation we have been slow to address our conduct during the war. 
There has finally been some measure of justice for Japanese Americans 
who suffered in the United States, however little or however late. And 
Congress has finally begun to address the treatment of Italian 
Americans. Last year, the President signed into law The Wartime 
Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act, which called for a 
report from the Department of Justice detailing injustices suffered by 
Italian-Americans during World War II. I believe that this is a step in 
the right direction, but an independent panel should be convened to 
conduct a full and thorough review.
  I think many Americans would be surprised to learn that, to this day, 
more than 50 years later, there has been no recognition of the ordeal 
of thousands of German Americans during and after the Second World War. 
There has been no justice for ethnic Germans living in America who were 
branded ``enemy aliens'' by their own government. The U.S. government 
limited their travel, imposed curfews and seized their personal 
property. Thousands were interned in camps, often separated from other 
members of their family, living in miserable conditions. Many of these 
families, including American children, were later shipped back to war-
torn Europe in exchange for Americans held there, and suffered 
terribly. It is past time for the U.S. Government to recognize the pain 
and anguish these actions caused.
  And there has been no justice for European Latin Americans, including 
German and Austrian Jews, who were actually repatriated or deported to 
hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often as part of an exchange 
for Americans being held in those countries. The U.S. government 
uprooted these people from their homes and forced them into camps in 
the United States, essentially kidnaping them from nations not even 
directly involved in the War. Again, many were then shipped for 
exchange to Europe.
  And finally, there has been no justice for Europeans, often Jews, who 
sought refuge from the Nazis on our shores. We must examine the U.S. 
immigration policies of the 1930s and 1940s that turned these people 
away, and often delivered them into the hands of the Third Reich.
  This legislation proposes an independent commission to look at U.S. 
policies during World War II, including the policies regarding German 
and Italian Americans, European Latin Americans, and the refugee 
immigration policies of the World War II era.
  In the 1940s, Germans and Italians were the two largest foreign-born 
populations in the United States. Under the policy put in place by the 
U.S. government, thousands of aliens were simply arrested by the FBI. 
Far more often than not, these arrests were based on highly 
questionable evidence. Those arrested were held indefinitely pending a 
hearing. Many times their families did not know where they had been 
taken for weeks, and if both parents were taken, children were often 
left to fend for themselves until family members or local governments 
took custody of them.
  They received a brief hearing before local hearing boards during 
which the local U.S. Attorney acted as prosecutor. The hearing boards 
then recommended to the Department of Justice whether they should be 
released, paroled, or interned for the duration of the War. Despite the 
serious nature of this proceeding, those arrested did not have the 
right to have their own lawyer and did not have the right to confront 
witnesses against them. The hearing boards would then send their 
recommendations to the Department of Justice, where a final 
determination could take months. Internment orders were issued for the 
duration of the war. Ironically, many were interned on Ellis Island, 
where immigrants had been welcomed for decades.
  Families, often left destitute, struggled to survive and often lost 
their homes. Finally, the government would permit families to join 
their loved ones in a family camp, where they would live indefinitely 
behind barbed wire. These spouses and children were frequently American 
citizens.
  In addition to internment, all enemy aliens during World War II were 
subject to strict regulations affecting their daily lives. Enemy aliens 
were required to carry photo-bearing identification booklets at all 
times, were forbidden to travel beyond a five mile radius of their 
homes, were required to turn in any short wave radios and cameras they 
owned. They were required to given the government a full-week's notice 
if they planned to spend a night away from home, and could not ride in 
airplanes. Thousands of enemy aliens were prohibited from entering 
military zones, some even evacuated from their homes. Many aliens and 
European American citizens were also subject to restrictions in or 
excluded from military areas that collectively covered one-third of the 
country.

  As I've said, there has been some recognition of the wrongs done to 
Italian Americans during the war, but there has yet to be any formal 
recognition of the pain that German American families went through. So 
I want to take a few moments to give examples to help my colleagues and 
the public understand the kind of harassment they endured.
  The FBI searched tens of thousands of alien residences between 1943 
and 1945. The stories of homes ransacked, or people being taken from 
their families for years, are chilling. Take the case of Guenther 
Greis. Mr. Greis, as U.S. citizen, was 17 years old when World War II 
began in 1941. On December 7, 1941 Guenther's father, a German citizen 
who had lived in the U.S. for at least 15 years, and worked in the 
chemical industry, was arrested.
  Weeks passed before Guenther, his mother, and his family of four 
boys, three born in the United States, finally learned where their 
missing father had been taken. He was to be interned for the duration 
of the war. In the meantime, Guenther's family had struggled to keep 
their home. Even as their father was being detained by the government, 
two sons enlisted in the merchant Marines and served in the Pacific War 
Zone on behalf of the United States. The remaining family eventually 
was sent to the internment camp in Crystal City, TX, until Guenther and 
his brother were released in 1946. Guenther's parents remained interned 
until 1947, two years after the end of the war. To this day, the Greis 
family does not have explanation of why their father was interned.
  Or take the story of Anton Schroeger, a German citizen who came to 
America at the age of 16, and by the time World War II began, had lived 
half his life in America. When World War II broke out, Anton was lucky 
to have a relatively high paying job as a skilled painter at the 
Milwaukee Road repair shops. Based on what Anton believed to be a false 
tip from somebody who wanted his job, however, Anton was arrested while 
at work, and taken to a series of interment camps. After his arrest, 
his wife, Anna, insisted on joining him in the internment camps, and, 
in fact, gave birth to a daughter in a camp in Texas. After World War 
II, Anton earned a living working at lower paying jobs. Despite this 
ordeal, Anton eventually became a U.S. citizen in 1952. His family is 
certain that Anton did not engage in any activity that deserved such 
treatment.
  Let me say here that there may have been people affected by these 
policies

[[Page S8920]]

who harbored sympathy for our adversaries, and was potentially 
dangerous. And every government must take steps to protect its 
homefront in a time of war. But even the people who may have posed a 
threat to our security should have had the basic protections enshrined 
in our Constitution. War tests all of our principles and values, 
without question. But it is during these times of conflict, and fear, 
that we need to protect those principles the most.
  At least 11,000 German-Americans were placed in internment camps 
during WWII. Thousands more were denied basic freedoms that most of us 
today take for granted. These Germans and German-Americans deserve a 
full fact-finding review and acknowledgement from the U.S. government, 
and they deserve to have their story told so that we may strive to 
ensure that the individual rights of all Americans will remain free 
from arbitrary persecution.
  The work of the commission created by this bill would include a 
review of The Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which permitted this treatment 
under U.S. law and remains on the books today. So, the first act of the 
Commission would involve a full and thorough review of the federal 
government's treatment of European Americans and European Latin 
Americans.
  The second part of the Commission's work would be to study America's 
treatment of refugees from Nazi Germany. After Hitler took power in 
1933, the freedoms of German Jews were eroded until many of them sought 
desperately to flee the country. First came an economic boycott, the 
loss of civil rights, citizenship, and jobs.
  Then, in November 1938, came the Kristallnacht pogrom, and 
ultimately, incarceration and systematic murder in concentration camps. 
Unfortunately, as restrictions began to tighten and many Jews sought 
refuge outside of Nazi Germany, America, instead of acting as a haven 
for these refugees, was tightening its immigration rules. Between 1933 
and 1939, 300,000 Germans, mostly Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, 
applied for visas to America. Yet only about 90,000 applicants were 
ever admitted into our nation.
  The requirements just to be considered for a visa were formidable. An 
applicant had to submit an application, a birth certificate, a 
certificate of good conduct from the German police, affidavits of good 
conduct, submit to a physical exam, proof of permission to leave a 
country of origin, proof of booked passage to the U.S., two sponsors in 
America, and on and on. These requirements made immigrating to the U.S. 
very difficult. Then, in 1941, a new regulation forbidding the granting 
of a visa to anyone who had relatives in an Axis-occupied territory 
essentially made seeking refuge in America impossible for many Jews.
  Thanks to research conducted by the United States Holocaust Museum 
and other American scholars, we now have a fuller understanding of the 
ramifications of U.S. immigration policies. To put the tragic results 
of those policies into perspective, I'll recount the fate of the 
passengers aboard a ship called the St. Louis. The St Louis sailed from 
Hamburg in April 1939 with 937 passengers aboard. Over 900 of those 
passengers were Jews, attempting to flee Germany. America denied entry 
to the refugees on the ship, and it eventually sailed back to Antwerp 
in June 1939. From there, the refugees frantically searched for new 
countries to offer them protection. Some of them succeeded, while many 
did not, and were later detained and killed at Auschwitz.
  Some attempts were made to allow the most vulnerable of these 
refugees, children, into the United States. On February 9, 1939 the 
Wagner-Rogers refugee bill was introduced in this very Senate. The bill 
would have allowed admission to the United States of 20,000 German 
refugee children under the age of 14 over a period of two years, in 
addition to the immigration normally permitted. But sadly, that bill 
was not even considered by the full Senate.
  The United States' failure to offer refuge to Jews attempting to flee 
the Nazis is one of the most shameful periods in our history. We closed 
our borders to people fleeing persecution, and at the same time, within 
those borders, we treated too many people of ``enemy ethnicity'' as 
threats to a national security. The purpose of this proposed 
commission, is to understand and acknowledge the United States' actions 
during this period. As a Nation, we have repeatedly called on other 
countries to acknowledge their wartime offenses against civilians. 
Today we have to ask of ourselves what we ask of other nations--why did 
we do it, and how can we prevent it from happening again?
  During the Second World War, we defeated terrible enemies abroad, but 
we also lost something of ourselves as we denied freedoms to people at 
home. For many, the nation they called home would never be the same to 
them after their loyalty was questioned, and their lives were ripped 
apart. Too many German and Italian Americans were harassed and 
humiliated by the country where they lived, struggled, raised children, 
ran businesses, and built their dreams for a better life. This was the 
country they chose, like millions before them, and like each and every 
one of us. I hope by establishing a commission we can better understand 
how we allowed such a gross injustice, and how we can guard against 
implementing similar policies in the future.
  No American can justify using ethnicity as a basis for the terrible 
treatment these people endured. And there's no way we can justify the 
policy which allowed European Latin Americans to be torn from their 
homes, brought here to the U.S. under deplorable conditions to be 
interned, and sometimes deported back to hostile European nations. 
Finally, there's surely no way we can justify our World War II era 
immigration policy, which undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands of 
people--people who turned to the U.S., in fear and desperation, for a 
safe harbor, and were tragically turned away.
  We cannot learn from this troubling history unless we first seek to 
acknowledge it and understand it. Coming to terms with these events 
will be difficult, but for the families who suffered under these 
wartime policies, it will be, at long last, a recognition of the ordeal 
they went through at the hands of their own government. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can learn from this 
painful past, and ensure that we will never again let our worst fears 
drive us to neglect our most cherished freedoms. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Wartime Treatment 
of European Americans and Refugees Study Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill as ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1356

       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 ``Wartime Treatment of 
     European Americans and Refugees Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has long encouraged other nations to 
     acknowledge their wartime offenses against civilians. Now, 
     the United States Government should fully assess its 
     treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans 
     during World War II and its effect on Italian American, 
     German American, and other European American communities.
       (2) The United States Government should also fully assess 
     its treatment of European refugees who fled persecution and 
     genocide in Europe to seek refuge in the United States prior 
     to and during World War II.
       (3) During World War II, the United States Government 
     branded as ``enemy aliens'' more than 600,000 Italian-born 
     and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and 
     their families and required them to carry Certificates of 
     Identification, limited their travel, and seized their 
     personal property. At that time, these groups were the two 
     largest foreign-born groups in the United States.
       (4) During World War II, the United States Government 
     arrested, interned or otherwise detained thousands of 
     European Americans, some remaining in custody for years after 
     cessation of World War II hostilities, and repatriated, 
     exchanged, or deported European Americans, including 
     American-born children, to hostile, war-torn European Axis 
     nations, many to be exchanged for Americans held in those 
     nations.
       (5) Pursuant to a policy coordinated by the United States 
     with Latin American countries, many European Latin Americans, 
     including German and Austrian Jews, were captured, shipped to 
     the United States and interned. Many were later expatriated, 
     repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis 
     nations during World War II, most to be exchanged for 
     Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations.

[[Page S8921]]

       (6) Millions of European Americans served in the armed 
     forces and thousands sacrificed their lives in defense of the 
     United States.
       (7) The wartime policies of the United States Government 
     were devastating to the Italian Americans and German American 
     communities, individuals and their families. The detrimental 
     effects are still being experienced.
       (8) Prior to and during World War II, the United States 
     restricted the entry of European refugees who were fleeing 
     persecution and sought safety in the United States. During 
     the 1930's and 1940's, the quota system, immigration 
     regulations, visa requirements, and the time required to 
     process visa applications affected the number of European 
     refugees, particularly those from Germany and Austria, who 
     could gain admittance to the United States.
       (9) Time is of the essence for the establishment of a 
     Commission, because of the increasing danger of destruction 
     and loss of relevant documents, the advanced age of potential 
     witnesses and, most importantly, the advanced age of those 
     affected by the United States Government's policies. Many who 
     suffered have already passed away and will never know of this 
     effort.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) During world war ii.--The term ``during World War II'' 
     refers to the period between September 1, 1939, through 
     December 31, 1948.
       (2) European americans.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``European Americans'' refers to 
     United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of 
     European ancestry, including Italian Americans, German 
     Americans, Hungarian Americans, Romanian Americans, and 
     Bulgarian Americans.
       (B) Italian americans.--The term ``Italian Americans'' 
     refers to United States citizens and permanent resident 
     aliens of Italian ancestry.
       (C) German americans.--The term ``German Americans'' refers 
     to United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of 
     German ancestry.
       (3) European refugees.--The term ``European refugees'' 
     refers to European nationals who desired to flee persecution 
     and genocide in Europe and to enter the United States during 
     the period between January 1, 1933 and December 31, 1945 but 
     were denied entry.
       (4) European latin americans.--The term ``European Latin 
     Americans'' refers to persons of European ancestry, including 
     Italian or German ancestry, residing in a Latin American 
     nation during World War II.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Commission on 
     Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 11 
     members, who shall be appointed not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act as follows:
       (1) Five members shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the minority 
     leader.
       (3) Three members shall be appointed by the majority leader 
     of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader.
       (c) Terms.--The term of office for members shall be for the 
     life of the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, and shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Representation.--The Commission shall include 2 members 
     from the Italian American community and 2 members from the 
     German American community representing their wartime 
     treatment interests. The Commission shall also include 2 
     members representing the interests of European refugees.
       (e) Meetings.--The President shall call the first meeting 
     of the Commission not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (f) Quorum.--Six members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (g) Chairman.--The Commission shall elect a Chairman and 
     Vice Chairman from among its members. The term of office of 
     each shall be for the life of the Commission.
       (h) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the Commission shall serve 
     without pay.
       (2) Reimbursement of expenses.--All members of the 
     Commission shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel and 
     subsistence, and other reasonable and necessary expenses 
     incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the Commission to 
     review--
       (1) the United States Government's wartime treatment of 
     European Americans and European Latin Americans as provided 
     in subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) the United States Government's refusal to allow 
     European refugees fleeing persecution in Europe entry to the 
     United States as provided in subsection (b)(2).
       (b) Scope of Review.--
       (1) European americans and european latin americans.--The 
     Commission's review shall include, but not be limited to, the 
     following:
       (A) A comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding United States Government actions during World War 
     II which violated the civil liberties of European Americans 
     and European Latin Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 21-24), Presidential Proclamations 2526, 2527, 
     2655, 2662, Executive Orders 9066 and 9095, and any directive 
     of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to such law, 
     proclamations, or executive orders respecting the 
     registration, arrest, exclusion, internment, exchange, or 
     deportment of European Americans and European Latin 
     Americans. This review shall include an assessment of the 
     underlying rationale of the United States Government's 
     decision to develop related programs and policies, the 
     information the United States Government received or acquired 
     suggesting the related programs and policies were necessary, 
     the perceived benefit of enacting such programs and policies, 
     and the immediate and long-term impact of such programs and 
     policies on European Americans and European Latin Americans 
     and their communities.
       (B) A review of United States Government action with 
     respect to European Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 21-24) and Executive Order 9066 during World War 
     II, including registration requirements, travel and property 
     restrictions, establishment of restricted areas, raids, 
     arrests, internment, exclusion, policies relating to the 
     families and property that excludees and internees were 
     forced to abandon, internee employment by American companies 
     (including a list of such companies and the terms and type of 
     employment), exchange, repatriation, and deportment, and the 
     immediate and long-term effect of such actions, particularly 
     internment, on the lives of those affected. This review shall 
     include a list of all temporary detention and long-term 
     internment facilities.
       (C) A brief review of the participation by European 
     Americans in the United States Armed Forces including the 
     participation of European Americans whose families were 
     excluded, interned, repatriated, or excluded.
       (D) A recommendation of appropriate remedies, including how 
     civil liberties can be better protected during war, or an 
     actual, attempted, or threatened invasion or inclusion, an 
     assessment of the continued viability of the Alien Enemy Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 21-24), and public education programs related to 
     the United States Government's wartime treatment of European 
     Americans, European Latin Americans, and European refugees 
     during World War II.
       (2) European refugees.--The Commission's review shall cover 
     the period between January 1, 1933, through December 31, 
     1945, and shall include, to the greatest extent practicable, 
     the following:
       (A) A review of the United States Government's refusal to 
     allow European refugees entry to the United States, including 
     a review of the underlying rationale of the United States 
     Government's decision to refuse the European refugees entry, 
     the information the United States Government received or 
     acquired suggesting such refusal was necessary, the perceived 
     benefit of such refusal, and the impact of such refusal on 
     European refugees.
       (B) A review of Federal refugee policy relating to those 
     fleeing persecution or genocide, including recommendations 
     for making it easier for future victims of persecution or 
     genocide to obtain refuge in the United States.
       (c) Field Hearings.--The Commission shall hold public 
     hearings in such cities of the United States as it deems 
     appropriate.
       (d) Report.--The Commission shall submit a written report 
     of its findings and recommendations to Congress not later 
     than 18 months after the date of the first meeting called 
     pursuant to section 4(e).

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission or, on the authorization of 
     the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for 
     the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, hold 
     such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, and 
     request the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
     the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
     memorandum, papers, and documents as the Commission or such 
     subcommittee or member may deem advisable. The Commission may 
     request the Attorney General to invoke the aid of an 
     appropriate United States district court to require, by 
     subpoena or otherwise, such attendance, testimony, or 
     production.
       (b) Government Information and Cooperation.--The Commission 
     may acquire directly from the head of any department, agency, 
     independent instrumentality, or other authority of the 
     executive branch of the Government, available information 
     that the Commission considers useful in the discharge of its 
     duties. All departments, agencies, and independent 
     instrumentalities, or other authorities of the executive 
     branch of the Government shall cooperate with the Commission 
     and furnish all information requested by the Commission to 
     the extent permitted by law, including information collected 
     as a result of Public Law 96-317 and Public Law 106-451. For 
     purposes of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9)), the 
     Commission shall be deemed to be a committee of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       The Commission is authorized to--
       (1) appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as 
     may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United

[[Page S8922]]

     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that 
     the compensation of any employee of the Commission may not 
     exceed a rate equivalent to the rate payable under GS-15 of 
     the General Schedule under section 5332 of such title;
       (2) obtain the services of experts and consultants in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of such title;
       (3) obtain the detail of any Federal Government employee, 
     and such detail shall be without reimbursement or 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege;
       (4) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services for procurement of necessary financial and 
     administrative services, for which payment shall be made by 
     reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as 
     may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the 
     Administrator;
       (5) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in 
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the 
     extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation 
     Acts; and
       (6) enter into contracts with Federal or State agencies, 
     private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of 
     research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other 
     activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the 
     Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided 
     in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       From funds currently authorized to the Department of 
     Justice, there are authorized to be appropriated not to 
     exceed $850,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 9. SUNSET.

       The Commission shall terminate 60 days after it submits its 
     report to Congress.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Feingold and 
my other colleagues in the Senate in introducing the Wartime Treatment 
of European Americans and Refugees Study Act. This legislation will 
authorize the study of U.S. policies and practices during World War II 
that resulted in severe civil liberties violations against European 
Americans and European Latin Americans. The bill also authorizes an 
investigation into U.S. refugee policy during World War II that caused 
many persons seeking safe haven to be turned away from our shores.
  This bill will examine these issues by establishing a commission to 
investigate U.S. policies and programs during that period. Other 
countries are re-examining their own policies, and so must the United 
States. Identifying the abuses of the past is one of the best ways to 
ensure that they never happen again. I urge the Senate to adopt this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1357. A bill to provide for an examination of how schools are 
implementing the policy guidance of the Department of Education's 
Office for Civil Rights relating to sexual harassment directed against 
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modest bill 
that can help us take an important step toward providing all of 
America's students physically and psychologically safe school 
environments so they can live up to their full potential as students. I 
appreciate that Senator Feingold is joining me as an original co-
sponsor.
  Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence that schools are anything 
but safe havens for American students who are gay and lesbian, or for 
those who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. Two studies in recent 
months have focused on the issue of school harassment of gay and 
lesbian students. A 7-State study of abuses of gay and lesbian students 
by their peers, conducted by Human Rights Watch, found that these 
students often were not protected by school officials, and that in some 
cases harassment was even condoned by teachers and administrators. That 
report's troubling summation was that, ``Gay youth spend an inordinate 
amount of energy plotting how to get safely to and from school, how to 
avoid the hallways when other students are present so they can avoid 
slurs and shoves, how to cut gym class to escape being beaten up, in 
short, how to become invisible so they will not be verbally and 
physically attacked. Too often, students have little energy left to 
learn.'' A second, more general report on school bullying, conducted by 
the American Association of University Women, AAUW, found that 61 
percent of students had seen fellow students bullied for being gay or 
lesbian, whether or not the students actually were gay or lesbian. Boys 
were the most likely target of such teasing, according to the report.
  Further, the recent Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote 
Sexual Health and Responsible Behavior notes that ``anti-homosexual 
attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual 
persons and may have a negative impact on mental health, including a 
greater incidence of depression and suicide, lower self-acceptance and 
a greater likelihood of hiding sexual orientation.'' That report finds 
that: ``Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and 
lesbians have experienced verbal or physical harassment on the basis of 
their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 
percent had experienced a physical attack.''
  These studies and numerous journalistic reports describe the verbal, 
physical and psychological abuse that becomes part of two many gay, 
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students' daily lives.
  We should seek to provide equal learning experiences for gay and 
lesbian students. We should also be concerned about the widespread 
bullying of students with sexual orientation-based epithets in view of 
the growing evidence that students who are bullied are more likely to 
harm their fellow students.
  The Department of Education's ``Sexual Harassment Guidance: 
Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third 
Parties,'' issued in 1997 by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
includes in one section the following statement: ``sexual harassment 
directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to 
limit or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the 
school's program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title 
IX.'' This guidance was revised in 2001, clarifying that school 
officials have a responsibility to respond to ``acts of verbal, 
nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on 
sex or sex-stereotyping.''
  In spite of the Department's existing guidance, evidence is clear 
that harassment of gay students remains a serious problem. Even so, the 
AAUW study cited earlier points out that many schools and universities 
have not established grievance procedures or designate any 
representative to address complaints of sex discrimination, including 
harassment.
  To better understand the true level of sexual harassment against gay 
and lesbian students by peers and school officials in schools, as well 
as the degree to which schools are employing the Office of Civil 
Rights, OCR, standard in reacting against such cases of harassment, 
this bill calls for a study by the Commission on Civil Rights. The 
study would seek to answer five questions:
  What is the best estimate of the true level of harassment against gay 
and lesbian students in America's schools and universities, applying 
the OCR standard?
  What is the best estimate of the level of gender-based harassment 
such as that described in the 2001 update of the policy guidance that 
negatively affects the learning environment of gay and lesbian 
students?
  To what degree are school officials and teachers aware of the 
alteration of the guidelines in 1997 that now includes certain 
harassment of gay and lesbian students?
  Are the 1997 guidelines being accurately and aggressively enforced by 
schools?
  What are the Commission's recommendations for an alternation in 
policy or enforcement based on the findings of the study?
  The bill calls for completion of the study within 18 months so that 
Congress can act thoughtfully in working to create safe learning 
environments for all our students, gay and straight alike. It is 
endorsed by a number of the groups focused on promoting learning 
environments that are safe ones for gay students. I hope my colleagues 
will support it also.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S8923]]

                                S. 1357

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Although title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 
     (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) does not prohibit discrimination on 
     the basis of sexual orientation, one section of the 
     Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' 1997 final 
     policy guidance, entitled ``Sexual Harassment Guidance: 
     Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, 
     or Third Parties'' published in the Federal Register on March 
     13, 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, included a determination that 
     ``sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that 
     is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student's ability 
     to participate in or benefit from the school's program 
     constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by title IX under 
     the circumstances described in this guidance.''. This 
     language was unchanged in a 2001 update of the policy 
     guidance entitled ``Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: 
     Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, 
     or Third Parties'' for which a notice of availability was 
     published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2001, 66 
     Fed. Reg. 5512.
       (2) That section of the 2001 ``Revised Sexual Harassment 
     Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other 
     Students, or Third Parties'' went on to state: ``Though 
     beyond the scope of this guidance, gender-based harassment, 
     which may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical 
     aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-
     stereotyping, but not involving conduct of a sexual nature, 
     is also a form of sex discrimination to which a school must 
     respond, if it rises to the level that denies or limits a 
     student's ability to participate in or benefit from the 
     educational program. . . . A school must respond to such 
     harassment in accordance with the standards and procedures 
     described in this guidance.''.
       (3) There is evidence that brings into question the degree 
     to which the policy guidance on sexual harassment against 
     gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students is being 
     implemented. For example, a 7-State study by Human Rights 
     Watch of the abuses suffered by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
     transgender students at the hands of their peers, published 
     in ``Hatred in the Hallways: Violence and Discrimination 
     Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students in 
     U.S. Schools'' found that such students were often the 
     victims of abuses.
       (4) A 2000 study by the American Association of University 
     Women focused on implementation of title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972 more generally, and the findings of that 
     study, published in ``A License for Bias: Sex Discrimination, 
     Schools, and Title IX'', included a finding that many schools 
     and universities have not established procedures for handling 
     title IX-based grievances.
       (5) The 2001 report of the Surgeon General, entitled 
     ``Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health 
     and Responsible Sexual Behavior'' notes that ``antihomosexual 
     attitudes are associated with psychological distress for 
     homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental 
     health, including a greater incidence of depression and 
     suicide, lower self-acceptance and a greater likelihood of 
     hiding sexual orientation.''. It goes on to report: 
     ``Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and 
     lesbians had experienced verbal or physical harassment on the 
     basis of their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened 
     with violence, and 17 percent had experienced a physical 
     attack.''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for an 
     examination of how secondary schools are implementing the 
     policy guidance of the Department of Education's Office for 
     Civil Rights related to sexual harassment directed against 
     gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students.

     SEC. 2. STUDY OF HOW EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE 
                   IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY GUIDANCE RELATING TO 
                   SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The United States Commission on Civil 
     Rights (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Commission'') shall conduct a study of the 1997 final 
     policy guidance entitled ``Sexual Harassment Guidance: 
     Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, 
     or Third Parties'' published in the Federal Register on March 
     13, 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, and the application of such 
     policy guidance.
       (b) Scope.--
       (1) Nationwide.--The study shall be conducted nationwide.
       (2) Elements of study.--The study shall examine, at a 
     minimum, with regard to secondary schools--
       (A) the extent to which there exists sexual harassment 
     against gay and lesbian students in secondary schools, using 
     the applicable standards in the policy guidance of the Office 
     for Civil Rights described in subsection (a);
       (B) the extent to which there exists gender-based 
     harassment that negatively affects the learning environment 
     of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students in 
     secondary schools, applying the definition of such gender-
     based harassment contained in the 2001 update of the policy 
     guidance entitled ``Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: 
     Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, 
     or Third Parties'' for which a notice of availability was 
     published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2001, 66 
     Fed. Reg. 5512;
       (C) the level of awareness by school officials and students 
     of the policy guidance described in subsection (a); and
       (D) the level of implementation of such policy guidance.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``secondary 
     school'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).

     SEC. 3. REPORTING OF FINDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to 
     Congress and to the Secretary of Education--
       (1) a report of the Commission's findings under section 2; 
     and
       (2) any policy recommendations developed by the Commission 
     based upon the study carried out under section 2.
       (b) Dissemination.--The report and recommendations shall be 
     disseminated, in a manner that is easily understandable, to 
     the public by means that include the Internet.

     SEC. 4. COOPERATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--The head of each Federal department or 
     agency shall cooperate in all respects with the Commission 
     with respect to the study under section 2.
       (b) Information.--The head of each Federal department or 
     agency shall provide to the Commission, to the extent 
     permitted by law, such data, reports, and documents 
     concerning the subject matter of such study as the Commission 
     may request.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Federal 
     department or agency'' means any agency as defined in section 
     551 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2002.
       (b) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under the 
     authority of subsection (a) shall remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH:
  S. 1358. A bill to revise Federal building energy efficiency 
performance standards, to establish the Office of Federal Energy 
Productivity within the Department of Energy, to amend Federal Energy 
Management Program requirements under the National Energy Conservation 
Policy Act, to enact into law certain requirements of Executive Order 
No. 13123, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1358

       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 ``Federal Facility Energy 
     Management Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to increase the energy 
     efficiency of facilities of Federal agencies by--
       (1) establishing the Office of Federal Energy Productivity 
     within the Department of Energy to provide for interagency 
     coordination in evaluating opportunities for, and 
     implementation of, energy efficiency measures and programs;
       (2) updating energy reduction goals;
       (3) expanding Federal agency resources for energy 
     measurement and improving accountability by providing for--
       (A) energy metering and monitoring;
       (B) transparent energy spending; and
       (C) rigorous interagency and congressional oversight;
       (4) promoting the acquisition and operation of more 
     efficient facilities by extending the authority and 
     eligibility of a Federal agency to enter into energy savings 
     performance contracts; and
       (5) establishing a reliable and steady source of funding 
     for permanent energy capital improvement available to 
     supplement appropriations for use by Federal agencies and the 
     Architect of the Capitol--
       (A) to fund energy efficiency projects; and
       (B) to leverage funding for energy savings performance 
     contracts.

     SEC. 3. REVISED FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
                   PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

       Section 305 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6834) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``CABO Model Energy 
     Code, 1992'' and inserting ``the International Residential 
     Code''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Revised federal building energy efficiency 
     performance standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     establish, by rule, revised Federal building energy 
     efficiency performance standards that require that--
       ``(i) new commercial buildings and multifamily high rise 
     residential buildings be constructed so as--

[[Page S8924]]

       ``(I) to have, in the aggregate, a level of energy 
     efficiency that is 10 percent greater than the level of 
     energy efficiency required under the standards established 
     under paragraph (1); and
       ``(II) to meet or exceed the most recent ASHRAE Standard 
     90.1, approved by the American Society of Heating, 
     Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.;

       ``(ii) new residential buildings (other than those 
     described in clause (i)) be constructed so as to exceed the 
     level of energy efficiency required under the most recent 
     version of the International Residential Code by not less 
     than 10 percent.
       ``(B) Additional revisions.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of approval of amendments to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 or 
     the International Residential Code, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall determine, based on the cost-effectiveness of the 
     requirements under the amendments, whether the revised 
     standards established under this paragraph should be updated 
     to reflect the amendments.
       ``(C) Computer software.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     develop computer software to facilitate compliance with the 
     revised standards established under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Statement on compliance of new buildings.--In the 
     budget request of the Federal agency for each fiscal year and 
     each report submitted by the Federal agency under section 
     548(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8258(a)), the head of each Federal agency shall 
     include--
       ``(i) a list of all new Federal buildings of the Federal 
     agency; and
       ``(ii) a statement concerning whether the Federal buildings 
     meet or exceed the revised standards established under this 
     paragraph, including a metering and commissioning component 
     that is in compliance with the measurement and verification 
     protocols of the Department of Energy.
       ``(E) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this paragraph and to implement the revised 
     standards established under this paragraph.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Energy Labeling Program.--The Secretary of Energy, in 
     cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall develop an energy labeling program 
     for new Federal buildings that exceed the revised standards 
     established under subsection (a)(3) by 15 percent or more.
       ``(f) Collection of Interval Solar Data.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall collect interval solar data at all weather 
     stations under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce 
     for use in determining building energy efficiency performance 
     under this section.''.

     SEC. 4. OFFICE OF FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act is amended by inserting after section 211 
     (42 U.S.C. 7141) the following:

     ``SEC. 212. OFFICE OF FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established, within the 
     Department, the Office of Federal Energy Productivity 
     (referred to in this section as the `Office').
       ``(b) Assistant Secretary for Federal Energy 
     Productivity.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office shall be headed by the 
     Assistant Secretary for Federal Energy Productivity (referred 
     to in this section as the `Assistant Secretary'), who shall 
     report directly to the Secretary.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Assistant Secretary shall--
       ``(A) ensure compliance with the energy use and expenditure 
     requirements applicable to Federal agencies under Federal law 
     (including Executive orders);
       ``(B) perform all duties assigned to the Director of the 
     Federal Energy Management Program of the Department of 
     Energy, including duties assigned to the Director by the 
     President by any Executive order in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph;
       ``(C) coordinate implementation of energy efficiency 
     requirements by Federal agencies using staff of the Office 
     that have expertise in the mission of each Federal agency;
       ``(D) coordinate compilation of, and review, energy-use 
     reports required to be submitted by Federal agencies under 
     this Act and other Federal law (including Executive orders);
       ``(E) serve as a liaison from the Federal Government to the 
     private sector to identify opportunities and obstacles to 
     expanded private and Federal markets for energy management 
     technologies, energy efficiency technologies, and renewable 
     energy technologies;
       ``(F) operate the Federal Energy Bank established by 
     section 552 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act;
       ``(G)(i) not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, issue such guidelines for 
     Federal agency energy preparedness and energy emergency 
     response as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(ii) in accordance with paragraph (3), receive, review, 
     and report on plans submitted by Federal agencies in 
     conformance with the guidelines; and
       ``(H)(i) not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the first Assistant Secretary takes office, identify and 
     submit to Congress a list of the principal conservation 
     officers under section 656; and
       ``(ii) annually update the list.
       ``(3) Energy preparedness and energy emergency response 
     plans.--
       ``(A) Submission by federal agencies.--The head of each 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Assistant Secretary 
     annually (or at such intervals as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate) an energy preparedness and energy emergency 
     response plan for the Federal agency that is in conformance 
     with the guidelines issued under paragraph (2)(G)(i).
       ``(B) Review by assistant secretary.--The Assistant 
     Secretary shall review each plan submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) for effectiveness and feasibility.
       ``(C) Report to congress.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     submit to the President and Congress an annual report on the 
     ability of each Federal agency--
       ``(i) to reduce energy use on an emergency basis; and
       ``(ii) to perform the mission of the Federal agency during 
     such a period of emergency reduced energy use.
       ``(c) Liaison to Department of Defense.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     appoint an individual employed by the Office to serve as a 
     liaison to the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Duties.--The individual appointed under paragraph (1) 
     shall coordinate energy efficiency measures, and energy 
     efficiency reporting to the President and Congress, into the 
     operation of the Department of Defense without compromising 
     national security or the defense mission of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(3) Security clearance.--The individual appointed under 
     paragraph (1) shall have appropriate security clearance.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Office, shall submit to Congress an annual report that--
       ``(1) describes the energy expenditures, investments, and 
     savings of each Federal agency;
       ``(2) describes the obstacles to meeting the energy 
     efficiency requirements under Federal law (including 
     Executive orders) that are faced by each Federal agency; and
       ``(3) includes an accounting of energy-consuming products 
     procured by each Federal agency that indicates--
       ``(A) which energy-consuming products procured by the 
     Federal agency during the preceding year were Energy Star 
     products or FEMP designated products (as those terms are 
     defined in section 551(a) of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act); and
       ``(B) which energy-consuming products procured by the 
     Federal agency during the preceding year were neither Energy 
     Star products nor FEMP designated products.
       ``(e) Audits of Federal Energy Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary may require the 
     Inspector General of each Federal agency to conduct audits of 
     the energy management programs of the Federal agency every 3 
     years.
       ``(2) Guidelines.--The Assistant Secretary shall--
       ``(A) issue guidelines for the conduct of audits described 
     in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) conduct training for Inspectors General on use of the 
     guidelines.''.
       (b) Liaison From Department of Defense.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall--
       (1) establish as a senior level position within the 
     Department of Defense the position of energy management 
     liaison; and
       (2) assign to the official appointed to that position by 
     the Secretary of Defense the duty to coordinate with 
     appropriate officials of the Department of Defense and 
     appropriate officials of the Department of Energy concerning 
     energy use and expenditure requirements applicable to the 
     Department of Defense under Federal law (including Executive 
     orders).
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     contents in the first section of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 note) is amended --
       (1) in the item relating to section 209, by striking 
     ``Section'' and inserting ``Sec.'';
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 211 the 
     following:

``Sec. 212. Office of Federal Energy Productivity.'';
     and
       (3) in the items relating to each of sections 213 through 
     216, by inserting ``Sec.'' before the section designation.

     SEC. 5. ENERGY REDUCTION GOALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 543 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each agency 
     shall apply energy conservation measures to, and shall 
     improve the design for the construction of, the Federal 
     buildings of the agency (including each industrial or 
     laboratory facility) so that the energy consumption per gross 
     square foot of the Federal buildings of the agency in 
     calendar years 2002 through 2011 is reduced, as compared with 
     the energy consumption per gross square foot of the Federal 
     buildings of the agency in calendar year 2000, by the 
     percentage specified in the following table:

``Calendar year:                                  Percentage reduction:
  2002...........................................................2 ....

  2003...........................................................4 ....

  2004...........................................................6 ....

  2005...........................................................8 ....

[[Page S8925]]

  2006..........................................................10 ....

  2007..........................................................12 ....

  2008..........................................................14 ....

  2009..........................................................16 ....

  2010..........................................................18 ....

  2011.......................................................20.'';....

       (B) by striking ``(2) An'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain federal buildings.--An''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Review and revision of energy performance 
     requirement.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) review the results of the implementation of the 
     energy performance requirement established under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) submit to Congress recommendations concerning energy 
     performance requirements for calendar years 2012 through 
     2021.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Exclusions.--An agency may exclude, from the energy 
     performance requirement for a calendar year established under 
     subsection (a) and the energy management requirement 
     established under subsection (b), any Federal building or 
     collection of Federal buildings, and the associated energy 
     consumption and gross square footage, if--
       ``(i) the head of the agency finds that compliance with 
     those requirements would be impracticable; and
       ``(ii) the agency has--

       ``(I) completed and submitted all federally required energy 
     management reports;
       ``(II) achieved compliance with the energy efficiency 
     requirements of--

       ``(aa) this Act;
       ``(bb) subtitle F of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 8262 et seq.);
       ``(cc) Executive orders; and
       ``(dd) other Federal law; and

       ``(III) implemented all practicable, cost-effective, life-
     cycle projects with respect to the Federal building or 
     collection of Federal buildings to be excluded.

       ``(B) Finding of impracticability.--A finding of 
     impracticability under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be based 
     on--
       ``(i) the energy intensiveness of activities carried out in 
     the Federal building or collection of Federal buildings; or
       ``(ii) the fact that the Federal building or collection of 
     Federal buildings is used in the performance of a national 
     security function.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``(2) Each agency'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Review by secretary.--Each agency''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence--

       (I) by striking ``impracticability standards'' and 
     inserting ``standards for exclusion''; and
       (II) by striking ``a finding of impracticability'' and 
     inserting ``the exclusion''; and

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Criteria.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue 
     guidelines that establish criteria for exclusions under 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Reports.--Section 548(b) of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8258(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``the President 
     and'' before ``Congress''; and
       (2) by inserting ``President and'' before ``Congress''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 550(d) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8258b(d)) is 
     amended in the second sentence by striking ``the 20 percent 
     reduction goal established under section 543(a) of the 
     National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8253(a)).'' and inserting ``each of the energy reduction 
     goals established under section 543(a).''.

     SEC. 6. ENERGY USE MEASUREMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 543 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Metering of Energy Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each agency 
     shall meter or submeter the energy use in each Federal 
     building, industrial process, and energy-using structure of 
     the agency.
       ``(2) Guidelines.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     guidelines concerning the extent of the metering and 
     submetering required under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Requirements for guidelines.--The guidelines shall--
       ``(i) take into consideration--

       ``(I) the cost of metering and submetering and the reduced 
     cost of operation and maintenance expected to result from 
     metering and submetering;
       ``(II) the extent to which metering and submetering are 
     expected to result in--

       ``(aa) increased potential for energy management;
       ``(bb) increased potential for energy savings and energy 
     efficiency improvement; and
       ``(cc) cost and energy savings due to utility contract 
     aggregation; and

       ``(III) the measurement and verification protocols of the 
     Department of Energy;

       ``(ii) include recommendations concerning the amount of 
     funds and the number of trained personnel necessary to gather 
     and use the metering information to track and reduce energy 
     use;
       ``(iii) establish 1 or more dates, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of issuance of the guidelines, on which the 
     requirement specified in paragraph (1) shall take effect; and
       ``(iv) establish exclusions from the requirement specified 
     in paragraph (1) based on the de minimus quantity of energy 
     use of a Federal building, industrial process, or structure.
       ``(f) Use of Interval Data in Federal Buildings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning not later than January 1, 
     2003, each agency shall use, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, for the purposes of efficient use of energy and 
     reduction in the cost of electricity used in the Federal 
     buildings of the agency, interval consumption data that 
     measure on a real-time or daily basis consumption of 
     electricity in the Federal buildings of the agency.
       ``(2) Plan.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, in a report submitted by the 
     agency under section 548(a), each agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary a plan describing how the agency will implement the 
     requirement of paragraph (1), including how the agency will 
     designate personnel primarily responsible for achieving the 
     requirement.''.
       (b) Budget Submissions to the President.--Section 545 of 
     the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8255) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Budget Submission to Congress.--'' 
     before ``The President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Budget Submissions to the President.--The head of 
     each agency shall submit to the President, as part of the 
     budget request of the agency for each fiscal year, a 
     statement of the amount of appropriations requested in the 
     budget for the electric and other energy costs and compliance 
     costs described in subsection (a).''.
       (c) Energy and Water Conservation Incentive Program.--
     Section 546 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8256) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Energy and Water Conservation Incentive Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the other incentive 
     programs established under this section, the Secretary shall 
     establish an incentive program under which, for any fiscal 
     year, of the amounts made available to each agency to pay the 
     costs of providing energy and water for Federal buildings 
     under the jurisdiction of the agency, the agency may retain, 
     without fiscal year limitation, such amounts as are 
     determined under paragraph (2) to have been saved because of 
     energy and water management and conservation projects carried 
     out by the agency.
       ``(2) Determination of retained amounts.--In cooperation 
     with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, the Secretary shall issue 
     guidelines and establish methodologies for--
       ``(A) retention of amounts saved as described in paragraph 
     (1) for a period ending not more than 3 years after the date 
     of completion of the project that resulted in the savings;
       ``(B) establishment of a baseline amount of energy and 
     water expenditures, consisting of the amounts that would be 
     expended on energy or water but for implementation of the 
     project; and
       ``(C) use by agencies of the baseline amounts established 
     under subparagraph (B) in submitting to the President budget 
     requests for appropriated amounts equal to the amounts of 
     savings that an agency is expected to be entitled to retain 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Use of retained amounts.--Amounts retained under 
     paragraph (1) may be used to carry out energy or water 
     management and conservation projects, invest in renewable 
     energy systems, and purchase electricity from renewable 
     energy sources for use, at the Federal building at which the 
     project that resulted in the savings was carried out.
       ``(4) Annual report on use of amounts.--Each report 
     submitted by an agency under section 548(a) shall describe--
       ``(A)(i) the amounts retained under paragraph (1) during 
     the period covered by the report; and
       ``(ii) the use of the amounts retained; and
       ``(B) if no amounts were retained under paragraph (1), why 
     no amounts were retained and the plans of the agency for 
     retaining such amounts in the future.''.
       (d) Reports.--Section 548 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8258) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by the 
     Federal buildings of the agency during each fiscal year, as 
     measured by the agency in consultation with the Assistant 
     Secretary for Federal Energy Productivity of the Department 
     of Energy.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page S8926]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by the 
     Federal buildings of each agency during each fiscal year;''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Recommendations on Means of Accounting for Energy 
     Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Agency, the 
     Administrator of General Services, and the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall conduct a study to develop recommendations on 
     the most accurate means of accounting for energy use in 
     Federal facilities.
       ``(2) Required recommendations.--Recommendations shall 
     include a recommendation concerning whether a uniform 
     performance measure based on British thermal units per gross 
     square foot is preferable to an agency-specific performance 
     measure or any other performance-based metric.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the results of the study.''.

     SEC. 7. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENT 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Procurement of Energy Efficient Products.--
       (1) Requirements.--
       (A) In general.--Part 3 of title V of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act is amended--
       (i) by redesignating section 551 (42 U.S.C. 8259) as 
     section 554; and
       (ii) by inserting after section 550 (42 U.S.C. 8258b) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 551. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENT PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Energy star product.--The term `Energy Star product' 
     means a product that is rated for energy efficiency under an 
     Energy Star program.
       ``(2) Energy star program.--The term `Energy Star program' 
     means a program administered by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency that involves voluntary 
     cooperation between that agency and an industry to enhance 
     the energy efficiency of the energy consuming products of the 
     industry so as to reduce--
       ``(A) burdens on air conditioning and electrical systems of 
     buildings that result from the use of the products in the 
     buildings; and
       ``(B) air pollution caused by utility power generation.
       ``(3) Executive agency.--The term `executive agency' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
       ``(4) FEMP designated product.--The term `FEMP designated 
     product' means a product that is designated under the Federal 
     Energy Management Program of the Department of Energy as 
     being among the highest 25 percent of equivalent products for 
     energy efficiency.
       ``(b) Procurement of Energy Efficient Products.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--To meet the requirements of an 
     executive agency for an energy consuming product, the head of 
     the executive agency shall, except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), procure--
       ``(A) an Energy Star product; or
       ``(B) if there is no Energy Star product that meets the 
     requirements of the executive agency and that is reasonably 
     available, a FEMP designated product.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The head of an executive agency is not 
     required to procure an Energy Star product or FEMP designated 
     product under paragraph (1) if--
       ``(A) an Energy Star product or FEMP designated product is 
     not cost effective over the life cycle of the product; or
       ``(B) no Energy Star product or FEMP designated product is 
     reasonably available that meets the requirements of the 
     executive agency.
       ``(3) Procurement planning.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     incorporate into the specifications for a procurement 
     involving energy consuming products and systems, and into the 
     factors for the evaluation of offers received for the 
     procurement, criteria for energy efficiency that are 
     consistent with--
       ``(i) the criteria for energy efficiency used for rating 
     products under the applicable Energy Star program; and
       ``(ii) the criteria used for designating products under the 
     Federal Energy Management Program of the Department of 
     Energy.
       ``(B) Applicability.--The requirement of subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply to--
       ``(i) a contract for new construction or renovation of a 
     building;
       ``(ii) a basic ordering agreement;
       ``(iii) a blanket purchasing agreement;
       ``(iv) a Government-wide procurement contract; and
       ``(v) any other contract for a procurement described in 
     that subparagraph.
       ``(c) Listing of Energy Efficient Products in Federal 
     Catalogs.--
       ``(1) Development.--The Administrator of General Services 
     and the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency of the 
     Department of Defense shall--
       ``(A) develop, and revise if appropriate, catalog listings 
     of Energy Star products and FEMP designated products; and
       ``(B) clearly identify in the listings the products that 
     are Energy Star products and the products that are FEMP 
     designated products.
       ``(2) Availability of listings.--The Administrator and the 
     Director shall make the listings available in printed and 
     electronic formats.
       ``(d) GSA and DLA Inventories and Listings.--No energy 
     consuming product may be made available to any executive 
     agency from an inventory or listing of products by the 
     General Services Administration or the Defense Logistics 
     Agency unless--
       ``(1) the product is an Energy Star product;
       ``(2) the product is a FEMP designated product and no 
     equivalent Energy Star product is reasonably available; or
       ``(3) no equivalent Energy Star product or FEMP designated 
     product is reasonably available.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including 
     policies and conditions for exercising authority under this 
     section to procure energy consuming products other than 
     Energy Star products and FEMP designated products.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) The table of contents in section 1(b) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8201 note) is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 551 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 551. Federal Government procurement of energy efficient 
              products.
``Sec. 552. Federal Energy Bank.
``Sec. 553. Energy and water savings measures in congressional 
              buildings.
``Sec. 554. Definitions.''.
       (ii) Section 151(5) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 8262(5)) is amended by striking ``section 551(4)'' and 
     inserting ``section 554(4)''.
       (iii) Section 164(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 8262h note; Public Law 102-486) is amended by striking 
     ``section 551(5)'' and inserting ``section 554(5)''.
       (2) Implementation.--
       (A) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     effective date specified in subsection (d), the Secretary of 
     Energy shall promulgate regulations to carry out section 551 
     of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (as added by 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii)).
       (B) Disposal of existing inventories.--An energy consuming 
     product that, on the effective date specified in subsection 
     (d), is in an inventory of products offered by the General 
     Services Administration or the Defense Logistics Agency may 
     be made available to an executive agency out of that 
     inventory without regard to section 551(d) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act.
       (C) Procurement of replacement inventory.--On and after the 
     effective date specified in subsection (d), the Administrator 
     of General Services and the Director of the Defense Logistics 
     Agency of the Department of Defense may not list or procure 
     for an inventory of products offered by the General Services 
     Administration or the Defense Logistics Agency an energy 
     consuming product that, under section 551(d) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act, may not be made available to 
     executive agencies out of that inventory.
       (b) Procurement Guidelines.--The Secretary of Energy, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, shall issue 
     guidelines that the Secretary of Defense may apply to the 
     procurement of energy consuming products by the Department of 
     Defense to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible 
     consistent with the performance of the national security 
     missions of the Department of Defense, the products selected 
     for procurement are energy efficient products.
       (c) Designation of Energy Star Products.--The Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of 
     Energy shall--
       (1) expedite the process of designating products as Energy 
     Star products (as defined in section 551(a) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act (as added by subsection 
     (a)(1)(A)(ii))); and
       (2) merge the efficiency rating procedures used by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy 
     under the Energy Star programs (as defined in section 551(a) 
     of that Act).
       (d) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) and the amendment made 
     by that subsection take effect on the date that is 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. FEDERAL ENERGY BANK.

       Part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act is amended by inserting after section 551 (as 
     added by section 7(a)(1)(A)(ii)) the following:

     ``SEC. 552. FEDERAL ENERGY BANK.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Bank.--The term `Bank' means the Federal Energy Bank 
     established by subsection (b).
       ``(2) Energy or water efficiency project.--The term `energy 
     or water efficiency project' means a project that assists a 
     Federal agency in meeting or exceeding the energy or water 
     efficiency requirements of--
       ``(A) this part;
       ``(B) title VIII;
       ``(C) subtitle F of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 8262 et seq.); or
       ``(D) any applicable Executive order, including Executive 
     Order No. 13123 (42 U.S.C. 8251 note (June 3, 1999)).
       ``(3) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means--
       ``(A) an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code);
       ``(B) the United States Postal Service;
       ``(C) the United States Patent and Trademark Office;

[[Page S8927]]

       ``(D) Congress and any other entity in the legislative 
     branch; and
       ``(E) a Federal court and any other entity in the judicial 
     branch.
       ``(4) Utility payment.--The term `utility payment' means a 
     payment made to supply electricity, natural gas, or any other 
     form of energy to provide the heating, ventilation, air 
     conditioning, lighting, or other energy needs of a facility 
     of a Federal agency.
       ``(b) Establishment of Bank.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the `Federal Energy 
     Bank', consisting of--
       ``(A) such amounts as are deposited in the Bank under 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(B) such amounts as are repaid to the Bank under 
     subsection (c)(2)(D); and
       ``(C) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Bank under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Deposits in bank.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations and to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit in the Bank an amount equal to 2.5 
     percent for fiscal year 2003 and 5 percent for each fiscal 
     year thereafter of the total amount of utility payments made 
     by all Federal agencies for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(B) Maximum amount in bank.--Deposits under subparagraph 
     (A) shall cease beginning with the fiscal year following the 
     fiscal year in which the amounts in the Bank (including 
     amounts on loan from the Bank) become equal to or exceed 
     $1,000,000,000.
       ``(C) Limitation.--No funds made available to any Federal 
     agency (other than to the Department of the Treasury under 
     subsection (f)) shall be deposited in the Bank.
       ``(3) Investment of amounts.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall invest such portion of the Bank as is not, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       ``(c) Loans From the Bank.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Bank to the Secretary such amounts as are 
     appropriated to carry out the loan program under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Loan program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In accordance with subsection (d), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, shall establish a program to 
     make loans of amounts in the Bank to any Federal agency that 
     submits an application satisfactory to the Secretary in order 
     to pay the costs of a project described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Commencement of operations.--The Secretary may 
     begin--

       ``(I) accepting applications for loans from the Bank in 
     fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(II) making loans from the Bank in fiscal year 2003.

       ``(B) Energy savings performance contracting funding.--The 
     Secretary shall not make a loan from the Bank to a Federal 
     agency for a project for which funding is available and is 
     acceptable to the Federal agency under title VIII.
       ``(C) Purposes of loan.--
       ``(i) In general.--A loan from the Bank may be used to 
     pay--

       ``(I) the costs of an energy or water efficiency project, 
     or a renewable or alternative energy project, for a new or 
     existing Federal building (including selection and design of 
     the project);
       ``(II) the costs of an energy metering plan developed in 
     accordance with the measurement and verification protocols of 
     the Department of Energy, or energy metering equipment, for 
     the purpose of--

       ``(aa) a new or existing building energy system; or
       ``(bb) verification of the energy savings under an energy 
     savings performance contract under title VIII; or

       ``(III) at the time of contracting, the costs of 
     development or cofunding of an energy savings performance 
     contract (including a utility energy service agreement) in 
     order to shorten the payback period of the project that is 
     the subject of the energy savings performance contract.

       ``(ii) Limitation.--A Federal agency may use not more than 
     10 percent of the amount of a loan under subclause (I) or 
     (II) of clause (i) to pay the costs of administration and 
     proposal development (including data collection and energy 
     surveys).
       ``(iii) Renewable and alternative energy projects.--Not 
     more than 25 percent of the amount on loan from the Bank at 
     any time may be loaned for renewable energy and alternative 
     energy projects (as defined by the Secretary in accordance 
     with applicable law (including Executive orders)).
       ``(D) Repayments.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) through (iv), a 
     Federal agency shall repay to the Bank the principal amount 
     of a loan plus interest at a rate determined by the 
     President, in consultation with the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(ii) Waiver or reduction of interest.--The Secretary may 
     waive or reduce the rate of interest required to be paid 
     under clause (i) if the Secretary determines that payment of 
     interest by a Federal agency at the rate determined under 
     that clause is not required to fund the operations of the 
     Bank.
       ``(iii) Determination of interest rate.--The interest rate 
     determined under clause (i) shall be at a rate that is 
     sufficient to ensure that, beginning not later than October 
     1, 2007, interest payments will be sufficient to fully fund 
     the operations of the Bank.
       ``(iv) Insufficiency of appropriations.--

       ``(I) Request for appropriations.--As part of the budget 
     request of the Federal agency for each fiscal year, the head 
     of each Federal agency shall submit to the President a 
     request for such amounts as are necessary to make such 
     repayments as are expected to become due in the fiscal year 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(II) Suspension of repayment requirement.--If, for any 
     fiscal year, sufficient appropriations are not made available 
     to a Federal agency to make repayments under this 
     subparagraph, the Bank shall suspend the requirement of 
     repayment under this subparagraph until such appropriations 
     are made available.

       ``(E) Federal agency energy budgets.--Until a loan is 
     repaid, a Federal agency budget submitted by the President to 
     Congress for a fiscal year shall not be reduced by the value 
     of energy savings accrued as a result of any energy 
     conservation measure implemented using amounts from the Bank.
       ``(F) No rescission or reprogramming.--A Federal agency 
     shall not rescind or reprogram loan amounts made available 
     from the Bank except as permitted under guidelines issued 
     under subparagraph (G).
       ``(G) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall issue guidelines for 
     implementation of the loan program under this paragraph, 
     including selection criteria, maximum loan amounts, and loan 
     repayment terms.
       ``(d) Selection Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish criteria 
     for the selection of projects to be awarded loans in 
     accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make loans from the 
     Bank only for a project that--
       ``(i) is technically feasible;
       ``(ii) is determined to be cost-effective using life cycle 
     cost methods established by the Secretary by regulation;
       ``(iii) includes a measurement and management component, 
     based on the measurement and verification protocols of the 
     Department of Energy, to--

       ``(I) commission energy savings for new and existing 
     Federal facilities;
       ``(II) monitor and improve energy efficiency management at 
     existing Federal facilities; and
       ``(III) verify the energy savings under an energy savings 
     performance contract under title VIII; and

       ``(iv)(I) in the case of renewable energy or alternative 
     energy project, has a simple payback period of not more than 
     15 years; and
       ``(II) in the case of any other project, has a simple 
     payback period of not more than 10 years.
       ``(B) Priority.--In selecting projects, the Secretary shall 
     give priority to projects that--
       ``(i) are a component of a comprehensive energy management 
     project for a Federal facility; and
       ``(ii) are designed to significantly reduce the energy use 
     of the Federal facility.
       ``(e) Reports and Audits.--
       ``(1) Reports to the secretary.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the completion of installation of a project that has a 
     cost of more than $1,000,000, and annually thereafter, a 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Secretary a report that--
       ``(A) states whether the project meets or fails to meet the 
     energy savings projections for the project; and
       ``(B) for each project that fails to meet the energy 
     savings projections, states the reasons for the failure and 
     describes proposed remedies.
       ``(2) Audits.--The Secretary may audit, or require a 
     Federal agency that receives a loan from the Bank to audit, 
     any project financed with amounts from the Bank to assess the 
     performance of the project.
       ``(3) Reports to congress.--At the end of each fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     operations of the Bank, including a statement of--
       ``(A) the total receipts by the Bank;
       ``(B) the total amount of loans from the Bank to each 
     Federal agency; and
       ``(C) the estimated cost and energy savings resulting from 
     projects funded with loans from the Bank.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the 
     Treasury such sums as are necessary to fund--
       ``(1) deposits required under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(2) the costs to the Treasury associated with the loan 
     program established under subsection (c)(2), as determined in 
     accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of Management 
     and Budget.''.

     SEC. 9. ENERGY AND WATER SAVING MEASURES IN CONGRESSIONAL 
                   BUILDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Part 3 of title V of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act is amended by inserting after section 
     552 (as added by section 8) the following:

     ``SEC. 553. ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS MEASURES IN 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUILDINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Architect of the Capitol--

[[Page S8928]]

       ``(1) shall develop and implement a cost-effective energy 
     conservation strategy for all facilities administered by 
     Congress (referred to in this section as `congressional 
     buildings') to meet the mandatory standards for Federal 
     buildings established under title III of the Energy 
     Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.);
       ``(2) shall submit to Congress, not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section, a revised 
     comprehensive energy conservation and management plan that 
     includes life cycle cost methods to determine the cost-
     effectiveness of proposed energy efficiency projects;
       ``(3) shall submit to Congress annually a report on 
     congressional energy management and conservation programs 
     that describes in detail--
       ``(A) energy expenditures and cost estimates for each 
     facility;
       ``(B) energy management and conservation projects; and
       ``(C) future priorities to ensure compliance with this 
     section;
       ``(4) shall perform energy surveys of all congressional 
     buildings and update the surveys as necessary;
       ``(5) shall use the surveys to determine the cost and 
     payback period of energy and water conservation measures 
     likely to achieve the energy consumption levels specified in 
     the strategy developed under paragraph (1);
       ``(6) shall install energy and water conservation measures 
     that will achieve those levels through life cycle cost 
     methods and procedures included in the plan submitted under 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(7) may contract with nongovernmental entities and use 
     private sector capital to finance energy conservation 
     projects and achieve energy consumption targets;
       ``(8) may develop innovative contracting methods that will 
     attract private sector funding for the installation of energy 
     efficient and renewable energy technology to meet the 
     requirements of this section, such as energy savings 
     performance contracts described in title VIII;
       ``(9) may participate in the Financing Renewable Energy and 
     Efficiency (FREE) Savings contracts program for Federal 
     Government facilities established by the Department of 
     Energy;
       ``(10) not later than 100 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, shall submit to Congress the results of a 
     study of the installation of submetering in congressional 
     buildings;
       ``(11) shall produce information packages and `how-to' 
     guides for each Member and employing authority of Congress 
     that detail simple, cost-effective methods to save energy and 
     taxpayer dollars;
       ``(12) shall ensure that state-of-the-art energy efficiency 
     technologies are used in the construction of the Visitor 
     Center; and
       ``(13) shall include in the Visitor Center an exhibit on 
     the energy efficiency measures used in congressional 
     buildings.
       ``(b) Energy and Water Conservation Incentive.--
       ``(1) In general.--For any fiscal year, of the amounts made 
     available to the Architect of the Capitol to pay the costs of 
     providing energy and water for congressional buildings, the 
     Architect may retain, without fiscal year limitation, such 
     amounts as the Architect determines were not expended because 
     of energy and water management and conservation projects.
       ``(2) Use of retained amounts.--Amounts retained under 
     paragraph (1) may be used to carry out energy and water 
     management and conservation projects.
       ``(3) Annual report on use of amounts.--As part of each 
     annual report under subsection (a)(3), the Architect of the 
     Capitol shall submit to Congress a report on the amounts 
     retained under paragraph (1) and the use of the amounts.''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 310 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (40 U.S.C. 166i), is repealed.

     SEC. 10. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

       (a) Cost Savings From Replacement Facilities.--Section 
     801(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8287(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Cost savings from replacement facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an energy savings 
     performance contract that provides for energy savings through 
     the construction and operation of 1 or more buildings or 
     other facilities to replace 1 or more existing buildings or 
     other facilities, benefits ancillary to the purpose of 
     achieving energy savings under the contract may include, for 
     the purpose of paragraph (1), savings resulting from reduced 
     costs of operation and maintenance at the replacement 
     buildings or other facilities as compared with the costs of 
     operation and maintenance at the buildings or other 
     facilities being replaced.
       ``(B) Determination of payments.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (2)(B), the aggregate annual payments by a Federal agency 
     under an energy savings performance contract described in 
     subparagraph (A) may take into account (through the 
     procedures developed under this section) savings resulting 
     from reduced costs of operation and maintenance as described 
     in subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Repeal of Sunset.--Section 801 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) is amended by 
     striking subsection (c).
       (c) Definitions.--The National Energy Conservation Policy 
     Act is amended by striking section 804 (42 U.S.C. 8287c) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Energy conservation measure.--The term `energy 
     conservation measure' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 554.
       ``(2) Energy saving.--The term `energy saving' means a 
     reduction, from a baseline cost established through a 
     methodology set forth in an energy savings performance 
     contract, in the cost of energy or water used in--
       ``(A) 1 or more existing federally owned buildings or other 
     federally owned facilities, that results from--
       ``(i) the lease or purchase of operating equipment, an 
     improvement, altered operation or maintenance, or a technical 
     service;
       ``(ii) increased efficiency in the use of existing energy 
     sources by cogeneration or heat recovery, excluding any 
     cogeneration process for a building that is not a federally 
     owned building or a facility that is not federally owned 
     facility; or
       ``(iii) increased efficiency in the use of existing water 
     sources or treatment of wastewater or stormwater; or
       ``(B) a replacement facility under section 801(a)(3).
       ``(3) Energy savings performance contract.--The term 
     `energy savings performance contract' means a contract that 
     provides for--
       ``(A) the performance of services for the design, 
     acquisition, installation, testing, operation, and, where 
     appropriate, maintenance and repair, of an energy 
     conservation measure or water conservation measure (or series 
     of such measures) at 1 or more locations; or
       ``(B) energy savings through the construction and operation 
     of 1 or more buildings or other facilities to replace 1 or 
     more existing buildings or other facilities.
       ``(4) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means each 
     authority of the United States Government, regardless of 
     whether the authority is within or subject to review by 
     another agency.
       ``(5) Water conservation measure.--The term `water 
     conservation measure' means a conservation measure that--
       ``(A) improves the efficiency of use of water;
       ``(B) is cost-effective over the life cycle of the water 
     conservation measure; and
       ``(C) involves water conservation, water recycling or 
     reuse, more efficient treatment of wastewater or stormwater, 
     an improvement in operation or maintenance efficiency, a 
     retrofit activity, or any other related activity, that is 
     carried out at a building or other facility that is not a 
     Federal hydroelectric facility.''.

     SEC. 11. FEDERAL FLEET FUEL ECONOMY AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE 
                   FUELS.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Federal Fleet Fuel Economy and Use of Alternative 
     Fuels.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--
       ``(A) Average fuel economy.--The term `average fuel 
     economy' has the meaning given the term in section 32901 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       ``(B) Covered vehicle.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `covered vehicle' means a 
     passenger automobile or light duty motor vehicle.
       ``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `covered vehicle' does not 
     include--

       ``(I) a military tactical vehicle of the Armed Forces; or
       ``(II) any law enforcement, emergency, or other vehicle 
     class or type determined to be excluded under guidelines 
     issued by the Secretary of Energy under paragraph (6).

       ``(C) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means an 
     Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, 
     United States Code) (including each military department (as 
     specified in section 102 of that title)) that operates 20 or 
     more motor vehicles in the United States.
       ``(D) Passenger automobile.--The term `passenger 
     automobile' has the meaning given the term in section 32901 
     of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(2) Minimum average fuel economy.--In fiscal year 2005 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, the average fuel economy of 
     the covered vehicles acquired by each Federal agency shall be 
     not less than 3 miles per gallon greater than the average 
     fuel economy of the covered vehicles acquired by the Federal 
     agency in fiscal year 2000.
       ``(3) Use of alternative fuels.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in fiscal 
     year 2005 and each fiscal year thereafter, each Federal 
     agency shall use alternative fuels for at least 50 percent of 
     the total annual volume of motor fuel used by the Federal 
     agency to operate covered vehicles.
       ``(B) Inclusion of motor fuel purchased by state and local 
     governments.--Not more than 25 percent of the motor fuel 
     purchased by State and local governments at federally-owned 
     refueling facilities may be included by a Federal agency in 
     meeting the requirement of subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Implementation plan.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph, each Federal agency 
     shall develop and submit to the President and Congress an 
     implementation plan for meeting the requirements of this 
     subsection that

[[Page S8929]]

     takes into account the fleet configuration and fleet 
     requirements of the Federal agency.
       ``(5) Annual report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each Federal agency shall submit to the 
     President and Congress an annual report on the progress of 
     the Federal agency in meeting the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Guidelines.--The Secretary of Energy, acting through 
     the Assistant Secretary for Federal Energy Productivity and 
     in consultation with the Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Administration, shall issue guidelines for the 
     preparation by Federal agencies of reports under paragraph 
     (1), including guidelines concerning--
       ``(i) methods for measurement of average fuel economy; and
       ``(ii) the collection and annual reporting of data to 
     demonstrate compliance with this subsection.
       ``(6) Guidelines concerning exclusion of certain 
     vehicles.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation 
     with the Assistant Secretary for Federal Energy Productivity, 
     shall issue guidelines for Federal agencies to use in the 
     determination of vehicles to be excluded under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).''.
       (b) Alternative Fuel Use by Light Duty Federal Vehicles.--
     Section 400AA of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6374) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)(E)--
       (A) by striking ``(E) Dual'' and inserting the following:
       ``(E) Operation of dual fueled vehicles.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), dual''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Minimum alternative fuel use.--For fiscal year 2005 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, not less than 50 percent of 
     the total annual volume of fuel used to operate dual fueled 
     vehicles acquired pursuant to this section shall consist of 
     alternative fuels.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(4)(B), by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``, including any 3-
     wheeled enclosed electric vehicle that has a vehicle 
     identification number''.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Lincoln, and 
Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1359. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote 
deployment of advanced services and foster the development of 
competition for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the Nation 
by relieving unnecessary burdens on the Nation's two percent local 
exchange telecommunications carrier, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. 1359

       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 ``Facilitating Access to 
     Speedy Transmissions for Networks, E-commerce and 
     Telecommunications (FASTNET) Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted to 
     foster the rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications 
     and information technologies and services to all Americans by 
     promoting competition and reducing regulation in 
     telecommunications markets nationwide.
       (2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically 
     recognized the unique abilities and circumstances of local 
     exchange carriers with fewer than two percent of the Nation's 
     subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide.
       (3) Given the markets two percent carriers typically serve, 
     such carriers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the 
     deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives 
     for the benefit of consumers in less densely populated 
     regions of the Nation.
       (4) Existing regulations are typically tailored to the 
     circumstances of larger carriers and therefore often impose 
     disproportionate burdens on two percent carriers, impeding 
     such carriers' deployment of advanced telecommunications 
     services and competitive initiatives to consumers in less 
     densely populated regions of the Nation.
       (5) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers 
     will enable such carriers to devote additional resources to 
     the deployment of advanced services and to competitive 
     initiatives to benefit consumers in less densely populated 
     regions of the Nation.
       (6) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers 
     will increase such carriers' ability to respond to 
     marketplace conditions, allowing them to accelerate 
     deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives 
     to benefit consumers in less densely populated regions of the 
     Nation.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to accelerate the deployment of advanced services and 
     the development of competition in the telecommunications 
     industry for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the 
     Nation, consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
     by reducing regulatory burdens on local exchange carriers 
     with fewer than two percent of the Nation's subscriber lines 
     installed in the aggregate nationwide;
       (2) to improve such carriers' flexibility to undertake such 
     initiatives; and
       (3) to allow such carriers to redirect resources from 
     paying the costs of such regulatory burdens to increasing 
     investment in such initiatives.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

       Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (51) and (52) as paragraphs 
     (52) and (53), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (50) the following:
       ``(51) Two percent carrier.--The term `two percent carrier' 
     means an incumbent local exchange carrier within the meaning 
     of section 251(h) whose access lines, when aggregated with 
     the access lines of any local exchange carrier that such 
     incumbent local exchange carrier directly or indirectly 
     controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, 
     are fewer than two percent of the Nation's subscriber lines 
     installed in the aggregate nationwide.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATORY RELIEF FOR TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof a new part IV as follows:

         ``PART IV--PROVISIONS CONCERNING TWO PERCENT CARRIERS

     ``SEC. 281. REDUCED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO PERCENT 
                   CARRIERS.

       ``(a) Commission To Take Into Account Differences.--In 
     adopting rules that apply to incumbent local exchange 
     carriers (within the meaning of section 251(h)), the 
     Commission shall separately evaluate the burden that any 
     proposed regulatory, compliance, or reporting requirements 
     would have on two percent carriers.
       ``(b) Effect of Commission's Failure To Take Into Account 
     Differences.--If the Commission adopts a rule that applies to 
     incumbent local exchange carriers and fails to separately 
     evaluate the burden that any proposed regulatory, compliance, 
     or reporting requirement would have on two percent carriers, 
     the Commission shall not enforce the rule against two percent 
     carriers unless and until the Commission performs such 
     separate evaluation.
       ``(c) Additional Review Not Required.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to require the Commission to 
     conduct a separate evaluation under subsection (a) if the 
     rules adopted do not apply to two percent carriers, or such 
     carriers are exempted from such rules.
       ``(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit any size-based differentiation among 
     carriers mandated by this Act, chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code, the Commission's rules, or any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(e) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any rule adopted on or after the date 
     of enactment of this section.

     ``SEC. 282. LIMITATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Limitation.--The Commission shall not require a two 
     percent carrier--
       ``(1) to file cost allocation manuals or to have such 
     manuals audited or attested, but a two percent carrier that 
     qualifies as a class A carrier shall annually certify to the 
     Commission that the two percent carrier's cost allocation 
     complies with the rules of the Commission; or
       ``(2) to file Automated Reporting and Management 
     Information Systems (ARMIS) reports, except for purposes of 
     section 224.
       ``(b) Preservation of Authority.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (a), nothing in this Act limits the authority of 
     the Commission to obtain access to information under sections 
     211, 213, 215, 218, and 220 with respect to two percent 
     carriers.

     ``SEC. 283. INTEGRATED OPERATION OF TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.

       ``The Commission shall not require any two percent carrier 
     to establish or maintain a separate affiliate to provide any 
     common carrier or noncommon carrier services, including local 
     and interexchange services, commercial mobile radio services, 
     advanced services (within the meaning of section 706 of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996), paging, Internet, 
     information services or other enhanced services, or other 
     services. The Commission shall not require any two percent 
     carrier and its affiliates to maintain separate officers, 
     directors, or other personnel, network facilities, buildings, 
     research and development departments, books of account, 
     financing, marketing, provisioning, or other operations.

     ``SEC. 284. PARTICIPATION IN TARIFF POOLS AND PRICE CAP 
                   REGULATION.

       ``(a) NECA Pool.--The participation or withdrawal from 
     participation by a two percent carrier of one or more study 
     areas in the common line tariff administered and

[[Page S8930]]

     filed by the National Exchange Carrier Association or any 
     successor tariff or administrator shall not obligate such 
     carrier to participate or withdraw from participation in such 
     tariff for any other study area. The Commission may require a 
     two percent carrier to give 60 days notice of its intent to 
     participate or withdraw from participation in such common 
     line tariff with respect to a study area. Except as permitted 
     by section 310(f)(3), a two percent carrier's election under 
     this subsection shall be binding for one year from the date 
     of the election.
       ``(b) Price Cap Regulation.--A two percent carrier may 
     elect to be regulated by the Commission under price cap rate 
     regulation, or elect to withdraw from such regulation, for 
     one or more of its study areas. The Commission shall not 
     require a carrier making an election under this subsection 
     with respect to any study area or areas to make the same 
     election for any other study area. Except as permitted by 
     section 310(f)(3), a two percent carrier's election under 
     this subsection shall be binding for one year from the date 
     of the election.

     ``SEC. 285. DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES BY 
                   TWO PERCENT COMPANIES.

       ``(a) One-Day Notice of Deployment.--The Commission shall 
     permit two percent carriers to introduce new interstate 
     telecommunications services by filing a tariff on one day's 
     notice showing the charges, classifications, regulations, and 
     practices therefor, without obtaining a waiver, or make any 
     other showing before the Commission in advance of the tariff 
     filing. The Commission shall not have authority to approve or 
     disapprove the rate structure for such services shown in such 
     tariff.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `new interstate telecommunications service' means a class or 
     subclass of service not previously offered by the two percent 
     carrier that enlarges the range of service options available 
     to ratepayers of such carrier.

     ``SEC. 286. ENTRY OF COMPETING CARRIER.

       ``(a) Pricing Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any two percent carrier shall be 
     permitted to de-average its interstate switched or special 
     access rates, file tariffs on one day's notice, and file 
     contract-based tariffs for interstate switched or special 
     access services immediately upon certifying to the Commission 
     that a telecommunications carrier unaffiliated with such 
     carrier is engaged in facilities-based entry within such 
     carrier's service area. A two percent carrier subject to 
     rate-of-return regulation with respect to an interstate 
     switched or special access service, for which pricing 
     flexibility has been exercised pursuant to this subsection, 
     shall compute its interstate rate of return based on the 
     nondiscounted rate for such service.
       ``(b) Streamlined Pricing Regulation.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, upon receipt by the Commission 
     of a certification by a two percent carrier that--
       ``(1) a local exchange carrier, or its affiliate, or
       ``(2) a local exchange carrier operated by, or owned in 
     whole or part by, a governmental authority,
     is engaged in facilities-based entry within the two percent 
     carrier's service area, the Commission shall regulate the two 
     percent carrier as non-dominant and shall not require the 
     tariffing of the interstate service offerings of the two 
     percent carrier.
       ``(c) Participation in Exchange Carrier Association 
     Tariff.--A two percent carrier that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (a) or (b) of this section with respect to one or 
     more study areas shall be permitted to participate in the 
     common line tariff administered and filed by the National 
     Exchange Carrier Association or any successor tariff or 
     administrator, by electing to include one or more of its 
     study areas in such tariff.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Facilities-based entry.--The term `facilities-based 
     entry' means, within the service area of a two percent 
     carrier--
       ``(A) the provision or procurement of local telephone 
     exchange switching or its equivalent; and
       ``(B) the provision of telephone exchange service to at 
     least one unaffiliated customer.
       ``(2) Contract-based tariff.--The term `contract-based 
     tariff' shall mean a tariff based on a service contract 
     entered into between a two percent carrier and one or more 
     customers of such carrier. Such tariff shall include--
       ``(A) the term of the contract, including any renewal 
     options;
       ``(B) a brief description of each of the services provided 
     under the contract;
       ``(C) minimum volume commitments for each service, if any;
       ``(D) the contract price for each service or services at 
     the volume levels committed to by the customer or customers;
       ``(E) a brief description of any volume discounts built 
     into the contract rate structure; and
       ``(F) a general description of any other classifications, 
     practices, and regulations affecting the contract rate.
       ``(3) Service area.--The term `service area' has the same 
     meaning as in section 214(e)(5).

     ``SEC. 287. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Commission Authority.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to restrict the authority of the Commission under 
     sections 201 through 208.
       ``(b) Rural Telephone Company Rights.--Nothing in this part 
     shall be construed to diminish the rights of rural telephone 
     companies otherwise accorded by this Act, or the rules, 
     policies, procedures, guidelines, and standards of the 
     Commission as of the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(c) State Authority.--Nothing in this Part shall be 
     construed to limit or affect any authority (as of August 1, 
     2001) of the States over charges, classifications, practices, 
     services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection 
     with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any 
     carrier.''.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON MERGER REVIEW.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 310 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 310) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Deadline for Making Public Interest Determination.--
       ``(1) Time limit.--In connection with any merger between 
     two percent carriers, or the acquisition, directly or 
     indirectly, by a two percent carrier or its affiliate of 
     securities or assets of another carrier or its affiliate, if 
     the merged or acquiring carrier remains a two percent carrier 
     after the merger or acquisition, the Commission shall make 
     any determinations required by this section and section 214, 
     and shall rule on any petition for waiver of the Commission's 
     rules or other request related to such determinations, not 
     later than 60 days after the date an application with respect 
     to such merger or acquisition is submitted to the Commission.
       ``(2) Approval absent action.--If the Commission does not 
     approve or deny an application as described in paragraph (1) 
     by the end of the period specified, the application shall be 
     deemed approved on the day after the end of such period. Any 
     such application deemed approved under this subsection shall 
     be deemed approved without conditions.
       ``(3) Election permitted.--The Commission shall permit a 
     two percent carrier to make an election pursuant to section 
     284 with respect to any local exchange facilities acquired as 
     a result of a merger or acquisition that is subject to the 
     review deadline established in paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any application that is submitted to 
     the Commission on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     Applications pending with the Commission on the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be subject to the requirements of 
     this section as if they had been filed with the Commission on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. TIME LIMITS FOR ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR 
                   RECONSIDERATION OR WAIVER.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 405 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 405) is amended by adding to the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Expedited Action Required.--
       ``(1) Time limit.--Within 90 days after receiving from a 
     two percent carrier a petition for reconsideration or other 
     review filed under this section or a petition for waiver of a 
     rule, policy, or other Commission requirement, the Commission 
     shall issue an order granting or denying such petition. If 
     the Commission fails to act on a petition for waiver subject 
     to the requirements of this section within this 90-day 
     period, the relief sought in such petition shall be deemed 
     granted. If the Commission fails to act on a petition for 
     reconsideration or other review subject to the requirements 
     of this section within such 90-day period, the Commission's 
     enforcement of any rule the reconsideration or other review 
     of which was specifically sought by the petitioning party 
     shall be stayed with respect to that party until the 
     Commission issues an order granting or denying such petition.
       ``(2) Finality of action.--Any order issued under paragraph 
     (1), or any grant of a petition for waiver that is deemed to 
     occur as a result of the Commission's failure to act under 
     paragraph (1), shall be a final order and may be appealed.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any petition for reconsideration or 
     other review or petition for waiver that is submitted to the 
     Commission on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     Petitions for reconsideration or petitions for waiver pending 
     with the Commission on the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall be subject to the requirements of this section as if 
     they had been filed on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPTIONS.

       Notwithstanding sections 310 and 405 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 310 and 405), the 60-day time period 
     under section 310(f)(1) of that Act, as added by section 5 of 
     this Act, and the 90-day time period under section 405(c)(1) 
     of that Act, as added by section 6 of this Act, shall not 
     apply to a petition or application under section 310 or 405 
     if an Executive Branch agency with cognizance over national 
     security, law enforcement, or public safety matters, 
     including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, 
     and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submits a written 
     filing to the Federal Communications Commission advising the 
     Commission that the petition or application may present 
     national security, law enforcement, or public safety concerns 
     that may not be resolved within the 60-day or 90-day time 
     period, respectively.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, and Mr. Crapo):

[[Page S8931]]

  S. 1360. To reauthorize the Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to reauthorize the Price Anderson Act, which provides the insurance 
program for our Nation's commercial nuclear reactor fleet. In 1954, 
Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act which ended the government 
monopoly over possession, use, and manufacturing of ``special nuclear 
material''. While the Act allowed the private sector access to the 
nuclear market, due to concerns over liability, the private sector was 
extremely hesitant to invest in the new market.
  Due to these liability concerns, Congress passed the Price-Anderson 
Act in 1957, the Act was reauthorized on three occasions, most recently 
in 1988. The Act is due to be reauthorized in 2002. In 1998 the NRC 
issued their report to Congress called ``The Price Anderson Act--
Crossing the Bridge to the Next Century: A Report to Congress.'' In 
that report the NRC recommended renewal of the Price Anderson Act 
because the Act provides a valuable public benefit by establishing a 
system for prompt and equitable steelement of public liability claims 
resulting from a nuclear accident.
  While the report originally suggested that consideration be given to 
doubling the maximum annual retrospective premium installment from each 
power reactor license, the NRC has reconsidered this suggestion and now 
recommends that original premium level be retained. They expressed this 
view in a letter to me, as the Chairman of the Nuclear Safety 
Subcommittee on May 11th of this year.
  The reason for the change is that in 1998 the NRC had projected that 
many of the existing commercial reactors would not file for license 
renewal. The drop in the number of reactors would cause a corresponding 
drop in the contributions to the fund. There is now heightened interest 
in extending the operating license of most of the commercial reactors. 
Therefore an increase in the premium from each reactor is no longer 
necessary. This has occurred because of the growing interest in nuclear 
energy. Nuclear energy is a clean, emissions-free source of electricity 
which currently provides almost twenty percent of our nation's energy 
supply.
  This legislation will help further the commercial application of 
nuclear energy for electricity, as well as the growing number of 
medical applications of nuclear medicine. Nuclear energy is vital to 
supplying cost-efficient and environmentally sound power to the 
American consumer. This legislation will continue to ensure the 
availability of our commercial nuclear reactor program. I am joined in 
introducing this legislation by the ranking members of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the Nuclear 
Safety Subcommittee Senator Inhofe, as well as an important member of 
the Subcommittee Senator Crapo.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1361. A bill to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act to 
clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with 
respect to the Central Utah Project, to redirect unexpended budget 
authority for the Central Utah Project for wastewater treatment and 
reuse and other purposes, to provide for prepayment of repayment 
contracts for municipal and industrial water delivery facilities, and 
to eliminate a deadline for such prepayment; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act, CUPCA, as 
originally enacted in 1992. CUPCA re-authorized and provided funding 
for the completion of the Central Utah Project, CUP, a project that 
develops Utah's share of water from the Colorado River for use in ten 
central Utah counties. The CUP was originally authorized in 1956 as 
part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and includes five units. 
The Bureau of Reclamation began construction of this project in 1964. 
However, in 1992 CUPCA conferred CUP planning and construction 
responsibilities to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, which 
has cultivated an excellent working relationship with the Office of CUP 
Completion in the Interior Department.
  The legislation I am introducing would amend CUPCA to clarify the 
relationship between the Department of the Interior and the CUP by 
ensuring that the Secretary of the Interior continue to retain full 
responsibility for the CUP after the completion of the project's 
construction phase. It only makes sense that the decisions regarding 
future operations and maintenance, contract negotiations, and program 
oversight functions of the Interior Department are consistent with the 
cooperative decisions made during the project's planning and 
construction stages. As such, language is needed to clarify the 
Secretary's further involvement.
  Since 1992, numerous changes in the project have occurred to better 
reflect contemporary water needs. Certain project features were 
downsized or eliminated while other water management programs grew in 
size. The 106th Congress, in an effort to address these changes, 
approved a CUPCA amendment that allowed unused funding authorization 
resulting from the redesign of the Bonneville Unit to be used ``to 
acquire water and water rights for project purposes including in stream 
flows, to complete project facilities authorized in this title and 
title III, to implement water conservation measure . . .'' In light of 
the continuing need to address the redesign replacement projects 
originally designed in the sixties, my legislation would again extend 
the unused authorization provision to all CUP units.
  Finally, this legislation also extends a CUPCA provision that 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept prepayment of parts 
of the project's Municipal and Industrial repayment debt. The original 
provision's expiration was to occur in 2002 for reasons relating to the 
Federal Budget scoring process. This provision has enabled the Central 
Utah Water Conservancy District to prepay over $138 million to the 
federal treasury, while also avoiding unnecessary interest charges. The 
legislation introduced today would remove the 2002 expiration provision 
and extends the provision to allow the repayment of obligations 
associated with projects relating to the Uinta Basin.
  The water supplied by CUP's many water diversion projects is crucial 
to the livelihoods of Utah's rural residents and to Utah's burgeoning 
population. I believe that legislation will serve to better facilitate 
the timely, economically responsible, and fiscally efficient completion 
of the Central Utah Project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1362. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act and 
title VII of the Public Health Service Act to expand medical residency 
training programs in geriatrics, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by my 
colleague, Senator Craig, In introducing the Advancement of Geriatric 
Education Act of 2001, or AGE Act is comprehensive legislation which 
seeks to prepare physicians and other health care professionals to care 
for our Nation's growing aging population.
  It is a know fact that children cannot be treated like little adults 
and prescribed the same medications in the same dosage amounts. For 
this reason, we have pediatricians. But just as there are differences 
between children and adults, so are there differences between middle 
aged adults and seniors. Many people are unaware that aging individuals 
often exhibit different symptoms than younger adults with the same 
illness. For example, an older person who has a heart attack may not 
experience excruciating chest pain, but rather, show signs of dizziness 
and confusion. Similarly, older people often exhibit different 
responses to medications than younger people.
  The demographic reality is that there is an enormous segment of the 
population which will soon be age 65 or older, and there is serious 
doubt that the U.S. health system will be equipped to handle the 
multiple needs and demand of an aging population. By 2030, it is 
projected that one in five Americans will be over age 65.
  Geriatricians are physicians who are experts in aging-related issues 
and the

[[Page S8932]]

study of the aging process itself. They are specially trained to 
prevent and manage the unique and often multiple health problems of 
older adults. Geriatric training can provide health care professionals 
with the skills and knowledge to recognize special characteristics of 
older patients and distinguish between disease states and the normal 
physiological changes associated with aging. Our health care system 
must increase its focus in this vital area.
  Today, there are 9,000 practicing, certified geriatricians in the 
United States, far short of the 20,000 geriatricians estimated to be 
necessary to meet the needs of the current aging population. By the 
year 2030, it is estimated that at least 36,000 geriatricians will be 
needed to manage the complex health and social needs of the elderly. 
These figures, as astounding as they sound, say nothing of the 
geriatrics training needed for all health care professionals who are 
facing such an increasingly older patient population.
  Unfortunately, out of 125 medical schools in our country, only 3 have 
actual Departments of Geriatrics, including the University of Arkansas 
for Medical Sciences. Moreover, only 14 schools include geriatrics as a 
required course, and one-third of medical schools do not even offer 
geriatrics as a separate course elective.
  Congress has taken some positive steps to increase our focus on 
geriatrics, including the establishment of Geriatric Education Centers 
and Geriatric Training Programs, which seek to train all health 
professionals in the area of geriatrics. Congress has also established 
the Geriatric Academic Career Award program, which promotes the 
development of academic geriatricians.
  It is clear to me, however, that more steps need to be taken, which 
is why I have introduced the AGE Act today. The AGE Act encourages more 
physicians to specialize in the area of geriatrics and enhances the 
current federal programs relating to geriatrics under the Public Health 
Service Act. The AGE Act is supported by the American Geriatrics 
Society, the International Longevity Center, and the American 
Association of Geriatric Psychiatry. I ask unanimous consent that a 
summary of the AGE Act and the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1362

       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 
     ``Advancement of Geriatric Education Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Disregard of certain geriatric residents and fellows against 
              graduate medical education limitations.
Sec. 3. Extension of eligibility periods for geriatric graduate medical 
              education.
Sec. 4. Study and report on improvement of graduate medical education.
Sec. 5. Improved funding for education and training relating to 
              geriatrics.

     SEC. 2. DISREGARD OF CERTAIN GERIATRIC RESIDENTS AND FELLOWS 
                   AGAINST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Direct GME.--Section 1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(F)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Increase in limitation for geriatric residencies 
     and fellowships.--For cost reporting periods beginning on or 
     after the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of the Advancement of Geriatric Education Act of 2001, in 
     applying the limitations regarding the total number of full-
     time equivalent residents in the field of allopathic or 
     osteopathic medicine under clause (i) for a hospital, the 
     Secretary shall not take into account a maximum of 5 
     residents enrolled in a geriatric residency or fellowship 
     program approved by the Secretary for purposes of paragraph 
     (5)(A) to the extent that the hospital increases the number 
     of geriatric residents or fellows above the number of such 
     residents or fellows for the hospital's most recent cost 
     reporting period ending before the date that is 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of such Act.''.
       (b) Indirect GME.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ix) Clause (iii) of subsection (h)(4)(F) shall apply to 
     clause (v) in the same manner and for the same period as such 
     clause (iii) applies to clause (i) of such subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY PERIODS FOR GERIATRIC 
                   GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Direct GME.--Section 1886(h)(5)(G) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(G)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vi) Geriatric residency and fellowship programs.--In the 
     case of an individual enrolled in a geriatric residency or 
     fellowship program approved by the Secretary for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the period of board eligibility and the 
     initial residency period shall be the period of board 
     eligibility for the subspecialty involved, plus 1 year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1886(h)(5)(F) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(F)) is amended by 
     striking ``subparagraph (G)(v)'' and inserting ``clauses (v) 
     and (vi) of subparagraph (G)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to cost reporting periods beginning on or after 
     the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT OF GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study to determine how to improve the 
     graduate medical education programs under subsections 
     (d)(5)(B) and (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) so that such programs prepare the 
     physician workforce to serve the aging population of the 
     United States. Such study shall include a determination of 
     whether the establishment of an initiative to encourage the 
     development of individuals as academic geriatricians would 
     improve such programs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than the date that is 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     study conducted under subsection (a) together with such 
     recommendations for legislative and administrative action as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.

     SEC. 5. IMPROVED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING RELATING 
                   TO GERIATRICS.

       (a) Geriatric Faculty Fellowships.--Section of 753(c)(4) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294c(c)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50,000 for fiscal 
     year 1998'' and inserting ``$75,000 for fiscal year 2002''; 
     and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``shall not exceed 5 
     years'' and inserting ``shall be 5 years''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 757 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``In General.--There are authorized'' and 
     inserting ``Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     there are authorized''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Education and training relating to geriatrics.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 753 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) not less than $22,631,000 for awards of grants and 
     contracts under--
       ``(i) section 753 for fiscal years 1998 through 2001; and
       ``(ii) sections 754 and 755 for fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002; and
       ``(D) for awards of grants and contracts under section 753 
     after fiscal year 2001--
       ``(i) in 2002, not less than $20,000,000;
       ``(ii) in 2003, not less than $24,000,000;
       ``(iii) in 2004, not less than $28,000,000;
       ``(iv) in 2005, not less than $32,000,000; and
       ``(v) in 2006, not less than $36,000,000.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through 
     (D)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D) of paragraph (1)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
                                  ____


   Advancement of Geriatric Education (AGE) Act of 2001--Legislative 
                                Summary


    i. provides an exception to the cap on residents for geriatric 
                               residents

       The AGE Act amends the Medicare graduate medical education 
     (GME) resident cap imposed under BBA 97 to provide exceptions 
     for geriatric residents in approved training programs. The 
     1997 BBA instituted a per-hospital cap based on the number of 
     GME residency slots in existence on or before December 31, 
     1996. As geriatrics is a relatively new specialty, the cap 
     has resulted in either the elimination or reduction of 
     geriatric of geriatric training programs. This is because a 
     lower number of geriatric residents existed prior to December 
     31, 1996. The AGE Act provides for an exception from the cap 
     for up to 5 geriatric residents.


    ii. requires medicare gme payment for the 2nd year of geriatric 
                          fellowship training

       Under current law, hospitals receive 100 percent GME 
     reimbursement for an individuals's initial residency period, 
     up to five years. The law also includes a geriatric exception 
     allowing programs training geriatric fellows to receive full 
     funding for an

[[Page S8933]]

     additional period comprised of the first and second years of 
     fellowship training. Programs training non-geriatric fellows 
     receive 50 percent of GME funding for fellowship training. In 
     1998, the period of board eligibility for geriatrics was 
     decreased to one year, in an effort to encourage more 
     geriatrics specialists. However, this change was not intended 
     to reduce support for training of teachers and researchers in 
     geriatrics. A two-year fellowship remains the generally 
     accepted standard, and is generally required to become an 
     academic geriatrician. The AGE Act explicitly authorizes 
     Medicare GME payments for the second year of fellowship.


  iii. directs the secretary of hhs to report to congress on ways to 
improve the medicare programs to ready the physician workforce to serve 
    the aging population, including whether an initiative should be 
             established to develop academic geriatricians

       It is estimated that the country currently has one-quarter 
     of the academic geriatricians necessary to train and educate 
     physicians in the area of geriatrics. Out of 125 medical 
     schools in our country, only 3 have actual Departments of 
     Geriatrics. Moreover, only 14 schools include geriatrics as a 
     requried course, and one third of medical schools do not even 
     offer geriatrics as a separate course elective. The AGE Act 
     requires the Secretary of HHS to examine ways to prepare the 
     physician workforce to serve the aging population, including 
     initiatives to develop academic geriatricians, and to report 
     to Congress within 6 months after the date of enactment.


iv. enhances and authorizes greater funding for the geriatric training 
               sections of the public health service act

       Section 735, Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, 
     encompasses Geriatric Education Centers, which provide 
     geriatrics training to all health professionals (Arkansas has 
     a Geriatric Education Center program), a program to provide 
     geriatric training to dentists and behavioral and mental 
     health benefits, and the Geriatrics Academic Development 
     Award program, which creates junior faculty awards to 
     encourage the development of academic geriatricians. The AGE 
     Act increases the amount of the Geriatric Academic 
     Development Award from $50,000 to $75,000, and authorizes 
     greater funding for all three programs in Fiscal Years 2002 
     through 2006 ($20 million in Fiscal Year 2002, $24 million in 
     Fiscal Year 2003, $28 million in Fiscal Year 2004, $32 
     million in Fiscal Year 2005, and $36 million in Fiscal Year 
     2006).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Leahy, 
        and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1363. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and 
recreational activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the 
States of New Hampshire and Vermont; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2001. This legislation 
is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great 
environmental benefits for the Connecticut River.
  The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont 
and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities 
for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step 
forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured 
resource.
  To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like 
to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River 
program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a 
commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river 
valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality 
and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river 
valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form the 
Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no 
regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and 
advisory activities.
  To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut 
River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river 
subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing 
body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a 
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan 
focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement 
water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other 
environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River 
Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a 
strong foundation of community and citizen involvement.
  As a Senator from New Hampshire and the ranking Republican of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys 
the beauty of the Connecticut River, I am proud to be the principal 
author and cosponsor of this locally led, voluntary effort that 
accomplishes real environmental progress. Too often we depend on 
bureaucratic federal regulatory programs to accomplish environmental 
success. This bill takes a different approach and one that I bet will 
achieve greater results on the ground. I hope that other communities 
and neighboring states will look at this model as an example of how to 
develop and implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led 
environmental programs.
  I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and 
the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords, 
for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look 
forward to working with them as we move this important legislation 
through the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1364. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the 
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about 
the competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1364, the 
Telecommunications competition Enforcement Act of 2001.
  I introduce this bill to affirm and enforce the competitive tenants 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Some want to deregulate the Bell 
companies and mistakenly assert that deregulation will lead to 
increased deployment of broadband services. I disagree. The evidence 
simply does not support such a conclusion. It is only through 
strengthening and enforcing the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act 
that local phone markets will become open to competition and the 
delivery of advanced services will be enhanced.
  Congress in conjunction with members of the industry worked to pass 
the 1996 Act. I should note that at that time, everyone realized the 
impending innovations in technology and the potential for new and 
advanced services. These technological changes were expected to allow 
phone companies to provide high speed data and video services over 
their facilities, while also allowing cable companies to provide high 
speed data and phone services over their facilities. It was 
unquestionably understood by everyone involved that competition would 
be the driving force for incumbent companies to provide new services. 
And was this the right way to proceed? Of course it was. A wall street 
analysis with Montgomery Securities stated that ``RBOCs have finally 
begun to feel the competitive pressure from both CLECs and cable modem 
providers and are now planning to . . . accelerate/expand deployment of 
ADSL in order to counter the threat.'' Another wall street analyst with 
Prudential Securities noted that with respect to RBOC deployment of 
broadband service an ``important motivating factor is the threat of 
competition [and] [o]ther players are taking dead aim at the high-speed 
Internet access market.''
  Let us not forget the context in which the 1996 Act was passed. When 
Judge Greene in the 1990s broke-up Ma Bell, the agreement limited the 
service areas that the Regional Bell Operating Companies could enter. 
Judge Greene understood the significant market power of the Bell 
companies who had no competitors in their local markets and had 
complete access to the customer. Clearly, under such conditions, if 
Bells were allowed to enter new markets, they could quickly decimate 
their competitors by leveraging their monopolies in their local 
markets. Consequently, in an effort to protect competition in other 
areas, Judge Greene restricted their access to other markets. For these 
reasons, the Bell companies came to Congress for a solution that would 
eliminate their service restrictions. After many years of hard work, 
numerous hearings, and tons of analyses, Congress in an agreement

[[Page S8934]]

with all the relevant parties including the Bells, long distance 
service providers, cable companies, and consumer organizations put 
together a framework that met the needs and requests of all involved 
parties and one that gave the Bells what they most coveted, entrance 
into all markets. In doing so, however, Congress also put in place 
provisions to preserve competition.
  Under these conditions, the Bell companies worked with Congress to 
draft and pass the 1996 Act, and when the Act was finally passed, the 
Bell companies stated that they would quickly and aggressively open 
their local markets to competition. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-
Alabama President, Neal Travis, stated that ``We are going full speed 
ahead . . . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our 
residential and business wireline customers.'' Ameritech's chief 
executive officer, Richard Notebaert on February 1, 1996, indicated his 
support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[T]his bill will rank as one 
of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal legislation 
passed this decade. . . . It offers a comprehensive communications 
policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the competitive 
marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information age.'' On 
February 8, 1996, US West's President of Long Distance, Richard 
Coleman, predicted that USWest would meet the 14 point checklist in a 
majority of its states within 12-18 months. Unfortunately, the Bell 
companies have not kept their promises. Instead of getting down to the 
business of competing, the Bell companies chose a strategy of delay. In 
doing so, they have litigated, they have complained, and they have 
combined. In other words they have done everything except work to 
ensure competition in local markets.

  When the Bells first filed applications with the Federal 
Communications Commission, FCC, to enter the long distance market, 
contrary to their assertions, the FCC and the Department of Justice, 
DOJ, found that the local markets were not open to competition, and on 
that basis denied the companies entry into the long distance market. 
Once the Bells realized that they were not going to get into the long 
distance market before complying with the 1996 Act, they began a 
strategy of litigation which had two effects: 1. to delay competition 
into their local markets and 2. to hold on to their monopoly structure 
as they entered new markets in order to demolish their competitors. 
They appealed a series of the FCC's decisions to the courts and 
challenged the constitutionality of the 1996 Act even taking the case 
to the Supreme Court.
  Having lost in the courts, the Bells have now returned to Congress 
complaining about the 1996 Act, the very Act that they had previously 
championed. Many of the Bell companies have been meeting with Senators 
and Representatives, often accompanied by the same lawyers who helped 
write the 1996 Act. But this time their message is different. Instead 
of embracing competition, the once laudable goal they had proclaimed to 
be seeking, they now want to change the rules of the game and move in 
the opposite direction. Specifically, they now want to offer lucrative 
high-speed data services to long distance customers without first 
opening their local markets to competition, and they want to block 
their competitors from using their networks to provide high speed data 
service. As a result of these efforts, the Bells have successfully 
convinced some members of Congress to introduce bills that in essence 
allow them to offer such service while protecting the Bells against 
competition and slowing the delivery of affordable advanced service to 
consumers by gutting the 1996 Act.
  Bell companies claim that because no one contemplated the growth of 
data services that they should be permitted to continue their hold on 
the local customer as they provide broadband services. To state it 
plainly, they are wrong. The technology to provide broadband data 
services over the Bell network has been around since the early 1980s, 
but the Bells were slow to deploy service until competition prompted 
them to do so. Furthermore, recognizing the great potential of 
broadband services, Richard McCormick, then CEO and Chairman of USWest, 
in 1994 testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee stated the 
following:

       I want to touch briefly on USWest's business plan. We have 
     embarked on an aggressive program both within our 14-state 
     region and outside to deploy broadband. We want to be the 
     leader in providing interactive, that is, two-way multimedia 
     services, voice, data, video.

  In addition to the Bells realizing the importance of broadband 
service, Congress recognized the importance of broadband services when 
it passed the 1996 Act and included section 706 which is dedicated to 
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote 
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as 
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that 
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, 
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.'' Also a 
search of the legislative debate on the 1996 Act reveals that the word 
``Internet'' appears 273 times. Even the preamble to the 1996 Act 
refers to ``advanced telecommunications and information technologies 
and services.'' With this evidence before it, the FCC also concluded 
that the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act included high-speed, 
advanced data and voice services.
  Today, all Bell companies are providing DSL service to customers. In 
fact, in October of 1999, SBC announced it would spend $6 billion over 
3 years on ``project Pronto'' which is the company's initiative to 
become the largest single provider of advanced broadband services in 
America. And on that point, I certainly commend SBC on its efforts. 
Through 2000, the four Bell companies invested 3.3. billion in DSL 
deployment and are expected to spend $10.3 billion through 2003. This 
investment is expected to payoff as earnings from their DSL investments 
are expected to be positive by late 2002 as market penetration hits 10 
percent. By the end of the first quarter of this year, SBC and 
BellSouth reached about 50 percent of their customer base while Verizon 
reached abut 42 percent with DSL service offerings.
  Additionally, reports indicate that broadband service is being 
effectively deployed. In an August 2000 report, the FCC concluded that 
overall, broadband service is being deployed on a reasonable and timely 
basis. It also found that there has been ample national deployment of 
backbone and other fiber facilities that provide backbone 
functionality. In October of 2000, the FCC issued another report in 
which it determined that high speed lines connecting homes and small 
businesses to the Internet increased by 57 percent during the first 
half of 2000. These developments effectively demonstrate why there is 
no justification for further deregulation of the Bells at least not 
until competition in the local markets is acheived.
  A major issue in this debate is how to serve rural and underserved 
ares. However, there it is no demonstrated commitment by the Bells to 
serve the rural markets. In fact, there behavior would lead you to the 
opposite conclusion. Qwest/USWest has sold nearly 600 smaller exchanges 
representing about 500,000 access lines and GTE has sold $1.6 milion 
access lines. Joe Nacchio, Chief Executive Officer of Qwest stated, ``I 
would have not qualms selling seeral million access lines if [I] could 
find the real deal.'' He also noted that ``we have about 17.5 million 
access line--we really like 11 [million].''

  While expending a great deal of resources litigating and complaining, 
Bell companies also have expended a fair amount of their energies in 
another area, that is merging and combining. In August of 1997, Verizon 
acquired NYNEX and in June of 2000 acquired GTE. First, SBC acquired 
Pac Bell, and in October of 1999, acquired Ameritech. The combined 
company now controls one-third of all access lines in the United 
States. In March of 2000, Qwest acquired USWest. At the same time, Bell 
Atlantic acquired Vodafone. In September of 2000, Bell-South Wireless 
and SBC Wireless entered into a joint venture, Cingular. Yet the local 
phone markets remain largely closed to competition.
  Even though there are many companies working to build a business in 
the local market, the Bells have met the 271 checklist in only six 
States, New York, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Massachusetts, and 
Connecticut. Undoubtedly, if they cannot obtain real access

[[Page S8935]]

to the local phone markets, competitive companies will not be able to 
make a go of their businesses. My grave concern is that they will not 
be able to survive the Bell strategy of delay. Today, CLECs are 
struggling to survive. Of the 300 CLECs that began providing service 
since 1996, several have declared bankruptcy or are on the verge of 
failing and several others have scaled back their buildout plans. CLECs 
are faced with a significant downturn in the marketplace, tremendous 
difficulty in raising capital, and local markets that remain largely 
closed to competition. From the standpoint of capital, CLECs are 
particularly sensitive to the financial market since the vast majority 
of them are not profitable and rely on the capital markets for funding. 
Relying on the marketplace, CLECs have raised and spent $56 billion in 
their attempts to compete in the local market. Of the publicly traded 
CLECs in 2000, only 4 CLECs made a profit. Additionally, as a result of 
the market downturn, the market capitalization of CLECs fell from a 
high of $86.4 billion in 1999 to $32.1 billion in 2000.
  In Congress, we hear about the continued problems faced by 
competitive carriers trying to obtain access to the Bell network. 
Between December 1999 and April 2001, both the FCC and state regulators 
have imposed fines on several Bell companies for violations of their 
market opening and service quality requirements and other rules. For 
BellSouth, these fines totaled $804,750, for Qwest, $78.6 million, for 
SBC, $175 million, and for Verizon, $233 million. However, while these 
fines may be substantial to most businesses, many in the industry 
believe that they simply represent the cost of doing business for the 
Bell companies which over the past year had annual revenues in the 
range of tens of billions of dollars. Specifically, BellSouth's total 
revenues were $25.6 billion, Qwest, $18.3 billion, SBC, $50.1 billion, 
and Verizon, $66.4 billion. Chairman Powell has stated that in order to 
make fines a more effective tool, Congress should increase the FCC's 
current fine authority against a common carrier for a single continuing 
violation from $1.2 million to at least $10 million and extend the 
statute of limitations for violations which currently stands at 1 year.
  In order to get local competition going, the Pennsylvania PUC 
mandated the functional separation of the retail and wholesale 
functions of Verizon. Petitions have been filed to impose structural 
separation in, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 
Virginia. Legislation has also been introduced in the State 
legislatures of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey on the 
issue of structural separation. In September of last year, Chairpersons 
of the Commissions in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 
issued a joint statement asserting that although the Commissions had 
taken repeated and sustained actions over the past months to address 
operating deficiencies with respect to SBC-Ameritech, CLEC customers 
had experienced a marked decline in service quality in purchasing 
network elements from SBC-Ameritech.

  In addition to these actions by regulators, the courts also have 
taken action. In California in 1997, Caltech International Telecom 
Corporation sued SBC-Pacific Bell claiming that SBC was violating 
antitrust laws by acting anticompetitively and blocking competitors 
from their local phone market. Last year, a Federal district court 
ruled in favor of Caltech. Covad has sued SBC, Verizon, and BellSouth 
and already has obtained a $24 million arbitration ruling against SBC. 
Consumers have filed suit in the Superior Court of D.C. alleging that 
Verizon signed up over 3,000 new customers per day knowing that the 
company would be unable to provide high-speed service as promised and 
that its customers would experience significant disruptions and 
significant delays in obtaining technical support.
  Regrettably, as Bells seek to block their competitors from entering 
their markets, many consumers are suffering through poor quality of 
Bell service. In New York, the Communications Workers of America issued 
a service quality report in which it stated that ``Verizon has 
systematically misled state regulators and the public by falsifying 
service quality data submitted to the PSC'' and ``60 percent of workers 
have been ordered to report troubles as fixed when problems remained.'' 
91 percent of field technicians surveyed reported that they were 
dispatched on repairs of recent installations only to find that dial 
tone had never been provided. Additionally, consumers with inside 
wiring maintenance plans were not receiving the services for which they 
were paying.
  Concerned about competition and service quality, the FCC as well as 
state Commissions have opposed legislative efforts to further 
deregulate the Bell companies. In response to such measures, former 
Chairman of the FCC, William Kennard, stated that such legislation 
would only upset the balance struck by the 1996 Act, . . . [and] would 
reverse the progress attained by the Act.'' Mr. Kennard went on to 
state that ``the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is working. Because of 
years of litigation, competition did not take hold as quickly as some 
had hoped. The fact that it is now working, however, is undeniable. 
Local markets are being opened, broadband services are being deployed, 
and competition, including broadband competition is taking root.'' More 
recently at a hearing before Congress in March, Chairman Powell of the 
FCC counseled against reopening the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He 
stated that ``any wholesale rewrite of the Telecom Act would be ill-
advised.'' The Former Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
Information, Greg Rhode also stated that ``[d]espite the progress being 
made under the procompetitive approach of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, some in Congress are talking about changing directions. Under the 
veil of `de-regulation for data services' some are talking about 
stopping the progress of competition . . . competition, structured 
under the 1996 Act, is the model that will best deliver advanced 
telecommunications and information services, such as high speed 
Internet access. Walking away from the Act's pro-competitive provisions 
at this point would be a serious mistake.'' Recognizing the importance 
of the 1996 Act, the National Association of Regulatory Utilities 
Commissioners adopted a resolution opposing federal legislation that 
would deregulate the Bells and restrict the ability of State public 
utility commissions from fulfilling their obligations to regulate core 
telecommunications facilities that are used to provide both voice and 
data services and to promote deployment of advanced telecommunications 
capabilities.

  Given the lack of competition in the local markets, the intransigent 
behavior of the Bell companies, and concerns about poor service 
quality, we are left with no choice but to adopt measures that will 
ensure Bell compliance with the 1996 Act. This will have to include not 
only fines, but also the separation of a Bell's retail operations 
responsible for marketing services to consumers from its wholesale 
operations responsible for operating and selling capacity on the 
network. Bell companies continue to have substantial profit margins and 
revenues in the billions of dollars. In contrast, Bear Stearns has 
stated that it expects half of the CLECs to disappear because of 
bankruptcy and consolidation. Unquestionably, I do anticipate that 
competition will weed out poor competitors. However, it does not serve 
consumers well for competitors to be weeded out because monopolies are 
not playing fair.
  I strongly believe that the power that the Bell companies have 
wielded to block their competitors from the local markets must be 
curbed. That's why I rise to introduce legislation today. Under my bill 
within one year after passage of the legislation, a Bell company is 
required to provide retail service through a separate division. If a 
Bell company has to resell or provide portions of its network to its 
division on the same terms and conditions that it provides to its 
competitors, then it will quickly and affordably make its network 
available to competitors.
  Requiring a company to separate functions or divest property is not a 
novel concept. In 1980, the court decided that the only way to 
introduced competition into the long distance market was to require Ma 
Bell to divest the Baby Bells. This has worked well and now the long 
distance market is competitive. More recently, the Pennsylvania PSC has 
required Verizon

[[Page S8936]]

to separate its retail operations from its wholesale operations. These 
decisions are all based on concerns about the ability of a company to 
distort competition because the company has significant market power.
  Also, my bill clarifies that a carrier may bring an action against a 
Bell company to comply with the competition provisions of the 1996 Act 
at the FCC or at a State commission, and has the option of entering an 
alternative dispute resolution, ADR, process to enforce an 
interconnection agreement. The FCC is required to resolve such a 
complaint in 90 days and issue an interim order to correct the dispute 
within 30 days upon a proper showing by the carrier bringing the 
dispute.
  My bill requires the FCC to impose a penalty of $10 million for each 
violation and $2 million for each day of each violation. The FCC can 
treble the damages if the Bell company repeatedly violates competitive 
provisions of the 1996 Act. I have chosen to include hefty 
fines, because the fines at the FCC are too small to have any real 
effect. I am also struck by the fact that for the Bells, fines seem to 
be just a cost of doing business and not a punishment that deters or 
positively affects their behavior. As Chairman Powell has stated, the 
FCC's ``fines are trivial and the cost of doing business to many of 
these companies.'' My bill would also require the FCC to establish 
performance guidelines detailing what Bell companies must do in order 
to allow CLEC's to interconnect with the Bell network.

  Today, our communications network remains the envy of the world and 
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating 
rapidly. Last year in a discussion about the lead America has over 
Europe with respect to the technology revolution, Thomas Middlehof, 
chief executive of Bertlemann, which is Europe's largest media 
conglomerate stated that ``Europe just doesn't get the message . . . 
[g]overnments are still trying to protect the old industrial 
structure.'' The article also noted that ``many [European] leaders now 
acknowledge a basic policy failure of the past decade [was] subsidizing 
dying industries.'' With that said, it is unfortunate that the rollout 
of local and broadband services on a competitive basis to all Americans 
is being thwarted by the failure of Bell companies to open their 
markets to competition. These same monopolists told us their markets 
would be open years ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their 
word.
  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. 1364

       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 ``Telecommunications Fair 
     Competition Enforcement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds:
       (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 put in place the 
     proper framework to achieve competition in local 
     telecommunications markets.
       (2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognized that 
     local exchange facilities are essential facilities and 
     required that all incumbent local exchange carriers open 
     their markets to competition by interconnecting with and 
     providing network access to new entrants, a process to be 
     overseen by Federal and State regulators.
       (3) To increase the incentives of the Bell operating 
     companies to open their local networks to competition, the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows the Bell operating 
     companies to provide interLATA voice and data services in 
     their service region only after opening their local networks 
     to competition.
       (4) While some progress has been made in opening local 
     telecommunications markets, the Federal Communications 
     Commission has determined that, 6 years after passage of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Bell operating companies 
     have met the market opening requirements of that Act in only 
     5 States.
       (5) It is apparent that the incumbent local exchange 
     carriers do not have adequate incentives to cooperate in this 
     process and that regulators have not exercised their 
     enforcement authority to require compliance.
       (6) By improving mandatory penalties on Bell operating 
     companies and their affiliates that have not opened their 
     network to competition, there will be greater assurance that 
     local telecommunications markets will be opened more 
     expeditiously and, as a result, American consumers will 
     obtain the full benefits of competition.
       (7) Competitive carriers continue to experience great 
     difficulty in gaining access to the Bell network, and, 5 
     years after enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
     Bell operating companies continue to control over 92 percent 
     of all access lines nationwide.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to improve and strengthen the enforcement of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996, in order to ensure that local 
     telecommunications markets are opened more rapidly to full, 
     robust, and sustainable competition; and
       (2) to provide an alternative dispute resolution process 
     for expeditious resolution of disputes concerning 
     interconnection agreements.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF COMPETITION.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                         ``PART IV--ENFORCEMENT

     ``SEC. 291. SHARED JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN DISPUTES.

       ``(a) Violations of Sections 251, 252, 271, and 272.--A 
     complaint under section 208 alleging that a specific act or 
     practice or failure to act, of a Bell operating company or 
     its affiliate, constitutes a violation of section 251, 252, 
     271, or 272 may be filed at the Commission or at a State 
     commission.
       ``(b) Enforcement of Interconnection Agreements.--An action 
     to enforce compliance by a Bell operating company or its 
     affiliate with an interconnection agreement entered into 
     under section 252 may be initiated at the Commission or at a 
     State Commission.
       ``(c) Initiating Party.--A complaint described in 
     subsection (a) or an enforcement action described in 
     subsection (b) may be brought by a telecommunications carrier 
     or by the Commission or a State commission on its own motion.

     ``SEC. 292. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF INTERCONNECTION, 
                   INTERLATA, AND SEPARATE AFFILIATE COMPLAINTS 
                   AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall make a final 
     determination with respect to any complaint described in 
     section 291(a) or an enforcement action described in section 
     291(b) within 90 days after the date on which the complaint, 
     or the filing initiating the action, is received by the 
     Commission.
       ``(b) Interim Relief.--
       ``(1) Violations of act.--Within 30 days after a complaint 
     described in section 291(a) has been filed with the 
     Commission, the Commission shall issue an order to the Bell 
     operating company or its affiliate named in the complaint 
     directing it to cease the act or practice that constitutes 
     the alleged violation, or initiate an act or practice to 
     correct the alleged violation, pending a final determination 
     by the Commission if--
       ``(A) the complaint contains a prima facie showing that the 
     alleged violation occurred or is occurring;
       ``(B) the complaint describes with specificity the act or 
     practice, or failure to act, that constitutes the alleged 
     violation; and
       ``(C) it appears from specific facts shown by the complaint 
     or an accompanying affidavit that substantial injury, loss, 
     or damage will result to the complainant before the 90-day 
     period in subsection (a) expires if the order is not issued.
       ``(2) Interconnection agreements.--Within 30 days after an 
     enforcement action described in section 291(b) has been 
     initiated at the Commission by a telecommunications carrier, 
     the Commission shall issue an order to the Bell operating 
     company or its affiliate named in the action directing it to 
     cease the act or practice that constitutes the alleged 
     noncompliance with the interconnection agreement, or initiate 
     an act or practice to correct the alleged noncompliance, 
     pending a final determination by the Commission if--
       ``(A) the filing initiating the action contains a prima 
     facie showing that the alleged noncompliance occurred or is 
     occurring;
       ``(B) the filing describes with specificity the act or 
     practice, or failure to act, that constitutes the alleged 
     noncompliance; and
       ``(C) it appears from specific facts shown by the filing or 
     an accompanying affidavit that substantial injury, loss, or 
     damage will result to the telecommunications carrier before 
     the 90-day period in subsection (a) expires if the order is 
     not issued.
       ``(c) Burden of Proof.--In any proceeding under this part 
     with respect to a complaint described in section 291(a), or 
     an enforcement action described in section 291(b), by a 
     telecommunications carrier against a Bell operating company 
     or its affiliate, and upon a prima facie showing by a carrier 
     that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a 
     violation or noncompliance, the burden of proof shall be on 
     such Bell operating company or its affiliate to demonstrate 
     its compliance with the section allegedly violated, or with 
     the terms of such agreement, as the case may be.

     ``SEC. 293. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF INTERCONNECTION 
                   COMPLAINTS.

       ``(a) Interconnection Agreements.--A party to an 
     interconnection agreement entered into under section 252 may 
     submit a dispute under the agreement to the alternative 
     dispute resolution process established by subsection (b). An 
     action brought under

[[Page S8937]]

     this section may be brought in lieu of an action described in 
     section 291(b) at the Commission or at a State commission.
       ``(b) Alternative Dispute Resolution Process.--
       ``(1) Commission to prescribe process.--Within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Fair 
     Competition Enforcement Act of 2001, the Commission shall, 
     after notice and opportunity for public comment, issue a 
     final rule implementing an alternative dispute resolution 
     process for the resolution of disputes under interconnection 
     agreements entered into under section 252. The process shall 
     be available to any party to such an agreement, including 
     agreements entered into prior to the date of enactment of 
     that Act, unless such prior agreement specifically precludes 
     the use of alternative dispute resolution.
       ``(2) Process requirements.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Commission shall prescribe a process that--
       ``(A) provides for binding private commercial arbitration 
     of disputes in an open, nondiscriminatory, and unbiased 
     forum;
       ``(B) ensures that a dispute submitted to the process can 
     be resolved within 45 days after the date on which the 
     dispute is filed; and
       ``(C) requires any decision reached under the process to be 
     in writing, available to the public, and posted on the 
     Internet.
       ``(3) Requests for information.--Any person or panel 
     conducting an arbitration under this subsection may require 
     any party to the dispute to provide such information as may 
     be necessary to enable that person or panel to reach a 
     decision with respect to the dispute. If the party that 
     receives such a request for information fails to comply with 
     such a request for information within 7 business days after 
     the date on which the request was made, then, unless that 
     party shows that the failure to comply was due to extenuating 
     circumstances, the person or panel conducting the arbitration 
     shall render a decision or award in favor of the other party 
     to the arbitration within 14 business days after the date on 
     which the request was made. The decision or award in favor of 
     a party shall not apply if the party in whose favor a 
     decision or award would be rendered under the preceding 
     sentence is not in compliance with a request for information 
     from the person or panel conducting the arbitration.
       ``(4) Remedies and authority of arbitrator.--Any person or 
     panel conducting an arbitration under this subsection may 
     grant to the prevailing party any relief available in law or 
     equity, including remedies available under this Act, 
     injunctive relief, specific performance, monetary awards, and 
     direct, consequential, and compensatory damages.
       ``(5) Arbitration award and enforcement.--A final decision 
     or award made by a person or panel conducting an arbitration 
     under this subsection shall be binding upon the parties and 
     is not subject to appeal by the parties or review by the 
     Commission, a State commission, or any Federal or State 
     court. A decision or award under the process may be enforced 
     in any district court of the United States having 
     jurisdiction under sections 9 through 13 of title 9, United 
     States Code.

     ``SEC. 294. ENFORCEMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Commission To Prescribe Performance Standards for 
     Compliance with Interconnection Agreements.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Fair Competition Enforcement Act of 2001 
     the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, issue final rules for performance standards, data 
     validation procedures, and audit requirements to ensure 
     prompt and verifiable implementation of interconnection 
     agreements entered into under section 252 and for the 
     purposes of sections 251, 252, 271, and 272. At a minimum, 
     the rules shall include the most rigorous performance 
     standards, data validation procedures, and audit requirements 
     for such agreements adopted by the Commission or any State 
     commission before the date of enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Fair Competition Enforcement Act of 2001, 
     as well as any new performance standards, data validation 
     procedures, and audit requirements needed to ensure full 
     compliance with the requirements of this Act for the opening 
     of local telecommunications markets to competition. In 
     establishing performance standards, data validation 
     procedures, and audit requirements under this section, the 
     Commission shall ensure that such standards, procedures, and 
     requirements are quantifiable and sufficient to determine 
     ongoing compliance by incumbent local exchange carriers with 
     the requirements of their interconnection agreements, 
     including the provision of operating support systems, special 
     access, and retail and wholesale customer service standards, 
     and for the purposes of enforcing sections 251, 252, 271, and 
     272.
       ``(b) Specific Requirement for Provision of Local Loops.--A 
     Bell operating company or its affiliate which has not been 
     granted an exemption, suspension, or modification under 
     section 251(f) of the requirement to provide access to local 
     loops (including subloop elements to the extent required 
     under section 251(d)(2)) as an unbundled network element 
     under section 251(c)(3) shall provide any such local loop to 
     a requesting telecommunications carrier with which such Bell 
     operating company or affiliate has an interconnection 
     agreement entered into under section 252 within 5 business 
     days after receiving a request for a specific local loop.
       ``(c) Enforcement of Performance Metrics.--Any violation of 
     this section, or the rules adopted hereunder, shall be a 
     violation of section 251.

     ``SEC. 295. FORFEITURES; DAMAGES; ATTORNEYS FEES.

       ``(a) In General.--The forfeitures provided in this section 
     are in addition to any other requirements, forfeitures, and 
     penalties that may be imposed under any other provision of 
     this Act, any other law, or by a State commission or court.
       ``(b) Forfeitures for Violation of Sections 251, 252, 271, 
     or 272.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall impose a forfeiture 
     of $10,000,000 for each violation by a Bell operating company 
     or any affiliate of such company of section 251, 252, 271, or 
     272, and a forfeiture of $2,000,000 for each day on which the 
     violation continues.
       ``(2) Forfeiture increased threefold for repeat 
     violations.--The forfeiture under paragraph (1) shall be 
     increased threefold for a repeated violation of any such 
     section by a Bell operating company or its affiliate.
       ``(c) Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Costs and 
     Attorney's Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any civil action brought by a 
     telecommunications carrier against a Bell operating company 
     or any affiliate of such company for damages for a violation 
     of section 251, 252, 271, or 272, or violation of any 
     interconnection agreement entered into under section 252 by a 
     Bell operating company, the carrier may be awarded--
       ``(A) both compensatory and punitive damages; and
       ``(B) reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in 
     bringing the action.
       ``(2) Treble damages.--In any such action, the 
     telecommunications carrier may be awarded treble damages for 
     a repeated violation of any such section or interconnection 
     agreement by a Bell operating company or its affiliate.
       ``(d) Forfeiture for Failure to Comply with Order Granting 
     Interim Relief.--If the Bell operating company or its 
     affiliate to which an order is issued under section 292(b) 
     does not comply with the order within 7 days after the date 
     on which the Commission releases the order, and the 
     Commission makes a final determination that the Bell 
     operating company or affiliate is in violation of section 
     251, 252, 271, or 272, or violation of an interconnection 
     agreement entered into under section 252, then the Commission 
     shall impose a forfeiture of $10,000,000 for each such 
     violation, and a forfeiture of $2,000,000 for each day on 
     which the violation continued after issuance of the order.
       ``(e) Attorneys Fees.--The Commission, a State commission, 
     a court, or person conducting an arbitration under section 
     293 may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the 
     prevailing party in an action commenced by a complaint 
     described in section 291(a), an enforcement action described 
     in section 291(b), or an alternative dispute resolution 
     proceeding under section 293, respectively.
       ``(f) Forfeitures Divided Between Complainants and 
     Commission.--Any forfeiture imposed under subsection (b) or 
     (d) shall be paid to the Commission and divided equally 
     between--
       ``(1) either--
       ``(A) the party whose complaint commenced the action that 
     resulted in the determination by the Commission, if the 
     Commission's determination was made in response to a 
     complaint; or
       ``(B) the party against which the violation was committed, 
     if the action that resulted in the determination by the 
     Commission was commenced by the Commission or a State 
     commission; and
       ``(2) the Commission for use by its Enforcement Bureau for 
     the purpose of enforcing parts II and III of title II of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251 et seq. and 271 et 
     seq.) and carrying out part IV of title II of that Act.
       ``(g) Adjustment for Inflation.--The amount of each 
     forfeiture provided for under subsections (b) and (d) shall 
     be increased for violations during each calendar year 
     beginning with 2004 by a percentage amount equal to the 
     percentage increase (if any) in the CPI for the preceding 
     year over the CPI for 2001. For purposes of this subsection, 
     the CPI for any year is the average for the 12 months of the 
     year of the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers 
     published by the Department of Labor.

     ``SEC. 296. SAVINGS CLAUSES.

       ``(a) Other Remedies Under Act.--The remedies in this part 
     are in addition to any other requirements or penalties 
     available under this Act or any other law.
       ``(b) Antitrust Laws.--Nothing in this part modifies, 
     impairs, or supersedes the applicability of any antitrust 
     law, except that a violation by an incumbent local exchange 
     carrier of section 251 or 252 shall also be a violation of 
     the Act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Sherman Anti-
     Trust Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 5. RATEPAYER PROTECTION.

       The Commission shall not forbear from, or modify, any cost 
     allocation rules, accounting safeguards, or other 
     requirements in a manner that reduces its ability to enforce 
     the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 6. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED TO 3 YEARS.

       Section 503(b)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``1 year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``5 years''.

[[Page S8938]]

     SEC. 7. STATE COMMISSIONS MAY USE FEDERAL FORFEITURES.

       In any action brought before a State commission to enforce 
     compliance with section 251, 252, 271, or 272 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251, 252, 271, or 272) 
     or an interconnection agreement entered into under section 
     252, the State commission may apply to the Federal 
     Communications Commission requesting that the Commission 
     impose a forfeiture under section 295 of that Act in addition 
     to any relief granted by the State commission in that action. 
     The Federal Communications Commission may impose a forfeiture 
     under section 295 of that Act upon application by a State 
     commission under this section if it determines that the State 
     commission proceeding was conducted in accordance with the 
     requirements of State law.

     SEC. 8. SEPARATION OF RETAIL AND WHOLESALE FUNCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 277. FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION OF RETAIL SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--A Bell operating company may only 
     provide retail service--
       ``(1) through a division that is legally separate from the 
     part of the Bell operating company that provides wholesale 
     services; and
       ``(2) in a manner that is consistent with the Code of 
     Conduct described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Code of Conduct.--The Code of Conduct for the 
     provision of retail service by a Bell operating company is as 
     follows:
       ``(1) A Bell operating company shall transfer to its retail 
     division all relationships with retail customers, including 
     customer interfaces and retail billing and all development, 
     marketing, and pricing of retail services.
       ``(2) A Bell operating company shall transfer to its retail 
     division all accounts for retail services and all assets, 
     systems, and personnel used by the Bell operating company to 
     carry out the business functions described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The retail division required by this section--
       ``(A) shall be operated independently from the wholesale 
     services and functions of the Bell operating company of which 
     it is a division;
       ``(B) shall maintain books, records, and accounts separate 
     from those maintained by other departments, divisions, 
     sections, affiliates, or units of the Bell operating company 
     of which it is a division;
       ``(C) shall have separate employees and office space from 
     the wholesale services and functions of the Bell operating 
     company of which it is a division;
       ``(D) shall tie its management compensation only to the 
     performance of the retail division;
       ``(E) may not own any telecommunications facilities or 
     equipment jointly with the Bell operating company of which it 
     is a division;
       ``(F) shall not engage in any joint marketing with the 
     wholesale services department, division, section, affiliate, 
     or unit of the Bell operating company of which it is a 
     division;
       ``(G) shall conduct all wholesale transactions with the 
     Bell operating company of which it is a division on a fully 
     compensatory, arms-length basis, in accordance with part 32 
     of the Commission's rules (part 32 of title 47, Code of 
     Federal Regulations);
       ``(H) shall offer retail telecommunications service solely 
     at rates set by tariff; and
       ``(I) shall also offer all of its retail telecommunications 
     services to telecommunications carriers for wholesale 
     purchase at the avoided cost discount as established pursuant 
     to sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3).
       ``(4) A Bell operating company shall provide services, 
     facilities, and network elements to any requesting carrier, 
     including its retail division solely at rates, terms, and 
     conditions set by tariff; shall offer physical and virtual 
     collocation pursuant to tariffs; shall not provide any retail 
     service except through its retail division; and shall not 
     grant its retail division any preferential intellectual 
     property rights. The Bell operating company shall conduct any 
     business with unaffiliated persons in the same manner as it 
     conducts business with its retail division, and shall not 
     prefer, or discriminate in favor of, such retail division in 
     the rates, terms, or conditions offered to the retail 
     division, including--
       ``(A) fulfilling any requests from unaffiliated persons for 
     ordering, maintenance, and repair of unbundled network 
     elements and services provided for resale, within a period no 
     longer than that in which it fulfills such requests from its 
     retail division;
       ``(B) utilizing the same operating support systems for 
     dealings with unaffiliated persons providing 
     telecommunications service as it uses with its retail 
     division;
       ``(C) providing any customer or network information to 
     unaffiliated persons providing retail services on the same 
     terms and conditions as it provides such information to its 
     retail division;
       ``(D) fulfilling any requests from an unaffiliated person 
     for exchange access within a period no longer than that in 
     which it fulfills requests for exchange access from its 
     retail division; and
       ``(E) fulfilling any such requests in subparagraph (D) with 
     service of a quality that meets or exceeds the quality of 
     exchange access it provides to its retail division.
       ``(c) Biennial Audit.--
       ``(1) General requirement.--A Bell operating company shall 
     obtain and pay for a joint Federal/State audit every 2 years 
     which shall be conducted by an independent auditor to 
     determine whether such company has complied with this section 
     and the regulations promulgated to implement this section.
       ``(2) Results submitted to Commission; State Commissions.--
     The auditor described in paragraph (1) shall submit the 
     results of the audit to the Commission and to the State 
     commission of each State in which the company audited 
     provides service, and the Commission shall make such results 
     available for public inspection. Any party may submit 
     comments on the final audit report.
       ``(3) Access to documents.--For purposes of conducting 
     audits and reviews under this subsection--
       ``(A) the independent auditor, the Commission, and the 
     State commission shall have access to the financial books, 
     records, and accounts of each Bell operating company and its 
     retail division necessary to verify transactions conducted 
     with that company that are relevant to the specific 
     activities permitted under this section and that are 
     necessary for the regulation of rates;
       ``(B) the Commission and the State commission shall have 
     access to the working papers and supporting materials of any 
     auditor who performs an audit under this section; and
       ``(C) the State commission shall implement appropriate 
     procedures to ensure the protection of any proprietary 
     information submitted to it under this section.
       ``(d) Transition.--
       ``(1) A Bell operating company shall have one year from the 
     date of enactment of the Telecommunications Fair Competition 
     Enforcement Act of 2001 to comply with subsections (a) and 
     (b).
       ``(2) Until such time as the Bell operating company 
     complies with the requirements of subsection (a), it shall 
     file quarterly reports demonstrating how it is implementing 
     compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of 
     subsection (b)(4).
       ``(e) Ratepayer Protection.--The Commission shall not relax 
     any cost allocation rules, accounting safeguards, or other 
     requirements in a manner that reduces its ability to enforce 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Bell operating company.--Notwithstanding section 
     3(4)(C), the term `Bell operating company' includes any 
     affiliate of such company other than its retail division.
       ``(2) Retail devision.--The term `retail division' means 
     the division required by this section.
       ``(3) Retail service.--The term `retail service' means any 
     telecommunications or information service offered to a person 
     other than a common carrier or other provider of 
     telecommunications.
       ``(g) Report on Violations.--Until December 31, 2010, the 
     Commission shall report to Congress annually on the amount 
     and nature of any violations of sections 251, 252, 271, and 
     272 by each Bell Operating Company.
       ``(h) Preservation of Existing Authority.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
     Commission under any other section of this Act to prescribe 
     additional safeguards consistent with the public interest, 
     convenience, and necessity.

     ``SEC. 278. SEPARATE RETAIL AFFILIATE.

       ``(a) Repeated Violations.--If, beginning 2 years after 
     enactment of the Telecommunications Fair Competition 
     Enforcement Act of 2001, the Commission finds that a Bell 
     operating company willfully or knowingly violated the 
     requirements of sections 251, 252, 271, or 272 of this Act, 
     the Commission may require the Bell Operating Company to 
     implement structural separation under this section.
       ``(b) In General.--If the Commission requires a Bell 
     operating company to implement structural separation under 
     this section, then that Bell operating company may provide 
     retail services only through a separate affiliate. A Bell 
     operating company and a separate affiliate established under 
     this section shall not engage in any joint marketing of 
     retail services, notwithstanding section 272(g).
       ``(c) Structural Separation of Business.--A Bell operating 
     company shall comply with subsection (b) by transferring the 
     following business functions to its retail affiliate, at the 
     higher of book value or market value:
       ``(1) all relationships with retail customers, including 
     customer interfaces and retail billing; and
       ``(2) all development, marketing, and pricing of retail 
     services.
       ``(d) Structural Separation of Assets.--
       ``(1) A Bell operating company shall comply with subsection 
     (b) by transferring the following assets to its retail 
     affiliate at the higher of book or market value:
       ``(A) all accounts for retail services, subject to the 
     requirements of subsection (j); and
       ``(B) all assets, systems, and personnel used by the Bell 
     operating company to carry out the business functions 
     described in subsection (c).
       ``(2) The price, terms, and conditions of the transfer of 
     assets required by paragraph (1) shall be made publicly 
     available.
       ``(e) Separate Subsidiary Safeguards.--The separate 
     affiliate required by this section--
       ``(1) shall operate independently from the Bell operating 
     company;

[[Page S8939]]

       ``(2) shall maintain books, records, and accounts separate 
     from those maintained by the Bell operating company of which 
     it is an affiliate;
       ``(3) shall have separate officers and directors from the 
     Bell operating company of which it is an affiliate;
       ``(4) shall have separate capital stock, the outstanding 
     shares of which may not be held by the Bell operating company 
     in any amount exceeding four times the amount of shares held 
     by unaffiliated persons;
       ``(5) shall have separate employees and separate employee 
     benefit plans from the Bell operating company of which it is 
     an affiliate;
       ``(6) may not obtain credit under any arrangement that 
     would permit a creditor, upon default, to have recourse to 
     the assets of the Bell operating company;
       ``(7) may not own any telecommunications facilities or 
     equipment;
       ``(8) shall conduct all transactions with the Bell 
     operating company of which it is an affiliate on an arms' 
     length basis, with any such transactions reduced to writing 
     and available for public inspection;
       ``(9) shall offer retail telecommunications service solely 
     at rates set by tariff;
       ``(10) shall offer all of its retail telecommunications 
     services for wholesale purchase at the avoided cost discount 
     as established pursuant to sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3);
       ``(11) shall have separate office space from the wholesale 
     services and functions of the Bell operating company of which 
     it is an affiliate;
       ``(12) shall tie its management compensation only to the 
     performance of the retail affiliate; and
       ``(13) shall conduct all wholesale transactions with the 
     Bell operating company of which it is an affiliate on a fully 
     compensatory basis, in accordance with part 32 of the 
     Commission's rules (part 32 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations).
       ``(f) Nondiscrimination Safeguards.--A Bell operating 
     company--
       ``(1) shall provide services, facilities and network 
     elements to any requesting carrier, including its retail 
     affiliate, solely at rates set by tariff;
       ``(2) shall conduct any business with unaffiliated entities 
     in the same manner as it conducts business with its retail 
     affiliate, and shall not prefer, or discriminate in favor of, 
     such retail affiliate in the rates, terms, or conditions 
     offered to the retail affiliate, including--
       ``(A) fulfilling any requests from an unaffiliated entity 
     for exchange access service within a period no longer than 
     that in which it fulfills requests for exchange access 
     service from its retail affiliate;
       ``(B) fulfilling any such requests with service of a 
     quality that meets or exceeds the quality of exchange access 
     services it provides to its retail affiliate;
       ``(C) fulfilling any requests from an unaffiliated entity 
     for ordering, maintenance and repair of unbundled network 
     elements and services provided for resale, within a period no 
     longer than that in which it fulfills such requests from its 
     retail affiliate;
       ``(D) utilizing the same operating support systems for 
     dealings with unaffiliated entities providing 
     telecommunications service as it uses with its retail 
     affiliate; and
       ``(E) providing any customer or network information to 
     unaffiliated entities providing telecommunications services 
     on the same terms and conditions as it provides such 
     information to its retail affiliate;
       ``(3) shall not offer physical and virtual collocation 
     other than pursuant to generally available tariffs;
       ``(4) shall not grant its retail affiliate any preferential 
     intellectual property rights; and
       ``(5) shall not provide any retail service for its own use, 
     but shall procure such services from a carrier other than its 
     retail affiliate.
       ``(g) Biennial Audit.--
       ``(1) General requirement.--A Bell operating company shall 
     obtain and pay for a joint Federal/State audit every 2 years 
     conducted by an independent auditor to determine whether such 
     company has complied with this section and the regulations 
     promulgated under this section.
       ``(2) Results submitted to commission; state commissions.--
     The auditor described in paragraph (1) shall submit the 
     results of the audit to the Commission and to the State 
     commission of each State in which the company audited 
     provides service, which shall make such results available for 
     public inspection. Any party may submit comments on the final 
     audit report.
       ``(3) Access to documents.--For purposes of conducting 
     audits and reviews under this subsection--
       ``(A) the independent auditor, the Commission, and the 
     State commission shall have access to the financial books, 
     records, and accounts of each Bell operating company and of 
     its affiliates necessary to verify transactions conducted 
     with that company that are relevant to the specific 
     activities permitted under this section and that are 
     necessary for the regulation of rates;
       ``(B) the Commission and the State commission shall have 
     access to the working papers and supporting materials of any 
     auditor who performs an audit under this section; and
       ``(C) the State commission shall implement appropriate 
     procedures to ensure the protection of any proprietary 
     information submitted to it under this section.
       ``(h) Preservation of Existing Authority.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
     Commission under any other section of this Act to prescribe 
     safeguards consistent with the public interest, convenience, 
     and necessity.
       ``(i) Presubscription.--Concurrent with the establishment 
     of the separate retail affiliate required by this section, in 
     any local calling area served by a Bell operating company, 
     consumers shall have the opportunity to select their provider 
     of telephone exchange service by means of a balloting process 
     established by rule by the Commission.
       ``(j) Ratepayer Protection.--The Commission shall not relax 
     any cost allocation rules, accounting safeguards, or other 
     requirements in a manner that reduces its ability to enforce 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Bell operating company.--Notwithstanding section 
     3(4)(C), the term `Bell operating company' includes any 
     affiliate of such company other than its retail affiliate.
       ``(2) Retail affiliate.--The term `retail affiliate' means 
     the affiliate required by this section.
       ``(3) Retail service.--The term `retail service' means any 
     telecommunications or information service offered to a person 
     other than a common carrier or other provider of 
     telecommunications.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 1366. A bill for the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1366

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LINDITA IDRIZI 
                   HEATH.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 101(b)(1) and 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be eligible for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 
     under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to 
     lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Lindita Idrizi Heath enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered to 
     have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 
     eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
     245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Lindita Idrizi 
     Heath, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by one, during the current or next 
     following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 202(e) 
     of that Act.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.

       For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431; relating to the automatic 
     acquisition of citizenship by certain children born outside 
     the United States), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered 
     to have satisfied the requirements applicable to adopted 
     children under section 101(b)(1) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(b)(1)).

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION.

       No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of Lindita 
     Idrizi Heath shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
     accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1367. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide appropriate reimbursement under the medicare program for 
ambulance trips originating in rural areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing legislation today to 
provide needed financial relief to rural ambulance providers.
  Historically, Medicare payments for ambulance services provided by 
freestanding ambulance providers have been based on a proportion of 
their reasonable charges, while payments to hospital-based providers 
have been

[[Page S8940]]

based on their actual costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, however, 
directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a fee 
schedule for the payment of ambulance services using a negotiated 
rulemaking process. This rulemaking Committee finalized its agreement 
in February of 2000, and the then-Health Care Financing Administration, 
HCFA, issued a proposed rule last September. The new fee schedule was 
originally scheduled to start on January 1, 2001, but its 
implementation has been delayed while HCFA, now the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, continues to work on publishing a final 
rule.
  Payment under this new fee schedule will preclude hospital providers 
of ambulance services from recouping their actual costs. For the 
average, high-volume urban provider, this should not pose a significant 
problem. Ambulance services in rural areas, however, tend to have 
higher fixed costs and low volume, which means that they are unable to 
take advantage of any economies of scale. I am therefore extremely 
concerned that the proposed rule fails to include a meaningful 
adjustment for low-volume ambulance providers.
  I recently heard about the impact that this change will have on one 
of Maine's rural hospitals, Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington, 
ME. Logging, tourism, and recreational activities are central to the 
economic viability of this region, and good emergency transport is 
essential Franklin Memorial owns and operates five local ambulance 
services that cover more than 2,000 square miles of rural Maine. They 
serve some of the most remote areas of the State, and ambulances often 
have to travel more than 80 miles to reach the hospital. Moreover, 
these trips frequently involve backwoods and wilderness rescues which 
require highly trained staff. Since there are only 30,000 people in 
Franklin Memorial's service area, however, volume is very low.
  Under the current Medicare reimbursement system, Franklin Memorial 
has just managed to break even on its ambulance services. Under the 
proposed fee schedule, however, these services stand to lose up to 
$500,000 a year, system-wide. While the small towns served by Franklin 
Memorial help to subsidize this service, there is no way that they can 
absorb this loss. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits 
Improvement and Protection Act, BIPA, did increase the mileage 
adjustment for rural ambulance providers driving between 17 and 50 
miles by $1.25. While this is helpful, it will not begin to compensate 
low-volume ambulance services like Franklin Memorial Hospital 
adequately.
  Congress has required the General Accounting Office to conduct a 
study of costs in low-volume areas, but any GAO-recommended adjustments 
in the ambulance fee schedule would not be effective until 2004. The 
Rural Ambulance Relief Act that I am introducing today with Senator 
Feingold will therefore establish a hold harmless provision allowing 
rural ambulance providers to elect to be paid on a reasonable cost 
basis until the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is able to 
identify and adjust payments under the new ambulance fee schedule for 
services provided in low-volume rural areas.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 1368. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the 
organization and management of the Department of Defense with respect 
to space programs and activities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with 
Senator Bob Smith, a bill to improve the organization and management of 
the Department of Defense with respect to space programs and 
activities. To my very good friend, I would like to extend my 
congratulations for being the driving force in establishing the 
``Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management 
and Organization'' or better known as the Space Commission which led to 
this legislation.
  The Commission looked at the role of organization and management in 
the development and implementation of national-level guidance and in 
establishing requirements, acquiring and operating systems, and 
planning, programming and budgeting for national security space 
capabilities. What the Commission found is that the United States 
dependence on space is creating vulnerabilities and demands on our 
space systems which requires space to be recognized as a top national 
security priority. This priority must begin at the top with the 
President and must be embraced by the country's leaders.
  Senator Smith and I agree that space must be a top priority and that 
is why we are introducing this legislation. We want this to be a 
statement to everyone, that space is a priority and must be treated as 
such.
  The Commission also concluded that these new vulnerabilities and 
demands are not adequately addressed by the current management 
structure at the Department. The Commission found that a number of 
space activities should be merged, chains of command adjusted, lines of 
communications opened and policies modified to achieve greater 
responsibility and accountability.
  I understand the Department is making some of these changes today. 
However, we believe Congress should show its support to our military 
men and women involved in space that Congress wants them to succeed and 
that we will provide the tools for them to achieve that goal.
  This legislation will provide the Secretary of Defense the tools he 
needs for more effective management and organization of space program 
and activities. Specifically the legislation:
  Provides permissive authority for the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and 
Information--This permissive authority will provide the Secretary of 
Defense flexibility.
  Designates the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, 
Intelligence and Information, provides for an additional Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (conditional on creation of the new Under 
Secretary of Defense position). This provision follows the 
recommendations of the Commission.
  Requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report 30 days prior to 
exercise of the authority to establish the new Under Secretary position 
on the proposed organization; and requires a report one year after 
enactment if the new position has not been created to describe how the 
intent of the Space Commission is being implemented.
  Establishes the Secretary of the Air Force as the Executive Agent for 
DOD space programs for DOD functions designated by the Secretary of 
Defense; and assigns to acquisition executive function to the Under 
Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of Defense has flexibility in 
assigning and defining functions of the Executive Agent;
  Assigns the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the director of the 
NRO; and directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to coordinate the 
space activities of DOD and the NRO;
  Directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to establish a space 
career field and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assign the 
Commander of Air Force Space Command to manage the space career field. 
Establishment of career field is an important commission recommendation 
and key indicator concerning AF implementation.
  Requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, space programs be 
jointly managed. I believe this will encourage the Army and Navy to 
develop space personnel.
  Creates a major force program for space which will provide visibility 
into space program funding.
  Requires a GAO assessment of the progress made by DOD in implementing 
the recommendations of the Space Commission.
  Requires the commander of Air Force Space Command to be a four star 
general; and prohibits the commander of Air Force Space Command from 
serving concurrently as CINCSPACE or and commander of the U.S. element 
of NORAD--Elevates space component commander to level of all other 
major Air Force component commanders
  Finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that CINCSPACE should be 
the best qualified four-star officer from the Army, Navy, Marines, or 
Air Force--Rotation of CINCSPACE will encourage Army, Navy, and Marines 
to develop space expertise

[[Page S8941]]

  These measures provide the authority which, if exercised by the 
Secretary, can provide the focus and attention that space programs and 
activities deserve. This is imperative in a world where some 
technology's life span can be less than 24 months. DOD must be able to 
respond to these changing environments.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for joining with me in 
this effort to provide the Department the tools it needs to make space 
a top national security priority. We look forward to seeing this bill 
becoming law and welcome all Senators to join us on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to send to 
the desk a bill that will make improvements in our current national 
security space management and organization.
  I am delighted to stand here today and state that the Department of 
Defense is moving forward to implement the recommendations of the 
Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management 
and Organization, more commonly known as the Space Commission. I pushed 
my colleagues to charter this group of 13 senior military-space experts 
in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act to assess the 
management of military space matters today and make recommendations to 
strengthen the national security space organization in the future.
  It is a wonderful coincidence that the chairman of the bipartisan 
Space Commission, the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, was appointed by 
President Bush and confirmed by the Senate for the position of 
Secretary of Defense. As a result, Secretary Rumsfeld brings to his 
position a keen appreciation of the importance of space to the future 
national security of the United States.
  The Space Commission, the efforts of the Secretary of Defense, and 
this proposed legislation will set this nation on a bold new course. 
More than fifty years ago, this nation took a similar bold step in 
establishing military air power with the creation of the U.S. Air 
Force. This decision, under the National Security Act of 1947, was 
signed into law by President Truman and dramatically restructured our 
institutional approach to military air power. This restructuring 
resulted from years of air-power management problems under the Army, 
insufficient reforms under the Army Air Corps established in 1926, and 
assessments of numerous committees like the recent Space Commission.
  The military management and organizational reforms of fifty years ago 
were a great success, and today, quite a bit has changed for the 
better. As a result of the formation of a separate service focused on 
air power, we soon developed, and have had, right up to today, the best 
equipped and best trained Air Force in the world. The U.S. Air Force is 
capable of surpassing any enemy.

  However, we have come to see that there are structural limitations 
inherent in the Air Force today with respect to space power just as 
there were in the Army fifty years ago with respect to air power. The 
Army has been structured to meet ground requirements. Its training, 
doctrine, leaders, and culture are all focused on fighting ground 
battles. For systemic reasons, the Army was not able to develop a 
strong, viable military air power. Therefore, the Air Force was created 
by the 1947 National Security Act which called for the creation of a 
separate organization designed to deal specifically with air power.
  There are many parallels between the early struggle for air power 
that led to the creation of the Air Force and the issues we face today 
in seeking space power. The similarities between these two issues are 
truly astounding.
  Today, space is used only in support of air, land, and sea warfare in 
much the same manner that air power was at first seen as only a way to 
support ground forces. Space today is used to provide ``information 
superiority'' in support of other missions, but there is the potential 
for so much more. We, as a Nation, need to stop talking and dreaming of 
a dominant space presence and start doing. We must recognize the 
importance of space as a permanent frontier for the military, so that 
America may proceed into space with the same confidence, assurance, and 
authority that marked our entrance into the skies.
  Currently, space programs are raided for funds ten times more often 
than other Air Force programs because space programs are either not 
aggressively defended and/or not aggressively executed consistent with 
the intent of Congress. Other space opportunities like the military 
space plane, an air and space vehicle promising future power projection 
from the U.S. to anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or less, are 
extremely important to the cost-effective transformation of the 
military especially during this period of shrinking American military 
presence around the globe. Yet the space plane and most of the space 
programs continue to be underfunded. We need a better leader in space.
  The reason for this is simple: the top priority of the Air Force is 
and will remain air power, not space power. The top jobs do and will 
continue to elude space officers in an Air Force run by pilots unless 
we can create an organization whose job it would be to defend space 
programs, to make sure that funding for space opportunities goes where 
it is supposed to go, and does not get rerouted back to other non-space 
programs.
  Space is too important a frontier and too vital a resource to be 
allowed to remain untapped and unexplored, undefended and unmanned. 
America's future security and prosperity depends on our constant 
vigilance. We cannot afford to ignore space because our enemies will 
not. While we are ahead of any potential rival in exploiting space, we 
are not unchallenged. Our future superiority is by no means assured. To 
ensure superiority, we must combine expansive thinking with a sustained 
and substantial commitment of resources and vest them in a dedicated, 
politically powerful, independent advocate for space.
  The way it is organized today, the Air Force is not building the 
material, cultural, or organizational foundations of a service 
dedicated to space power. Where are the space science and technology 
investments? Where is the funding for key space-power programs? Where 
are the personnel investments? What concrete steps are being taken to 
build a dedicated cadre of young space-warfare officers?
  Before closing, let me assure my colleagues of what this legislation 
is and what it is not. This legislation is about streamlined 
management, efficient operations, and the elimination of redundancy. It 
is about establishing an advocate for space who can evaluate space 
opportunities and bring those proposals forward to the President and 
Congress for disposition. It is about maximizing the national-security 
capability for every tax dollar spent. I have seen press stories that 
twisted Secretary Rumsfeld's support of the Space Commission 
recommendations as an intent to weaponize space. Let me assure my 
colleagues that this bill does not weaponize space. This is about 
management and organization. It is about good government. Enacting this 
legislation merely ensures that the concrete management reforms 
recommended by the Space Commission are implemented quickly.
  The Secretary of Defense, the Services, and the Intelligence 
Community all support the unanimous bipartisan recommendations from the 
Space Commission. I urge my Colleagues to support this bill which 
implements those recommendations. Space is critical to the future of 
this nation. It is important for Congress to provide leadership so that 
these recommendations are implemented quickly and not watered-down. 
While the Secretary does have broad management authority to run the 
Department of Defense, space is too important to be managed in-the-
margin or through loopholes in statute. Just as Congress established 
the Army Air Corps in 1926 and the Air Force in 1947, it is right that 
Congress legislate these space management reforms.
  Space dominance is too important to the success of future warfare to 
allow any bureaucracy, military department, or parochial concern to 
stand in the way. To protect America's interests we need to move 
forward consistent with the spirit of the Space Commission. This 
legislation is a good first step.
                                 ______
                                 

                             By Mr. WARNER:

  S. 1369. A bill to provide that Federal employees may retain for 
personal use

[[Page S8942]]

promotional items received as a result of travel taken in the course of 
employment; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will allow Federal employees to keep frequent flyer miles they receive 
while on official government travel. This will level the playing field 
between Federal employees and their counterparts in the private sector 
where companies traditionally allow employees to retain frequent flyer 
miles and similar benefits earned while on business travel.
  In 1994, a law was passed that requires Federal employees to 
surrender their frequent flyer miles back to their agencies. The 
frequent flyer miles would then be used to defray the costs of future 
travel costs by agency personnel.
  A recent review conducted by the Government Accounting Office reports 
that these miles usually become lost, however, in an administrative 
shuffle. Airlines do not keep separate business and personal accounts 
for the same individual. While the law had good intentions, it is 
impractical, if not impossible, for an agency to apply the miles or 
travel benefits elsewhere.
  While travel may be inherent with certain jobs, business related 
travel often impedes on an individual's personal time, time that person 
could be spending with family and at home. Allowing Federal employees 
to keep their frequent flyer miles will also help to support the 
government's ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a skilled, qualified 
workforce. Furthermore, I believe it will boost morale in the federal 
workforce.
  I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and show 
their support for the dedicated employees of the Federal workforce.
  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. 1369

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

     SECTION 1. RETENTION OF TRAVEL PROMOTIONAL ITEMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5702 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (2) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``This section does'' and inserting ``Subsections 
     (a) and (b) do''; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Promotional items (including frequent flyer miles, 
     upgrades, and access to carrier clubs or facilities) an 
     employee receives as a result of using travel or 
     transportation services procured by the United States or 
     accepted pursuant to section 1353 of title 31 may be retained 
     by the employee for personal use if such promotional items 
     are obtained under the same terms as those offered to the 
     general public and at no additional cost to the 
     Government.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superceded Law.--Section 6008 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 5702 note; 
     Public Law 103-355) is repealed.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply with respect to promotional items received before, on, 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1371. A bill to combat money laundering and protect the United 
States financial system by strengthening safeguards in private banking 
and correspondent banking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my 
colleagues Senator Grassley, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Bill Nelson, 
Senator Mike DeWine, and Senator Jon Kyl, the Money Laundering 
Abatement Act, a bill to modernize and strengthen U.S. laws to detect, 
stop and prosecute money laundering through U.S. banks.
  The safety and soundness of our banking system, the stability of the 
U.S. dollar, the services our banks perform, and the returns our banks 
earn for depositors make the U.S. banking system an attractive location 
for money launderers. And money launderers who are able to use U.S. 
banks can take advantage of the prestige of these banks to lend 
credibility to their operations, reassure victims, and send wire 
transfers that may attract less scrutiny from law enforcement. So 
whether it is to protect their funds or further their crimes, money 
launderers want access to U.S. banks, and they are devising one scheme 
after another to infiltrate the U.S. banking system.
  The funds they want to move through our banks are enormous. Estimates 
are that at least $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered each 
year, with about half of that amount, $500 billion, going through U.S. 
banks.
  Stopping this flood of dirty money is a top priority for U.S. law 
enforcement which spent about $650 million in taxpayer dollars last 
year on anti-money laundering efforts. That's because money laundering 
damages U.S. interests in so many ways, rewarding criminals and 
financing crime, undermining the integrity of international financial 
systems, weakening emerging democracies and distorting their economies, 
and impeding the international fight against corruption, drug 
trafficking and organized crime.
  The bill we are introducing today would provide new and improved 
tools to stop money laundering. Because it includes provisions that 
would outlaw the proceeds of foreign corruption, cut off the access of 
offshore shell banks to U.S. banks, and end foreign bank immunity to 
forfeiture of laundered funds, this bill would close some of the worst 
gaps and remedy some of the most glaring weaknesses in existing anti-
money laundering laws. For example, the bill would: 1. add foreign 
corruption offenses, such as bribery and theft of government funds, to 
the list of foreign crimes that can trigger a U.S. money laundering 
prosecution; 2. bar U.S. banks from providing banking services to 
foreign shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in 
any country and carry high money laundering risks; 3. require U.S. 
banks to conduct enhanced due diligence reviews to guard against money 
laundering when opening (a) a private bank account with $1 million or 
more for a foreign person, or (b) a correspondent account for an 
offshore bank or foreign bank in a country posing high money laundering 
risks; and 4. make a depositor's funds in a foreign bank's U.S. 
correspondent account subject to the same civil forfeiture rules that 
apply to depositors' funds in other U.S. bank accounts.
  These provisions are the product of almost three years of work by my 
staff at the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations examining 
money laundering problems in the private and correspondent banking 
fields. Countless interviews with money laundering experts, bankers, 
regulators, law enforcement personnel, criminals and victims, and the 
careful review of literally tens of thousands of pages of documents led 
to the issuance of two staff reports in 1999 and 2001, and several days 
of Subcommittee hearings, setting out the problems uncovered and 
recommendations for strengthening U.S. enforcement efforts.
  The first Subcommittee investigation examined private banking, a 
growing and lucrative banking sector which offers financial services to 
wealthy individuals, who usually must deposit $1 million or more to 
open a private bank account. In return, the client is assigned a 
``private banker'' who provides the client with sophisticated financial 
services, such as offshore accounts, shell corporations, and high 
dollar wire transfers, which raise money laundering concerns.
  A key issue to emerge from this investigation is the role that 
private banks play in opening accounts and accepting hundreds of 
millions of dollars in deposits from senior foreign officials or their 
relatives, even amid allegations or suspicions that the deposits may be 
the product of government corruption or other criminal conduct. The 
1999 staff report described four case histories of senior government 
officials or their relatives depositing hundreds of millions of suspect 
dollars into private bank accounts at Citibank, the largest bank in the 
United States. These case histories showed how Citibank Private Bank 
had become the banker for a rogues' gallery of senior government 
officials or their relatives. One infamous example is Raul Salinas, the 
brother of the former President of Mexico, who is imprisoned in Mexico 
for murder and is under indictment in

[[Page S8943]]

Switzerland for money laundering associated with drug trafficking. He 
deposited almost $100 million into his Citibank Private Bank accounts. 
Another example involves the three sons of General Sani Abacha, who was 
the former military leader of Nigeria and was notorious for 
misappropriating and extorting billions of dollars from his country. 
His sons deposited more than $110 million into Citibank Private Bank 
accounts.
  The investigation determined that Citibank's private bankers asked 
few questions before opening the accounts and accepting the funds. It 
also found that, because foreign corruption offenses are not currently 
on the list of crimes that can trigger a U.S. money laundering 
prosecution, corrupt foreign leaders may be targeting U.S. banks as a 
safe haven for their funds.
  Another striking aspect of the investigation was how a culture of 
secrecy pervaded most private banking transactions. Citibank private 
bankers, for example, routinely helped clients set up offshore shell 
companies and open bank accounts in the name of these companies or 
under other fictional names such as ``Bonaparte'' or ``Gelsobella.'' 
After opening these accounts, secrecy remained such a priority that 
Citibank private bankers were often told by their superiors not to keep 
any record in the United States disclosing the true owner of the 
offshore accounts or corporations they manage. One private banker told 
of stashing with his secretary a ``cheat sheet'' that identified which 
client owned which shell company in order to hide it from Citibank 
managers who did not allow such ownership information to be kept in the 
United States.

  On some occasions, Citibank Private Bank even hid ownership 
information from its own staff. For example, one Citibank private 
banker in London worked for years on a Salinas account without knowing 
Salinas was the beneficial owner. Salinas was instead referred to by 
the name of his offshore corporation, Trocca, Ltd., or by a code, ``CC-
2,'' which stood for ``Confidential Client Number 2.'' Citibank even 
went so far as to allow Mr. Salinas to deposit millions of dollars into 
his private bank accounts without putting his name on the wire 
transfers moving the funds, instead allowing his future wife, using an 
assumed name, to wire the funds through Citibank's own administrative 
accounts. Later, when Mr. Salinas' wife was arrested, Citibank 
discussed transferring all of his funds to Switzerland to minimize 
disclosure, abandoning that suggestion only after noting that the wire 
transfer documentation would disclose the funds' final destination.
  That's how far one major U.S. private bank went on client secrecy.
  The Subcommittee's second money laundering investigation focused on 
U.S. correspondent accounts opened for high risk foreign banks. 
Correspondent banking occurs when one bank provides services to another 
bank to move funds or carry out other financial transactions. It is an 
essential feature of international banking, allowing the rapid movement 
of funds across borders and enabling banks and their clients to conduct 
business worldwide, including in jurisdictions where the banks do not 
maintain offices.
  The problem uncovered by the Subcommittee's year-long investigation 
is that too many U.S. banks, through the correspondent accounts they 
provide to foreign banks that carry high risks of money laundering, 
have become conduits for illicit funds associated with drug 
trafficking, financial fraud, Internet gambling and other crimes. The 
investigation identified three categories of foreign banks with high 
risks of money laundering: shell banks, offshore banks, and banks in 
jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering controls. Because many 
U.S. banks have routinely failed to screen and monitor these high risk 
foreign banks as clients, they have been exposed to poorly regulated, 
poorly managed, sometimes corrupt, foreign banks with weak or no anti-
money laundering controls. The U.S. correspondent accounts have been 
used by these foreign banks, their owners and criminal clients to gain 
direct access to the U.S. financial system, to benefit from the safety 
and soundness of the U.S. banking system, and to launder dirty money 
through U.S. bank accounts.
  In February of this year, my staff released a 450 page report 
detailing the money laundering problems uncovered in correspondent 
banking. The report indicated that virtually every U.S. bank examined, 
from Chase Manhattan, to Bank of America, to First Union, to Citibank, 
had opened correspondent accounts for offshore banks. Citibank also 
admitted opening correspondent accounts for offshore shell banks with 
no physical presence in any jurisdiction.
  The report presents ten detailed case histories showing how high risk 
foreign banks managed to move billions of dollars through U.S. banks, 
including hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit funds associated 
with drug trafficking, financial fraud or Internet gambling. In some 
cases, the foreign banks were engaged in criminal behavior; in others, 
the foreign banks had such poor anti-money laundering controls that 
they did not know or appeared not to care whether their clients were 
engaged in criminal behavior. Several of the foreign banks operated 
well outside the parameters of normal banking practices, without basic 
fiscal or administrative controls, account opening procedures or anti-
money laundering safeguards. All had limited resources and staff and 
relied heavily upon their U.S. correspondent accounts to conduct 
operations, provide client services, and move funds. Most completed 
virtually all of their transactions through their correspondent 
accounts, making correspondent banking integral to their operations. 
The result was that their U.S. correspondent accounts served as a 
significant gateway into the U.S. financial system for criminals and 
money launderers.
  In March 2001, the Subcommittee held hearings on the problem of 
international correspondent banking and money laundering. One witness 
was a former owner of an offshore bank in the Cayman Islands, John 
Mathewson, who pleaded guilty in the United States to conspiracy to 
commit money laundering and tax evasion and has spent the past 5 years 
helping to prosecute his former clients for tax evasion and other 
crimes. Mr. Mathewson testified that he had charged his bank clients 
about $5,000 to set up an offshore shell corporation and another $3,000 
for an annual corporate management fee, before opening a bank account 
for them in the name of the shell corporation. He noted that no one 
would pay $8,000 for a bank account in the Cayman Islands when they 
could have the same account for free in the United States, unless they 
were willing to pay a premium for secrecy. He testified that 95 percent 
of his 2,000 clients were U.S. citizens, and he believed that 100 
percent of his bank clients were engaged in tax evasion. He 
characterized his offshore bank as a ``run-of-the-mill'' operation. He 
also said that the Achilles' heel of the offshore banking community is 
its dependence upon correspondent banks to do business and that was how 
jurisdictions like the United States could take control of the 
situation and stop abuses, if we had the political will to do so.
  I think we do have that political will, and that's why we are 
introducing this bill today. Let me describe some of its key 
provisions.
  The Money Laundering Abatement Act would add foreign corruption 
offenses such as bribery and theft of government funds to the list of 
crimes that can trigger a U.S. money laundering prosecution. This 
provision would make it clear that corrupt funds are not welcome here, 
and that corrupt leaders can expect criminal prosecutions if they try 
to stash dirty money in our banks. After all, America can't have it 
both ways. We can't condemn corruption abroad, be it officials taking 
bribes or looting their treasuries, and then tolerate American banks 
profiting off that corruption.
  Second, the bill would require U.S. banks and U.S. branches of 
foreign banks to exercise enhanced due diligence before opening a 
private bank account of $1 million or more for a foreign person, and to 
take particular care before opening accounts for foreign government 
officials, their close relatives or associates to make sure the funds 
are not tainted by corruption. This due diligence provision targets the 
greatest money laundering risks that the Subcommittee investigation 
identified in the private banking field. While some U.S. banks are 
already performing enhanced due diligence reviews, this provision would 
put

[[Page S8944]]

that requirement into law and bring U.S. law into alignment with most 
other countries engaged in the fight against money laundering.

  The Money Laundering Abatement Act would also put an end to some of 
the extreme secrecy practices at private banks. For example, if a U.S. 
bank or a U.S. branch of a foreign bank opened or managed an account in 
the United States for a foreign accountholder, the bill would require 
the bank to keep a record in the United States identifying that foreign 
accountholder. After all, U.S. banks already keep records of accounts 
held by U.S. citizens, and there is no reason to allow U.S. banks to 
administer offshore accounts for foreign accountholders with less 
openness than other U.S. bank accounts. The bill would also put an end 
to the type of secret fund transfers that went on in the Salinas matter 
by prohibiting bank clients from independently directing funds to be 
deposited into a bank's ``concentration account,'' an administrative 
account which merges and processes funds from multiple accounts and 
transactions, and by requiring banks to link client names to all client 
funds passing through the bank's concentration accounts.
  Our bill would also take a number of steps to close the door on money 
laundering through U.S. correspondent accounts. First and most 
importantly, our bill would bar any U.S. bank or U.S. branch of a 
foreign bank from opening a U.S. correspondent account for a foreign 
offshore shell bank, which the Subcommittee investigation found to pose 
the highest money laundering risks of all foreign banks. Shell banks 
are banks that have no physical presence anywhere--no office where 
customers can go to conduct banking transactions or where regulators 
can go to inspect records and observe bank operations. They also have 
no affiliation with any other bank and are not regulated through any 
affiliated bank.
  The Subcommittee investigation examined four shell banks in detail. 
All four were found to be operating far outside the parameters of 
normal banking practice, often without paid staff, basic fiscal and 
administrative controls, or anti-money laundering safeguards. All four 
also largely escaped regulatory oversight. All four used U.S. bank 
accounts to transact business and move millions of dollars in suspect 
funds associated with drug trafficking, financial fraud, bribe money or 
other misconduct.
  Let me describe one example from the Subcommittee's investigation. 
M.A. Bank was an offshore bank that was licensed in the Cayman Islands, 
but had no physical office of its own in any country. In 10 years of 
operation, M.A. Bank never underwent an examination by any bank 
regulator. Its owners have since admitted that the bank opened accounts 
in fictitious names, accepted deposits for unknown persons, allowed 
clients to authorize third parties to make large withdrawals, and 
manufactured withdrawal slips or receipts on request.
  Nevertheless, M.A. Bank was able to open a U.S. correspondent account 
at Citibank in New York. M.A. Bank used that account to move hundreds 
of millions of dollars for clients in Argentina, including $7.7 million 
in illegal drug money. After the Subcommittee staff began investigating 
the account, Citibank closed it. After the staff report came out, the 
Cayman Islands decided to close the bank, but since the bank had no 
office, Cayman regulators at first didn't know where to go. They 
eventually sent teams to Uruguay and Argentina to locate bank documents 
and take control of bank operations. The Cayman Islands finally closed 
the bank a few months ago.
  The four shell banks investigated by the Subcommittee are only the 
tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds in existence, operating through 
correspondent accounts in the United States and around the world.
  By nature, shell banks operate in extreme secrecy and are resistant 
to regulatory oversight. No one really knows what they are up to other 
than their owners. Some jurisdictions known for offshore businesses, 
such as Jersey and Guernsey, refuse to license shell banks. Others, 
such as the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas, stopped issuing shell bank 
licenses several years ago. In addition, both the Cayman Islands and 
Bahamas announced that by the end of this year, 2001, all of their 
existing shell banks, which together number about 120, must establish a 
physical office within their respective jurisdictions, or lose their 
license. But other offshore jurisdictions, such as Nauru, Vanuatu and 
Montenegro, are continuing to license shell banks. Nauru alone has 
licensed about 400.
  Here at home, many U.S. banks, such as Bank of America and Chase 
Manhattan, will not open correspondent bank accounts for offshore shell 
banks as a matter of policy. But other banks, such as Citibank, 
continue to do business with offshore shell banks and continue to 
expose the U.S. banking system to the money laundering risks they 
bring. Our bill would close the door to these money laundering risks. 
Foreign shell banks occupy the bottom rung of the banking world, and 
they don't deserve a place in the U.S. banking system. It is time to 
shut the door to these rogue operators.
  In addition to barring offshore shell banks, the bill would require 
U.S. banks to exercise enhanced due diligence before opening a 
correspondent account for an offshore bank or a bank licensed by a 
jurisdiction known for poor anti-money laundering controls. These 
foreign banks also expose U.S. banks to high money laundering risks. 
Requiring U.S. banks to exercise enhanced due diligence prior to 
opening an account for one of these banks would not only help protect 
the U.S. banking system from the money laundering risks posed by these 
foreign banks, but would also help bring U.S. law into parity with the 
anti-money laundering laws of other countries.
  Another provision in the bill would address a key weakness in 
existing U.S. forfeiture law as applied to correspondent banking, by 
making a depositor's funds in a foreign bank's U.S. correspondent 
account subject to the same civil forfeiture rules that apply to 
depositors' funds in all other U.S. bank accounts. Right now, due to a 
quirk in the law, U.S. law enforcement faces a significant and unusual 
legal barrier to seizing funds from a correspondent account. Unlike a 
regular U.S. bank account, it is not enough for U.S. law enforcement to 
show that criminal proceeds were deposited into the correspondent 
account; the government must also show that the foreign bank holding 
the deposits was somehow part of the wrongdoing.
  That's not only a tough job, that can be an impossible job. In many 
cases, the foreign bank will not have been part of the wrongdoing, but 
that's a strange reason for letting the foreign depositor who was 
engaged in the wrongdoing escape forfeiture. And in those cases where 
the foreign bank may have been involved, no prosecutor will be able to 
allege it in a complaint without first getting the resources needed to 
chase the foreign bank abroad.

  Take the example of a financial fraud committed by a Nigerian 
national against a U.S. victim, a fraud pattern which the U.S. State 
Department has identified as affecting many U.S. citizens and 
businesses and which consumes U.S. law enforcement resources across the 
country. If the Nigerian fraudster deposits the fraud victim's funds in 
a personal account at a U.S. bank, U.S. law enforcement can freeze the 
funds and litigate the case in court. But if the fraudster instead 
deposits the victim's funds in a U.S. correspondent account belonging 
to a Nigerian bank at which the Nigerian fraudster does business, U.S. 
law enforcement cannot freeze the funds unless it is prepared to show 
that the Nigerian bank was involved in the fraud. And what prosecutor 
has the resources to travel to Nigeria to investigate a Nigerian bank? 
Even when the victim is sitting in the prosecutor's office, and his 
funds are still in the United States in a U.S. bank, the prosecutor's 
hands are tied unless he or she is willing to take on the Nigerian bank 
as well as the Nigerian fraudster. That is one reason so many Nigerian 
fraud cases are no longer being prosecuted in this country, because 
Nigerian criminals are taking advantage of that quirk in U.S. 
forfeiture law to prevent law enforcement from seizing a victim's money 
before it is transferred out of the country.
  Our bill would eliminate that quirk by placing civil forfeitures of 
funds in correspondent accounts on the same footing as forfeitures of 
funds in all

[[Page S8945]]

other U.S. accounts. There is just no reason foreign banks should be 
shielded from forfeitures when U.S. banks would not be.
  The Levin-Grassley bill has a number of other provisions that would 
help U.S. law enforcement in the battle against money laundering. They 
include giving U.S. courts ``long-arm'' jurisdiction over foreign banks 
with U.S. correspondent accounts; expanding the definition of money 
laundering to include laundering funds through a foreign bank; 
authorizing U.S. prosecutors to use a Federal receiver to find a 
criminal defendant's assets, wherever located; and requiring foreign 
banks to designate a U.S. resident for service of subpoenas.
  These are realistic, practical provisions that could make a real 
difference in the fight against money laundering. One state Attorney 
General who has reviewed the bill has written that ``there is a serious 
need for modernizing and refining the federal money laundering statutes 
to thwart the efforts of the criminal element and close the loopholes 
they use to their advantage.'' He expresses ``strong support'' for the 
bill, explaining that it ``will greatly aid law enforcement'' and 
``provide new tools that will assist law enforcement in keeping pace 
with the modern money laundering schemes.'' Another state Attorney 
General has written that the bill ``would provide much needed relief 
from some of the most pressing problems in money laundering enforcement 
in the international arena.'' She predicts that the bill's ``effects on 
money laundering affecting victims of crime and illegal drug 
trafficking would be dramatic.'' She also writes that the ``burdens it 
places on the financial institutions are well considered, closely 
tailored to the problems, and reasonable in light of the public 
benefits involved.''
  This country passed its first major anti-money laundering law in 
1970, when Congress made clear its desire to not allow U.S. banks to 
function as conduits for dirty money. Since then, the world has 
experienced an enormous growth in the accumulation of wealth by 
individuals around the world, and in the activities of private banks 
servicing these clients. At the same time there has been a rapid 
increase in offshore activities, with the number of offshore 
jurisdictions doubling from about 30 to about 60, and the number of 
offshore banks skyrocketing to an estimated worldwide total of 4,000, 
including more than 500 shell banks.
  At the same time, the Subcommittee investigations have shown that 
private and correspondent accounts have become gateways for criminals 
to carry on money laundering and other criminal activity in the United 
States and to benefit from the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking 
industry. U.S. law enforcement needs stronger tools to detect, stop and 
prosecute money launderers attempting to use these gateways into the 
U.S. banking system. Enacting this legislation would help provide the 
tools needed to close those money laundering gateways and curb the 
dirty funds seeking entry into the U.S. banking industry.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters in support for the bill from the 
two State Attorneys General of the States of Massachusetts and Arizona, 
as well as a short summary of the bill, and the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1371

       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 ``Money Laundering Abatement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) money laundering, the process by which proceeds from 
     criminal activity are disguised as legitimate money, is 
     contrary to the national interest of the United States, 
     because it finances crime, undermines the integrity of 
     international financial systems, impedes the international 
     fight against corruption and drug trafficking, distorts 
     economies, and weakens emerging democracies and international 
     stability;
       (2) United States banks are frequently used to launder 
     dirty money, and private banking, which provides services to 
     individuals with large deposits, and correspondent banking, 
     which occurs when 1 bank provides financial services to 
     another bank, are specific banking sectors which are 
     particularly vulnerable to money laundering;
       (3) private banking is particularly vulnerable to money 
     laundering by corrupt foreign government officials because 
     the services provided (offshore accounts, secrecy, and large 
     international wire transfers) are also key tools used to 
     launder money;
       (4) correspondent banking is vulnerable to money laundering 
     because United States banks--
       (A) often fail to screen and monitor the transactions of 
     their high-risk foreign bank clients; and
       (B) enable the owners and clients of the foreign bank to 
     get indirect access to the United States banking system when 
     they would be unlikely to get access directly;
       (5) the high-risk foreign bank that currently poses the 
     greatest money laundering risks in the United States 
     correspondent banking field is a shell bank, which has no 
     physical presence in any country, is not affiliated with any 
     other bank, and is able to evade day-to-day bank regulation; 
     and
       (6) United States anti-money laundering efforts are 
     currently impeded by outmoded and inadequate statutory 
     provisions that make United States investigations, 
     prosecutions and forfeitures more difficult when money 
     laundering involves foreign persons, foreign banks, or 
     foreign countries.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to modernize and 
     strengthen existing Federal laws to combat money laundering, 
     particularly in the private banking and correspondent banking 
     fields when money laundering offenses involve foreign 
     persons, foreign banks, or foreign countries.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF FOREIGN CORRUPTION OFFENSES AS MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING CRIMES.

       Section 1956(c)(7)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or destruction of 
     property by means of explosive or fire'' and inserting 
     ``destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a 
     crime of violence (as defined in section 16)'';
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``1978'' and inserting 
     ``1978)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, against 
     that foreign nation or an entity of that foreign nation;
       ``(v) bribery of a public official, or the 
     misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by 
     or for the benefit of a public official;
       ``(vi) smuggling or export control violations involving--

       ``(I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions 
     List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or
       ``(II) technologies with military applications controlled 
     on any control list established under the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) or 
     any successor statute;

       ``(vii) an offense with respect to which the United States 
     would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to 
     extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for 
     prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory 
     of the United States; or
       ``(viii) the misuse of funds of, or provided by, the 
     International Monetary Fund in contravention of the Articles 
     of Agreement of the Fund or the misuse of funds of, or 
     provided by, any other international financial institution 
     (as defined in section 1701(c)(2) of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)) in 
     contravention of any treaty or other international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party, including any articles 
     of agreement of the members of the international financial 
     institution;''.

     SEC. 4. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING MEASURES FOR UNITED STATES BANK 
                   ACCOUNTS INVOLVING FOREIGN PERSONS.

       (a) Requirements Relating to United States Bank Accounts 
     Involving Foreign Persons.--Subchapter II of chapter 53 of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     section 5318 the following:

     ``Sec. 5318A. Requirements relating to United States bank 
       accounts involving foreign persons

       ``(a) Definitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Account.--The term `account'--
       ``(i) means a formal banking or business relationship 
     established to provide regular services, dealings, or 
     financial transactions; and
       ``(ii) includes a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other 
     transaction or asset account, and a credit account or other 
     extension of credit.
       ``(B) Branch or agency of a foreign bank.--The term `branch 
     or agency of a foreign bank' has the meanings given those 
     terms in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 
     (12 U.S.C. 3101).
       ``(C) Correspondent account.--The term `correspondent 
     account' means an account established for a depository 
     institution, credit union, or foreign bank.
       ``(D) Correspondent bank.--The term `correspondent bank' 
     means a depository institution, credit union, or foreign bank 
     that establishes a correspondent account for and provides 
     banking services to a depository institution, credit union, 
     or foreign bank.
       ``(E) Covered financial institution.--The term `covered 
     financial institution' means--
       ``(i) a depository institution;
       ``(ii) a credit union; and
       ``(iii) a branch or agency of a foreign bank.
       ``(F) Credit union.--The term `credit union' means any 
     insured credit union, as

[[Page S8946]]

     defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1752), or any credit union that is eligible to make 
     application to become an insured credit union pursuant to 
     section 201 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1781).
       ``(G) Depository institution.--The term `depository 
     institution' has the same meaning as in section 3 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).
       ``(H) Foreign bank.--The term `foreign bank' has the same 
     meaning as in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 
     1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).
       ``(I) Foreign country.--The term `foreign country' has the 
     same meaning as in section 1 of the International Banking Act 
     of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).
       ``(J) Foreign person.--The term `foreign person' means any 
     foreign organization or any individual resident in a foreign 
     country or any organization or individual owned or controlled 
     by such an organization or individual.
       ``(K) Offshore banking license.--The term `offshore banking 
     license' means a license to conduct banking activities which, 
     as a condition of the license, prohibits the licensed entity 
     from conducting banking activities with the citizens of, or 
     with the local currency of, the foreign country which issued 
     the license.
       ``(L) Private bank account.--The term `private bank 
     account' means an account (or combination of accounts) that--
       ``(i) requires a minimum aggregate deposit of funds or 
     assets in an amount equal to not less than $1,000,000;
       ``(ii) is established on behalf of 1 or more individuals 
     who have a direct or beneficial ownership interest in the 
     account; and
       ``(iii) is assigned to, administered, or managed in whole 
     or in part by an employee of a financial institution acting 
     as a liaison between the institution and the direct or 
     beneficial owner of the account.
       ``(2) Other terms.--After consultation with the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Secretary may, 
     by regulation, order, or otherwise as permitted by law, 
     define any term that is used in this section and that is not 
     otherwise defined in this section or section 5312, as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(b) United States Bank Accounts With Unidentified Foreign 
     Owners.--
       ``(1) Records.--
       ``(A) In general.--A covered financial institution shall 
     not establish, maintain, administer, or manage an account in 
     the United States for a foreign person or a representative of 
     a foreign person, unless the covered financial institution 
     maintains in the United States, for each such account, a 
     record identifying, by a verifiable name and account number, 
     each individual or entity having a direct or beneficial 
     ownership interest in the account.
       ``(B) Publicly traded corporations.--A record required 
     under subparagraph (A) that identifies an entity, the shares 
     of which are publicly traded on a stock exchange regulated by 
     an organization or agency that is a member of and endorses 
     the principles of the International Organization of 
     Securities Commissions (in this section referred to as 
     `publicly traded'), is not required to identify individual 
     shareholders of the entity.
       ``(C) Foreign banks.--In the case of a correspondent 
     account that is established for a foreign bank, the shares of 
     which are not publicly traded, the record required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall identify each of the owners of the 
     foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership 
     interest of each such owner.
       ``(2) Complex ownership interests.--The Secretary may, by 
     regulation, order, or otherwise as permitted by law, further 
     delineate the information to be maintained in the United 
     States under paragraph (1)(A), including information for 
     accounts with multiple, complex, or changing ownership 
     interests.
       ``(c) Prohibition on United States Correspondent Accounts 
     With Foreign Shell Banks.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered financial institution shall 
     not establish, maintain, administer, or manage a 
     correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf 
     of, a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in 
     any country.
       ``(2) Prevention of indirect service to foreign shell 
     banks.--A covered financial institution shall take reasonable 
     steps to ensure that any correspondent account established, 
     maintained, administered, or managed by that covered 
     financial institution in the United States for a foreign bank 
     is not being used by that foreign bank to indirectly provide 
     banking services to another foreign bank that does not have a 
     physical presence in any country.
       ``(3) Exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not prohibit a 
     covered financial institution from providing a correspondent 
     account to a foreign bank, if the foreign bank--
       ``(A) is an affiliate of a depository institution, credit 
     union, or other foreign bank that maintains a physical 
     presence in the United States or a foreign country, as 
     applicable; and
       ``(B) is subject to supervision by a banking authority in 
     the country regulating the affiliated depository institution, 
     credit union, or foreign bank, described in subparagraph (A), 
     as applicable.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `affiliate' means a foreign bank that is 
     controlled by or is under common control with a depository 
     institution, credit union, or foreign bank; and
       ``(B) the term `physical presence' means a place of 
     business that--
       ``(i) is maintained by a foreign bank;
       ``(ii) is located at a fixed address (other than solely an 
     electronic address) in a country in which the foreign bank is 
     authorized to conduct banking activities, at which location 
     the foreign bank--

       ``(I) employs 1 or more individuals on a full-time basis; 
     and
       ``(II) maintains operating records related to its banking 
     activities; and

       ``(iii) is subject to inspection by the banking authority 
     which licensed the foreign bank to conduct banking 
     activities.
       ``(d) Due Diligence for United States Private Bank and 
     Correspondent Bank Accounts Involving Foreign Persons.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each covered financial institution that 
     establishes, maintains, administers, or manages a private 
     bank account or a correspondent account in the United States 
     for a foreign person or a representative of a foreign person 
     shall establish enhanced due diligence policies, procedures, 
     and controls to prevent, detect, and report possible 
     instances of money laundering through those accounts.
       ``(2) Minimum standards.--The enhanced due diligence 
     policies, procedures, and controls required under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, shall, at a minimum, ensure that the 
     covered financial institution--
       ``(A) ascertains the identity of each individual or entity 
     having a direct or beneficial ownership interest in the 
     account, and obtains sufficient information about the 
     background of the individual or entity and the source of 
     funds deposited into the account as is needed to guard 
     against money laundering;
       ``(B) monitors such accounts on an ongoing basis to 
     prevent, detect, and report possible instances of money 
     laundering;
       ``(C) conducts enhanced scrutiny of any private bank 
     account requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a senior 
     foreign political figure, or any immediate family member or 
     close associate of a senior foreign political figure, to 
     prevent, detect, and report transactions that may involve the 
     proceeds of foreign corruption;
       ``(D) conducts enhanced scrutiny of any correspondent 
     account requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a 
     foreign bank operating--
       ``(i) under an offshore banking license; or
       ``(ii) under a banking license issued by a foreign country 
     that has been designated--

       ``(I) as noncooperative with international anti-money 
     laundering principles or procedures by an intergovernmental 
     group or organization of which the United States is a member; 
     or
       ``(II) by the Secretary as warranting special measures due 
     to money laundering concerns; and

       ``(E) ascertains, as part of the enhanced scrutiny under 
     subparagraph (D), whether the foreign bank provides 
     correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the 
     identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence 
     information, as appropriate, under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Regulatory Authority.--After consultation with the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury may, by regulation, order, or 
     otherwise as permitted by law, take measures that the 
     Secretary deems appropriate to carry out section 5318A of 
     title 31, United States Code (as added by this section).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5312(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     except as otherwise provided in this subchapter.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after the item related to section 
     5318 the following:

``5318A. Requirements relating to United States bank accounts involving 
              foreign persons.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--Section 5318A of title 31, United 
     States Code, as added by this section, shall take effect 
     beginning 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
     with respect to accounts covered by that section that are 
     opened before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN MONEY LAUNDERERS.

       Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (3) inserting ``, or section 1957'' after ``or (a)(3)''; 
     and
       (4) adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or 
     enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district 
     courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, 
     including any financial institution authorized under the laws 
     of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if 
     service of process upon the foreign person is made under the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country 
     in which the foreign person is found, and--

[[Page S8947]]

       ``(A) the foreign person commits an offense under 
     subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs 
     in whole or in part in the United States;
       ``(B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, 
     property in which the United States has an ownership interest 
     by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court 
     of the United States; or
       ``(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that 
     maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the 
     United States.
       ``(3) A court, described in paragraph (2), may issue a 
     pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary 
     to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the 
     defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a 
     judgment under this section.
       ``(4) A court, described in paragraph (2), may appoint a 
     Federal Receiver, in accordance with paragraph (5), to 
     collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession 
     of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy 
     a judgment under this section or section 981, 982, or 1957, 
     including an order of restitution to any victim of a 
     specified unlawful activity.
       ``(5) A Federal Receiver, described in paragraph (4)--
       ``(A) may be appointed upon application of a Federal 
     prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court 
     having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
       ``(B) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of 
     the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out in 
     section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
       ``(C) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal 
     prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain 
     information regarding the assets of the defendant--
       ``(i) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the 
     Department of the Treasury; or
       ``(ii) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal 
     assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other 
     arrangement for international law enforcement assistance, 
     provided that such requests are in accordance with the 
     policies and procedures of the Attorney General.''.

     SEC. 6. LAUNDERING MONEY THROUGH A FOREIGN BANK.

       Section 1956(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) the term `financial institution' includes--
       ``(A) any financial institution, as defined in section 
     5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the 
     regulations promulgated thereunder; and
       ``(B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the 
     International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).''.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON FALSE STATEMENTS TO FINANCIAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS CONCERNING THE IDENTITY OF A 
                   CUSTOMER.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1007 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1008. False statements concerning the identity of 
       customers of financial institutions

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly in any manner--
       ``(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up, or attempts to 
     falsify, conceal, or cover up, the identity of any person in 
     connection with any transaction with a financial institution;
       ``(2) makes, or attempts to make, any materially false, 
     fraudulent, or fictitious statement or representation of the 
     identity of any person in connection with a transaction with 
     a financial institution;
       ``(3) makes or uses, or attempts to make or use, any false 
     writing or document knowing the same to contain any 
     materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
     entry concerning the identity of any person in connection 
     with a transaction with a financial institution; or
       ``(4) uses or presents, or attempts to use or present, in 
     connection with a transaction with a financial institution, 
     an identification document or means of identification the 
     possession of which is a violation of section 1028;

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Financial institution.--The term `financial 
     institution'--
       ``(A) has the same meaning as in section 20; and
       ``(B) in addition, has the same meaning as in section 
     5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(2) Identification document.--The term `identification 
     document' has the same meaning as in section 1028(d).
       ``(3) Means of identification.--The term `means of 
     identification' has the same meaning as in section 
     1028(d).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Title 18, united states code.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``1014 
     (relating to fraudulent loan'' and inserting ``section 1008 
     (relating to false statements concerning the identity of 
     customers of financial institutions), section 1014 (relating 
     to fraudulent loan''.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1007 the following:

``1008. False statements concerning the identity of customers of 
              financial institutions.''.

     SEC. 8. CONCENTRATION ACCOUNTS AT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 5318(h) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Concentration accounts.--The Secretary shall issue 
     regulations under this subsection that govern maintenance of 
     concentration accounts by financial institutions, in order to 
     ensure that such accounts are not used to prevent association 
     of the identity of an individual customer with the movement 
     of funds of which the customer is the direct or beneficial 
     owner, which regulations shall, at a minimum--
       ``(A) prohibit financial institutions from allowing clients 
     to direct transactions that move their funds into, out of, or 
     through the concentration accounts of the financial 
     institution;
       ``(B) prohibit financial institutions and their employees 
     from informing customers of the existence of, or the means of 
     identifying, the concentration accounts of the institution; 
     and
       ``(C) require each financial institution to establish 
     written procedures governing the documentation of all 
     transactions involving a concentration account, which 
     procedures shall ensure that, any time a transaction 
     involving a concentration account commingles funds belonging 
     to 1 or more customers, the identity of, and specific amount 
     belonging to, each customer is documented.''.

     SEC. 9. CHARGING MONEY LAUNDERING AS A COURSE OF CONDUCT.

       Section 1956(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by --
       (1) inserting ``(1)'' before ``Any person''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Any person who commits multiple violations of this 
     section or section 1957 that are part of the same scheme or 
     continuing course of conduct may be charged, at the election 
     of the Government, in a single count in an indictment or 
     information.''.

     SEC. 10. FUNGIBLE PROPERTY IN BANK ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 984 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) The provisions of this section may be invoked only if 
     the action for forfeiture was commenced by the seizure or 
     restraint of the property, or by the filing of a complaint, 
     within 2 years of the offense that is the basis for the 
     forfeiture.''.
       (b) Application.--The amendment made by this section shall 
     apply to any offense committed on or after the date which is 
     2 years before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 11. FORFEITURE OF FUNDS IN UNITED STATES INTERBANK 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Forfeiture From United States Interbank Account.--
     Section 981 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Interbank Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of a forfeiture under 
     this section or under the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.), if funds are deposited into an account 
     at a foreign bank, and that foreign bank has an interbank 
     account in the United States with a covered financial 
     institution (as defined in section 5318A of title 31), the 
     funds shall be deemed to have been deposited into the 
     interbank account in the United States, and any restraining 
     order, seizure warrant, or arrest warrant in rem regarding 
     the funds may be served on the covered financial institution, 
     and funds in the interbank account, up to the value of the 
     funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank, may be 
     restrained, seized, or arrested.
       ``(2) No requirement for government to trace funds.--If a 
     forfeiture action is brought against funds that are 
     restrained, seized, or arrested under paragraph (1), it shall 
     not be necessary for the Government to establish that the 
     funds are directly traceable to the funds that were deposited 
     into the foreign bank, nor shall it be necessary for the 
     Government to rely on the application of section 984.
       ``(3) Claims brought by owner of the funds.--If a 
     forfeiture action is instituted against funds restrained, 
     seized, or arrested under paragraph (1), the owner of the 
     funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank may 
     contest the forfeiture by filing a claim under section 983.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Interbank account.--The term `interbank account' has 
     the same meaning as in section 984(c)(2)(B).
       ``(B) Owner.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     term `owner'--

       ``(I) has the same meaning as in section 983(d)(6); and
       ``(II) does not include any foreign bank or other financial 
     institution acting as an intermediary in the transfer of 
     funds into the interbank account and having no ownership 
     interest in the funds sought to be forfeited.

       ``(ii) Exception.--The foreign bank may be considered the 
     `owner' of the funds (and no other person shall qualify as 
     the owner of such funds) only if--

       ``(I) the basis for the forfeiture action is wrongdoing 
     committed by the foreign bank; or
       ``(II) the foreign bank establishes, by a preponderance of 
     the evidence, that prior to the restraint, seizure, or arrest 
     of the funds, the foreign bank had discharged all or part of 
     its

[[Page S8948]]

     obligation to the prior owner of the funds, in which case the 
     foreign bank shall be deemed the owner of the funds to the 
     extent of such discharged obligation.''.

       (b) Bank Records.--Section 5318 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Bank Records Related to Anti-Money Laundering 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
     `appropriate Federal banking agency' has the same meaning as 
     in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1813).
       ``(B) Incorporated terms.--The terms `correspondent 
     account', `covered financial institution', and `foreign bank' 
     have the same meanings as in section 5318A.
       ``(2) 48-hour rule.--Not later than 48 hours after 
     receiving a request by an appropriate Federal banking agency 
     for information related to anti-money laundering compliance 
     by a covered financial institution or a customer of such 
     institution, a covered financial institution shall provide to 
     the appropriate Federal banking agency, or make available at 
     a location specified by the representative of the appropriate 
     Federal banking agency, information and account documentation 
     for any account opened, maintained, administered or managed 
     in the United States by the covered financial institution.
       ``(3) Foreign bank records.--
       ``(A) Summons or subpoena of records.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary or the Attorney General 
     may issue a summons or subpoena to any foreign bank that 
     maintains a correspondent account in the United States and 
     request records related to such correspondent account.
       ``(ii) Service of summons or subpoena.--A summons or 
     subpoena referred to in clause (i) may be served on the 
     foreign bank in the United States if the foreign bank has a 
     representative in the United States, or in a foreign country 
     pursuant to any mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral 
     agreement, or other request for international law enforcement 
     assistance.
       ``(B) Acceptance of service.--
       ``(i) Maintaining records in the united states.--Any 
     covered financial institution which maintains a correspondent 
     account in the United States for a foreign bank shall 
     maintain records in the United States identifying the owners 
     of such foreign bank and the name and address of a person who 
     resides in the United States and is authorized to accept 
     service of legal process for records regarding the 
     correspondent account.
       ``(ii) Law enforcement request.--Upon receipt of a written 
     request from a Federal law enforcement officer for 
     information required to be maintained under this paragraph, 
     the covered financial institution shall provide the 
     information to the requesting officer not later than 7 days 
     after receipt of the request.
       ``(C) Termination of correspondent relationship.--
       ``(i) Termination upon receipt of notice.--A covered 
     financial institution shall terminate any correspondent 
     relationship with a foreign bank not later than 10 days after 
     receipt of written notice from the Secretary or the Attorney 
     General that the foreign bank has failed--

       ``(I) to comply with a summons or subpoena issued under 
     subparagraph (A); or
       ``(II) to initiate proceedings in a United States court 
     contesting such summons or subpoena.

       ``(ii) Limitation on liability.--A covered financial 
     institution shall not be liable to any person in any court or 
     arbitration proceeding for terminating a correspondent 
     relationship in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(iii) Failure to terminate relationship.--Failure to 
     terminate a correspondent relationship in accordance with 
     this subsection shall render the covered financial 
     institution liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per 
     day until the correspondent relationship is so terminated.''.
       (c) Authority To Order Convicted Criminal To Return 
     Property Located Abroad.--
       (1) Forfeiture of substitute property.--Section 413 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) is amended by 
     striking subsection (p) and inserting the following:
       ``(p) Forfeiture of Substitute Property.--
       ``(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of this subsection shall 
     apply, if any property described in subsection (a), as a 
     result of any act or omission of the defendant--
       ``(A) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
       ``(B) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a 
     third party;
       ``(C) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
       ``(D) has been substantially diminished in value; or
       ``(E) has been commingled with other property which cannot 
     be divided without difficulty.
       ``(2) Substitute property.--In any case described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), the court 
     shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the 
     defendant, up to the value of any property described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), as 
     applicable.
       ``(3) Return of property to jurisdiction.--In the case of 
     property described in paragraph (1)(C), the court may, in 
     addition to any other action authorized by this subsection, 
     order the defendant to return the property to the 
     jurisdiction of the court so that the property may be seized 
     and forfeited.''.
       (2) Protective orders.--Section 413(e) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(e)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) Order to repatriate and deposit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Pursuant to its authority to enter a 
     pretrial restraining order under this section, including its 
     authority to restrain any property forfeitable as substitute 
     assets, the court may order a defendant to repatriate any 
     property that may be seized and forfeited, and to deposit 
     that property pending trial in the registry of the court, or 
     with the United States Marshals Service or the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, in an interest-bearing account, if appropriate.
       ``(B) Failure to comply.--Failure to comply with an order 
     under this subsection, or an order to repatriate property 
     under subsection (p), shall be punishable as a civil or 
     criminal contempt of court, and may also result in an 
     enhancement of the sentence of the defendant under the 
     obstruction of justice provision of the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines.''.

     SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, shall take effect 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


               Summary of Money Laundering Abatement Act

       Foreign Corruption. Expands the list of foreign crimes 
     triggering a U.S. money laundering offense to include foreign 
     corruption offenses such as bribery and misappropriation of 
     government funds.
       Unidentified Foreign Accountholders. Requires U.S. banks 
     and U.S. branches of foreign banks opening or managing a bank 
     account in the United States for a foreign person to keep a 
     record in the United States identifying the account owner.
       Foreign Shell Banks. Bars U.S. banks and U.S. branches of 
     foreign banks from providing direct or indirect banking 
     services to foreign shell banks that have no physical 
     presence in any country and no bank affiliation.
       Foreign Private Bank and Correspondent Accounts. Requires 
     U.S. banks and U.S. branches of foreign banks that open a 
     private bank account with $1 million or more for a foreign 
     person, or a correspondent account for an offshore bank or 
     foreign bank in a country posing high money laundering risks, 
     to conduct enhanced due diligence reviews of those accounts 
     to guard against money laundering.
       Foreign Bank Forfeitures. Modifies forfeiture rules for 
     foreign banks' correspondent accounts by making a depositor's 
     funds in a foreign bank's U.S. correspondent account subject 
     to the same civil forfeiture rules that apply to depositors' 
     funds in other U.S. bank accounts.
       Additional Measures Targeting Foreign Money Laundering.
       Gives U.S. courts ``long-arm'' jurisdiction over foreign 
     persons committing money laundering offenses in the United 
     States, over foreign banks opening U.S. bank accounts, and 
     over foreign persons seizing assets ordered forfeited by a 
     U.S. court.
       Expands the definition of money laundering to include 
     laundering funds through a foreign bank.
       Authorizes U.S. courts to order a convicted criminal to 
     return property located abroad and, in civil forfeiture 
     proceedings, to order a defendant to return such property 
     pending a civil trial on the merits. Authorizes U.S. 
     prosecutors to use a court-appointed Federal Receiver to find 
     a criminal defendant's assets, wherever located.
       Authorizes Federal law enforcement to subpoena a foreign 
     bank with a U.S. correspondent account for account records, 
     and ask the U.S. correspondent bank to identify a U.S. 
     resident who can accept the subpoena. Requires the U.S. 
     correspondent bank, if it receives government notice that the 
     foreign bank refuses to comply or contest the subpoena in 
     court, to close the foreign bank's account.
       Other measures would make it a Federal crime to knowingly 
     falsify a bank customer's true identity; bar bank clients 
     from anonymously directing funds through a bank's general 
     administrative or ``concentration'' accounts; extend the 
     statute of limitations for civil forfeiture proceedings; 
     simplify pleading requirements for money laundering 
     indictments; and require banks to provide prompt responses to 
     regulatory requests for anti-money laundering information.
                                  ____

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney 
           General,
                                       Boston, MA, August 1, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: This letter is to express my strong 
     support for the Money Laundering Abatement Act. As I am sure 
     you are aware, money laundering has become increasingly 
     prevalent in recent years. As law enforcement has worked to 
     curb the illegal laundering of funds, the criminal element 
     has become more sophisticated and focused in its efforts to 
     evade the grasp of the law. Specifically, money launderers 
     are taking advantage of foreign shell banks, and banks in 
     jurisdictions with weak money laundering controls to hide 
     their ill-gotten gains.

[[Page S8949]]

       At this juncture, there is a serious need for modernizing 
     and redefining the Federal money laundering statutes to 
     thwart the efforts of the criminal element and close the 
     loopholes they use to their advantage. The money laundering 
     business has taken advantage of its ability under current law 
     to use foreign banks, largely without negative consequences. 
     This is an issue that must be addressed on the Federal level 
     because of its international element. Moreover, in the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there is no state level money 
     laundering legislation. As a result, we rely on Federal/State 
     law enforcement partnership to eradicate money laundering. 
     The only hope for eliminating international money laundering 
     ties within our State lies with the United States Congress. I 
     encourage the Congress to take the necessary steps to assist 
     State and Federal law enforcement in their continuing efforts 
     to control the illegal laundering of funds.
       The Money Laundering Abatement Act is an important step in 
     that process. Among many useful provisions, the Act prohibits 
     United States banks from providing services to foreign shell 
     banks that have no physical presence in any country, and as a 
     result, are easily used in the laundering of illegal funds. 
     In addition, the legislation provides for enhanced due 
     diligence procedures by United States banks which will at the 
     very least detect money laundering, and will also undoubtedly 
     deter it in the first place. Further, the Act makes it a 
     federal crime to knowingly falsify a bank customer's true 
     identity, which will make tracing of funds immeasurably 
     easier. In addition to these few provisions that I have 
     mentioned, the Act contains many other measures that will 
     greatly aid law enforcement in its mission.
       I strongly support your efforts to assist state and federal 
     law enforcement in their money laundering control efforts 
     through the Money Laundering Abatement Act. The legislation 
     strengthens the existing anti-money laundering structure and 
     provides new tools that will assist law enforcement in 
     keeping pace with the modern money laundering schemes. Good 
     luck in your efforts to pass this vital legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas F. Reilly.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Arizona,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                      Phoenix, AZ, August 2, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Levin and Grassley: I write to express my 
     views on the Money Laundering Abatement Act you are planning 
     to introduce soon. This bill would provide much needed relief 
     from some of the most pressing problems in money laundering 
     enforcement in the internation arena. The burdens it places 
     on the financial institutions are well considered, closely 
     tailored to the problems, and reasonable in light of the 
     public benefits involved.
       The bill focuses on the structural arrangements that allow 
     major money launderers to operate. These include the use of 
     shell banks and foreign accounts, abuse of private banking, 
     evasion of law enforcement efforts to acquire necessary 
     records, and of safe foreign havens for criminal proceeds. 
     The approach is very encouraging, because efforts to limit 
     the abuse of these international money laundering tools and 
     techniques must come from Congress rather than the state 
     legislatures, and because such measures attack money 
     laundering at a deeper and more lasting level than simpler 
     measures.
       The focus on structural matters means that this bill's 
     effects on cases actually prosecuted by state attorneys 
     general are a relatively small part of the substantial 
     effects its passage would have on money laundering as a 
     whole. Nevertheless, its effects on money laundering 
     affecting victims of crime and illegal drug trafficking would 
     be dramatic. I will use two exmples from my Office's present 
     money lauderning efforts
       My Office initiated a program to combat so-called ``prime 
     bank fraud'' in 1996, and continued to focus on these cases. 
     Some years ago, the International Chamber of Commerce 
     estimated that over $10 million per day is invested in this 
     wholly fraudulent investment scam. The ``PBI'' business has 
     grown substantially since then. To date, my Office has 
     recovered over $46 million in these cases, directly and in 
     concert with U.S. Attorneys and SEC. Prime bank fraudsters 
     rely heavily on the money movement and concealment techniques 
     that this bill would address, particularly foreign bank 
     accounts, shell banks, accounts in false identities, movement 
     of funds through ``concentration'' accounts, and impunity 
     from efforts to repatriate stolen funds. One of our targets 
     was sentenced recently in federal court to over eight years 
     in prison and ordered to make restitution of over $9 million, 
     but without the tools provided in this bill, there is little 
     hope that the victims will ever see anything that was not 
     seized for forfeiture in the early stages of the 
     investigation.
       My Office is now engaged in a program to control the 
     laundering of funds through the money transmitters in 
     Arizona, as part of the much larger problem of illegal money 
     movement to and through the Southwest border region. This 
     mechanism is a major facilitator of the drug smuggling 
     operations. Foreign bank accounts and correspondence 
     accounts, immunity from U.S. forfeitures, and false ownership 
     are significant barriers to successful control of money 
     laundering in the Southwest.
       Your bill is an example of the immense value of 
     institutions like the Permanent Subcommittee of 
     Investigations, because this type of bill requires a deeper 
     understanding of the issues that come from long term 
     inquiries by professional staff. We who are involved in state 
     level money laundering control efforts should be particularly 
     supportive of such long term strategies because they are most 
     important to the quality of life of our citizens.
       I commend your efforts for introducing this important 
     legislation and will assist you in anyway I can to gain its 
     passage.
           Yours very truly,
                                                 Janet Napolitano,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1374. A bill to provide for a study of the effects of hydraulic 
fracturing on underground drinking water sources; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with the senior 
Senator from Nevada, very important legislation to remedy an 
unnecessary impediment to natural gas production.
  In 1997, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that hydraulic fracturing, a 
process for stimulating development in certain types of gas wells, 
constituted as ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. As such, the State of Alabama was required to establish standards 
by which all hydraulic fracturing operations associated with natural 
gas development would be required to obtain a permit under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. This is an expensive and time consuming process, 
and one that appears unnecessary for protection of underground sources 
of drinking water.
  The Environmental Protection Agency argued before the Eleventh 
Circuit that hydraulic fracturing did not pose a threat to underground 
sources of drinking water, and should not be subject to regulation 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Eleventh Circuit did not find 
that hydraulic fracturing in fact threatened underground sources of 
drinking water. Instead, the Court found only that, as written, the 
definition of ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act included the process of hydraulic fracturing.
  Natural gas, including gas from coalbed methane and other 
unconventional source, is becoming an increasingly important energy 
source for the United States. It is a clean burning, domestically 
produced resource, the increased production of which will both enhance 
our energy security and help us address the problem of global warming.
  Protection of drinking water is also an issue of the highest 
priority. However, it appears that the situation created by the 
Eleventh Circuit's decision is not one that addresses protection of 
underground sources of drinking water, because the Court did not find 
any harm to drinking water associated with groundwater production. 
Instead, this appears to be a situation where a technical reading of a 
statute creates expensive permitting requirements not associated with a 
real on-the-ground need.
  The legislation introduced by myself and Senator Reid will require 
the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Secretary of Energy, the Groundwater Protection Council, affected 
States, and other entities, as appropriate, to conduct a study on any 
impacts from hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking 
water.
  If the Administration determines that hydraulic fracturing endangers 
underground sources of drinking water, the Administrator shall regulate 
it under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  If, however, the Administrator determines that hydraulic fracturing 
will not endangered underground sources of drinking water, the 
Administrator shall not regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
In that case, States, including the State of Alabama, shall likewise 
not be required to regulate hydraulic fracturing as an underground 
injection under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Our bill addresses regulation under section 1421 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300h. Under current law, States are entitled to 
make a showing under section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 
U.S.C. 300H-4, that for certain oil and gas operations, the State 
regulations satisfy the statutory

[[Page S8950]]

requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the State will 
therefore not be required to promulgate regulations under section 1422 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  It is our intention that the provisions of Section 1425 apply to 
hydraulic fracturing operations, and it is our understanding that this 
is the status of current law. This issue is currently being litigated 
before the Eleventh Circuit. Should the Eleventh Circuit decide 
otherwise, we will address the issue as appropriate at that time.
  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. 1374

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This act may be cited as the ``Hydraulic Fracturing Act''.

     SEC. 2. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

       Section 1421 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas Production.--
       ``(1) Study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     complete a study of the known and potential effects on 
     underground drinking water sources of hydraulic fracturing, 
     including the effects of hydraulic fracturing on underground 
     drinking water sources on a nationwide basis, and within 
     specific regions, states, or portions of states.
       ``(B) Consultation.--In planning and conducting the study, 
     the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Ground Water 
     Protection Council, affected States, and, as appropriate, 
     representatives of environmental, industry, academic, 
     scientific, public health, and other relevant organizations. 
     Such study may be accomplished in conjunction with other 
     ongoing studies related to the effects of oil and gas 
     production on groundwater resources.
       ``(C) Study elements.--The study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall, at a minimum, examine and make 
     findings as to whether--
       ``(i) such hydraulic fracturing has, or will, endanger (as 
     defined under subsection (d)(2)) underground drinking water 
     sources, including those sources within specific regions, 
     states or portions of states;
       ``(ii) there are specific methods, practices, or 
     hydrogeologic circumstances in which hydraulic fracturing 
     has, or will, endanger underground drinking water sources; 
     and
       ``(iii) whether there are any precautionary actions that 
     may reduce or eliminate any such endangerment.
       ``(2) Independent scientific review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 months after the study 
     under paragraph (1) is completed, the Administrator shall 
     enter into an appropriate agreement with the National Academy 
     of Sciences to have the Academy review the conclusions of the 
     study.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 9 months after entering into 
     an appropriate agreement with the Administrator, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall report to the Administrator, and 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, on the--
       ``(i) findings related to the study conducted by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) recommendations, if any, for modifying the findings 
     of the study.
       ``(3) Regulatory determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after receiving 
     the National Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), 
     the Administrator shall determine, after informal public 
     hearings and public notice and opportunity for comment, and 
     based on information developed or accumulated in connection 
     with the study required under paragraph (1) and the National 
     Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), either:
       ``(i) that regulation of hydraulic fracturing under this 
     part is necessary to ensure that underground sources of 
     drinking water will not be endangered on a nationwide basis, 
     or within a specific region, state or portions of a state; or
       ``(ii) that regulation described under clause (i) is 
     unnecessary.
       ``(B) Publication of determination.--The Administrator 
     shall publish the determination in the Federal Register, 
     accompanied by an explanation and the reasons for it.
       ``(4) Promulgation of regulations.
       ``(A) Regulation necessary.--If the Administrator 
     determines under paragraph (3) that regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing under this part is necessary to ensure that 
     hydraulic fracturing does not endanger underground drinking 
     water sources on a nationwide basis, or within a specific 
     region, State or portions of a State, the Administrator 
     shall, within 6 months after issuance of that determination, 
     and after public notice and opportunity for comment, 
     promulgate regulations under section 1421 (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h) to ensure that hydraulic fracturing will not 
     endanger such underground sources of drinking water.
       ``(B) Regulation unnecessary.--The Administrator shall not 
     promulgate regulations for hydraulic fracturing under this 
     part unless the Administrator determines under paragraph (3) 
     that such regulations are necessary.
       ``(C) Existing regulations.--A determination by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3) that regulation is 
     unnecessary will relieve states from any further obligation 
     to regulate hydraulic fracturing as an underground injection 
     under this part.
       ``(5) Definition of hydraulic fracturing.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term ``hydraulic fracturing'' means the 
     process of creating a fracture in a reservoir rock, and 
     injecting fluids and propping agents, for the purposes of 
     reservoir stimulation related to oil and gas production 
     activities.
       ``(6) Savings.--Nothing in this subsection shall in any way 
     limit the authorities of the Administrator under section 1431 
     (42 U.S.C. 300i).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 1376. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to ensure that Medicare + Choice eligible individuals have 
sufficient time to consider information and to make an informed choice 
regarding enrollment in a Medicare + Choice plan; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Medicare Beneficiary Information Act. It is vital that Medicare + 
Choice participants receive plan information in a timely, appropriate 
manner.
  Under the Social Security Act, HMOs participating in the Medicare + 
Choice program are required to submit all of their plan information, 
including the type, cost and scope of benefits they intend to offer, by 
July 1st of each year. Upon receiving this information, the Secretary 
of HHS is required to prepare a booklet that compares the benefits and 
costs of each plan, and disseminate the information to seniors prior to 
the open enrollment season. The enrollment season is November 1st 
through November 30th.
  The July 1st deadline was imposed so that seniors would have ample 
opportunity to read the materials and to make an informed decision 
before selecting a health plan.
  Last month, at the request of the HMO industry, Secretary Thompson 
extended the deadline until September 15th. As a result, Medicare 
beneficiaries will have little time to review the comparative 
information before the enrollment period. In response to these 
concerns, the Secretary indicated that the information would be posted 
on the Internet by October 15th.
  Senior citizens in many cases do not have access to the Internet. If 
information is not sent in a timely manner, it will be extremely 
difficult for seniors, especially low income seniors, to make informed 
choices about their health plan. As a result, they will have little 
time to find new health care coverage if their HMO sharply raises 
premiums and fees, reduces benefits or pulls out of Medicare. 
Consequently, seniors may be forced to accept whatever changes the HMOs 
impose or run the risk of having gaps in their coverage should they 
choose to switch plans.
  This bill states that, effective 2002, HMO's are required to submit, 
complete binding information to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. It also requires that the information be sent to 
beneficiaries at least 45 days before the beginning of the open 
enrollment period. It further requires all comparative information to 
be sent in mail, rather than only being posted on the Internet. This 
will ensure that seniors are receiving the information necessary to 
make educated informed decisions about their health plan.
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1377. A bill to require the Attorney General to establish an 
office in the Department of Justice to monitor acts of international 
terrorism alleged to have been committed by Palestinian individuals or 
individuals acting on behalf of Palestinian organizations and to carry 
out certain other related activities; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, almost everyday we hear about new 
Palestinian violence in Israel and all too often, American citizens are 
among the victims. Earlier this year, Mrs. Sarah Blaustein, of Long 
Island, New York, was murdered in a drive-by shooting by Palestinian 
terrorists south of Jerusalem. A few weeks before

[[Page S8951]]

that, a 13-year old boy from Maryland, Jacob ``Koby'' Mandell, was 
savagely beaten and tortured to death by Palestinian terrorists. 
Eighteen American citizens have been killed by Palestinian terrorists 
since the signing of the Oslo accords in September 1993, and six of 
them were killed during the current wave of violence that began last 
autumn.
  Of course, Americans are occasionally the victims of terrorism all 
over the world, not just in Israel. But what makes the American victims 
in Israel unique is that while our government does everything it can to 
capture the terrorists who harm Americans elsewhere around the world, 
it takes a completely different approach when it comes to Palestinian 
terrorists.
  Our State Department offers multi-million dollar rewards for 
information leading to the capture of terrorists who have killed 
Americans around the world--but it has never offered such a reward to 
help catch terrorists who are being sheltered by Arafat. The State 
Department maintains a web site www.dssrewards.net for its ``Heroes'' 
program, where it posts the rewards to help capture terrorists.
  The time has come to take this vital issue out of the State 
Department's hands and put it back where it belongs, in the Department 
of Justice. This should not be a political issue. When a matter of 
justice is at stake, the decision should be made by the legal 
authorities whose responsibility it is to pursue justice, not politics.
  This is why today I rise to introduce the Koby Mandell Justice for 
American Victims of Terrorism Act of 2000.'' This bill will establish a 
special office, within the Department of Justice, the sole purpose of 
which will be to facilitate the capture of Palestinian terrorists 
involved in attacks in which American Citizens were harmed. The bill 
will: Collect evidence against suspected terrorists; offer rewards for 
information leading to the capture of these terrorists and maintain 
contact with families of victims to update them on the progress of 
efforts to capture the terrorists.
  In short, this legislation will help ensure that the killers of 
Americans will have a sanctuary in the Palestinian Authority 
territories. This legislation will advance the cause of justice and it 
will put terrorists and their supporters on notice that the United 
States government will not stand idly by when our citizens are harmed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1377

       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 ``Koby Mandell Justice for 
     American Victims of Terrorism Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Since 1948, many United States citizens have been 
     injured or killed in terrorist attacks committed by 
     Palestinian individuals and organizations in and outside of 
     the Middle East.
       (2) Under United States law, individuals who commit acts of 
     international terrorism outside of the United States against 
     nationals of the United States may be prosecuted for such 
     acts in the United States.
       (3) The United States has taken a special interest and 
     active role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 
     including numerous diplomatic efforts to facilitate a 
     resolution of the conflict and the provision of financial 
     assistance to Palestinian organizations.
       (4) However, despite these diplomatic efforts and financial 
     assistance, little has been done to apprehend, indict, 
     prosecute, and convict Palestinian individuals who have 
     committed terrorist attacks against nationals of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
                   TO MONITOR TERRORIST ACTS BY PALESTINIAN 
                   INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND CARRY OUT 
                   RELATED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     within the Department of Justice an office to carry out the 
     following activities:
       (1) Monitor acts of international terrorism alleged to have 
     been committed by Palestinian individuals or individuals 
     acting on behalf of Palestinian organizations.
       (2) Collect information against individuals alleged to have 
     committed acts of international terrorism described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Offer rewards for information on individuals alleged to 
     have committed acts of international terrorism described in 
     paragraph (1), including the dissemination of information 
     relating to such rewards in the Arabic-language media.
       (4) Negotiate with the Palestinian Authority or related 
     entities to obtain financial compensation for nationals of 
     the United States, or their families, injured or killed by 
     acts of terrorism described in paragraph (1).
       (5) In conjunction with other appropriate Federal 
     departments and agencies, establish and implement alternative 
     methods to apprehend, indict, prosecute, and convict 
     individuals who commit acts of terrorism described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (6) Contact the families of victims of acts of terrorism 
     described in paragraph (1) and provide updates on the 
     progress to apprehend, indict, prosecute, and convict the 
     individuals who commit such acts.
       (7) In order to effectively carry out paragraphs (1) 
     through (6), provide for the permanent stationing of an 
     appropriate number of United States officials in Israel, in 
     territory administered by Israel, in territory administered 
     by the Palestinian Authority, and elsewhere, to the extent 
     practicable.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``international 
     terrorism'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     2331(b) of title 18, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent fiscal year such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1378. A bill to allow patients access to drugs and medical devices 
recommended and provided by health care practitioners under strict 
guidelines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to 
Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, 
Hatch, Inouye, Johnson, and Reid in this effort to increase 
individuals' freedom of choice in health care.
  Patient choice is a value often articulated in health care debates. 
Yet patients often do not have the right to choose potentially life-
saving alternative treatments. I want to thank Berkley Bedell, who 
formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for making me aware of 
the importance of this issue and for assisting in the development of 
this bill. This has been a multi-year effort, and he has worked 
tirelessly on it. Berkley has experienced first-hand the life-saving 
potential of alternative treatments. His story convinced me that our 
health care system discourages the use of alternative medicine 
treatment and thereby restricts the right of patients to choose.
  American consumers have already voted for expanded access to 
alternative treatments with their feet and their wallets. A 1997 study 
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, 
shows that 42 percent of Americans used some kind of alternative 
therapy, spending more than $27 billion that year. Americans made more 
visits to alternative practitioners than to primary care providers. 
According to a 1999 JAMA study, people sought complementary and 
alternative medicine not only because they were dissatisfied with 
conventional medicine but also because these therapies mirrored their 
own values, beliefs and philosophical orientation toward health and 
life.
  Alternative therapies are rapidly being incorporated into mainstream 
medical programs, practice and research. Indeed, at least 75 out of 117 
U.S. medical schools offer elective courses in alternative medicine or 
include alternative medicine topics in required courses. A 1994 study 
in the Journal of Family Practice revealed that more than 60 percent of 
doctors from a wide range of specialties recommended alternative 
therapies to their patients at least once. The National Institutes of 
Health now has a Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine 
where research is underway to expand our knowledge of alternative 
therapies and their safe and effective use.
  Despite the growing demand for many types of alternative medicine, 
some therapies remain unavailable because they have not yet been 
approved

[[Page S8952]]

by the FDA. My bill would increase access to treatments that would 
normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not yet undergone the 
expansive and lengthy process currently required to gain FDA approval. 
Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American public 
and its growing acceptance among traditional medical practitioners, it 
would seem logical to remove some of the access barriers that consumers 
face when seeking certain alternative therapies.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act supports patient choice while 
maintaining important patient safeguards. It asserts that individuals, 
especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which 
conventional treatments have proven ineffective, should have the option 
of trying an alternative treatment. This is a choice rightly made by 
the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government.

  All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be prescribed by an 
authorized health care practitioner who has personally examined the 
patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information 
about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including 
questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not 
been conducted.
  The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to 
advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit 
financially from prescribing alternative treatment. This provision was 
included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of 
patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If 
an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they 
would be wise to go through the standard FDA process.
  I want to be absolutely clear that this legislation will not 
dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority, or appreciably change 
current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its 
approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should, and 
would under this legislation, remain solely responsible for protecting 
the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy 
demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA 
approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving 
the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and 
effective.
  The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any 
adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an 
unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, 
manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an 
investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused 
by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer 
have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug 
or medical device has been provided.
  This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding 
alternative medicine treatments by requiring practitioners to report on 
effectiveness. This is critical because current information available 
about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The 
information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this 
information gap, as data are collected and analyzed by the Center for 
Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of 
Health.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents an honest attempt to 
focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and 
overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. 
In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between 
two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from 
dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation of consumers' 
freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy 
challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am 
convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to 
reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the 
discussion generated by this legislation will help point the way to its 
resolution.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1379. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
an Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rare 
Diseases Act of 2001.
  This legislation, in conjunction with companion legislation 
introduced by Senator Hatch to amend the orphan drug tax credit, 
promises to greatly enhance the prospects for developing new treatments 
and diagnostics, and even cures for literally thousands of rare 
diseases and disorders.
  The Rare Diseases Act provides a statutory authorization for the 
existing Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH, and authorizes regional centers of excellence for rare disease 
research and training. The Act also increases the funding for the Food 
and Drug Administration's, FDA, Orphan Product Research Grant program, 
which has provided vital support for clinical research on new 
treatments for rare diseases and disorders.
  I am encouraged that, consistent with our legislation, the President 
has proposed in fiscal year 2002 to create a network of centers of 
excellence for rare diseases. This proposal originated with the NIH, in 
recommendations of a Special Emphasis Panel convened to examine the 
state of rare disease research. Because the Panel itself was convened 
in response to a request of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
1966, it is appropriate that we are today introducing legislation which 
represents the fruition of a long, deliberative process involving both 
the Congress and the NIH.
  It is important to note that Congress has had a longstanding interest 
in rare diseases. In 1983, Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act to 
promote the development of treatments for rare diseases and disorders. 
Such diseases affect small patient populations, typically smaller than 
200,000 individuals in the United States, and include Huntington's 
disease, myoclonus, ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Tourette syndrome, and 
muscular dystrophy. Although each disease may be rare, there are, in 
sum, 25 million Americans today who suffer from the six thousand known 
rare diseases and disorders.
  As an original sponsor of the Orphan Drug Act, I am pleased it has 
been a great success, leading to the development of over 220 treatments 
for rare diseases and disorders. But the greatest share of credit is 
due to the original author of the Act, Congressman Henry Waxman of 
California, and to a woman named Abbey Meyers.
  During the 1970s, an organization called the National Organization 
for Rare Disorders, NORD, was founded by Abbey to provide services and 
to lobby on behalf of patients with rare diseases and disorders. It was 
Abbey and her organization which were instrumental in pressing Congress 
for enactment of legislation to encourage the development of orphan 
drugs.
  In light of this important history, I am very pleased that the Rare 
Diseases Act of 2001 is supported by NORD. And I am also pleased to 
join my colleague, Senator Hatch, a champion of research into rare 
diseases, in introducing this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1380. A bill to coordinate and expand United States and 
international programs for the conservation and protection of North 
Atlantic Whales; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and 
Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce the North Atlantic 
Right Whale Recovery Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by our 
Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Hollings in this effort. This bill 
is designed to improve the management and research activities for right 
whales and increase the focus on reducing mortality caused by ship 
collisions, entanglement in fishing gear, and other causes. The most 
endangered of the great whales, the northern Atlantic right whale has 
shown no evidence of recovery since the whaling days of the

[[Page S8953]]

1900s despite full protection from hunting by a League of Nations 
agreement since 1935. Today the population of North Atlantic Right 
Whales remains at less than 350 animals, although 2001 was a banner 
year for reproduction as over 30 calves were born.
  The entire Nation has watched with great interest as a team of 
experts from a number of organizations including the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the New England Aquarium and the Center for Coastal 
Studies has sought to remove the nylon rope that is imbedded in the jaw 
of a North Atlantic Right Whale, dubbed ``Churchill''. By all accounts, 
unless the rope is removed the whale is likely to die from infections 
that are already discoloring the whale's skin. I would like to offer my 
sincere appreciation for all of these efforts to date and I hope that 
by offering this legislation today that we can refocus our attention on 
how to protect these magnificent mammals.
  Right whales are at risk of extinction from a number of sources. 
These include, ship strikes, the number one source of known right whale 
fatalities, entanglement in fishing gear, coastal pollution, habitat 
degradation, ocean noise and climate change. This legislation requires 
the Secretary of Commerce to institute a North Atlantic Right Whale 
Recovery Program, in coordination with the Department of Transportation 
and other appropriate Federal agencies, States, the Southeast and 
Northeast Northern Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation 
Team and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, pursuant to the 
authority provided under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
  This legislation would require the Secretary of Commerce within 6 
months of enactment, to initiate demonstration projects designed to 
result in the immediate reductions in North Atlantic right whale 
deaths. There are 4 distinct areas that I believe we should be focusing 
our attention on. First, we should develop acoustic detection and 
tracking technologies to monitor the migration of right whales so that 
ships at sea can avoid right whales. Second, we need to continue work 
on individual satellite tags for right whales. This is yet another way 
that we can track whale migration and alert ships at sea of the 
presence of whales and avoid ship strikes. Third, this legislation 
would speed up the development of neutrally buoyant line and ``weak 
link'' fishing gear, so that we can either avoid having whales become 
entangled in the first place or when they do the ``weak links'' break 
and they can more easily become disentangled. Finally this legislation 
supports research and testing into developing innovative ways to 
increase the success of disentanglement efforts.

  This legislation allows for the government to provide fishermen 
``whale safe'' fishing gear in high use or critical habitat areas. This 
is crucial, because once we have developed this ``whale safe'' gear we 
need to get it in the water as soon as possible. I believe an 
assistance program that is fair to fishermen will be needed and we are 
asking the agencies to tell us the potential costs so we can ensure 
that the gear can be deployed where needed.
  This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation and 
Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive ship strike avoidance 
plan for Right Whales. I am pleased that a draft plan has been issued 
this week, but I want to make it clear that a plan must be implemented 
by January of 2003. I would like to stress to my colleagues, that by 
far the number one source of know right whale mortalities is ship 
strikes, and in my opinion we have not done nearly enough to prevent 
these lethal ship strikes from happening.
  This legislation establishes a right whale research grant program. 
This program will establish a peer review process of all innovative 
biological and technical projects designed to protect right whales. In 
addition to the scientific community, this peer review team will also 
be comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the 
maritime transportation industry. It is important that from the very 
beginning we have the input of the people who are on the water every 
day. Their knowledge and experience is absolutely necessary to 
developing innovative practices and techniques to save right whales.
  Congress has appropriated over $8 million dollars in the last two 
years to protect right whales. I believe that now is the time to 
develop a comprehensive plan that spells out what we can do immediately 
to better protect these whales and focus our research efforts on 
innovative ideas and technologies that can identify whale migrations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1381. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, 
California, as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office 
Building''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to honor the late Julian Dixon, an esteemed Member of the House of 
Representatives from California for more than 20 years.
  Julian Dixon lived a full life; highlighted by almost thirty years of 
public service. He served in the Army from 1957 to 1960 and in the 
California Assembly from 1972 until 1978. Julian was first elected to 
the House of Representatives in 1978.
  As the representative for the Thirty-Second District of California, 
Julian consistently fought to maintain our Nation's commitment to civil 
rights and to increase the economic upward mobility of his 
constituents. Julian was also chair of the Congressional Black Caucus 
and worked tirelessly to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr. here in our Nation's capital.
  Julian's legislative work covered myriad issues from intelligence to 
defense to congressional ethics. He was the ranking member of the House 
Intelligence Committee and a member of the committee that determines 
defense appropriations. He used his position on the appropriations 
committee to provide Federal aid for communities that were devastated 
by base closings and other defense cuts. He also helped secure 
emergency funding for damaged businesses after the Northridge 
earthquake and the Los Angeles riots.
  Julian was not only a great legislator, but also a great human being. 
He was a gentleman in every sense of the word who was willing to work 
across partisan lines to improve the lives of his constituents and so 
many Americans. I was privileged as a member of the Senate 
Appropriations committee to work with Mr. Dixon. In this role, Julian 
always put California's needs first.
  Julian served with passion and distinction. He was a man of the 
highest integrity and credibility. I am sure his constituents will be 
proud to have a Post Office named in his honor.
  Julian Dixon was a man of principle and fairness whose grace and 
humility will be sorely missed. I am pleased to honor his memory by 
introducing a bill to designate the Post Office at 5472 Crenshaw 
Boulevard in Los Angeles as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post 
Office Building.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 1382. A bill to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to 
redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District 
of Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court, to recruit and 
retain trained and experienced judges to serve in the Family Court, to 
promote consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges to the 
Family Court and in the consideration of actions and proceedings in the 
Family Court, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
along with my friends and colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator 
Levin, that will have a vital impact on children and families in the 
District of Columbia. Our bill, the ``District of Columbia Family Court 
Act of 2001'' is aimed at guiding the District, as the Superior Court 
strives to reform its role in the child welfare system through its 
creation of a Family Court.
  This legislation takes a very important step forward in helping to 
ensure that the best interest of children in contact with the DC child 
welfare system are always paramount. In making

[[Page S8954]]

sure that is the case, judges in the system play a key role. I learned 
this first-hand nearly thirty years ago when I was serving as an 
assistant county prosecutor in Greene County, OH. One of my duties was 
to represent the Greene County Children Services in cases where 
children were going to be removed from their parents' custody.
  I witnessed then that too many of these cases drag on endlessly, 
leaving children trapped in temporary foster care placements, which 
often entail multiple moves from foster home to foster home to foster 
home, for years and years and years. Such multiple placements and lack 
of permanency for these kids is abuse in it's own right.
  Since being appointed to the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Committee, I have made it my personal mission to find financial 
solutions for the problems facing DC's foster children. In March, 
Representative DeLay and I laid the groundwork for a DC Family Court 
Bill that would be bipartisan and effective. In drafting this bill, we 
have held numerous hearings, met with child welfare advocates from 
across the District, and had countless meetings with the DC Superior 
Court Judges.
  In particular, I want to thank Chief Judge Rufus King for making 
himself available to members of Congress and their staffs and for 
appearing before the DC Subcommittee on Appropriations. Judge King has 
made reforming the Family Division of the DC Court his number one 
priority, and I look forward to working with him in the future to 
implement the reforms established by our DC Family Court Bill.

  Our legislation includes a number of important reforms that would 
ensure that the judicial system protects the children of the District. 
First, it would increase the length of judicial terms for judges from 
one year for judges already presiding over the Superior Court to three 
years. New judges appointed to the Superior Court and then assigned to 
the Family Court would have five-year terms. This change would enable 
judges to develop an expertise in Family Law.
  Second, the bill would create magistrates so that the current backlog 
of 4500 permanency cases can be properly and adequately addressed. 
These magistrates would be distributed among the judges according to a 
transition plan, which must be submitted to Congress within 90 days of 
passage of this bill. We want to make sure the court has the 
flexibility to deal with these important child welfare issues.
  Third, the bill provides the resources for an Integrated Judicial 
Information System, IJIS. This would enable the court to track and 
properly monitor family cases and would allow all judges and 
magistrates to have access to the information necessary to make the 
best decisions about placement and child safety.
  Fourth, a reform in the bill that I find extremely important is the 
One-Judge/One Family provision. This policy would ensure that the same 
judge, a judge who knows the history of a family and the child, would 
be making the important permanency decisions. This provision is 
essential for those hard cases involving abuse and neglect. It ensures 
consistency. It ensures safety. And, it just makes sense.
  Ultimately, our bill would provide consistency through the One-Judge/
One-Family provision, it would provide safety and security, and it 
would provide stability for the children of the District. We need to 
give the children in the District's welfare system all of these things. 
It is the right thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill. We must never, 
ever lose sight of our responsibility to the children involved. Their 
needs and their best interests must always come first. And today, I 
believe we are putting children first and taking a step forward on 
their behalf.
  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. 1382

       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 ``District of Columbia Family 
     Court Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF FAMILY DIVISION AS FAMILY COURT OF 
                   THE SUPERIOR COURT.

       (a) In General.--Section 11-902, District of Columbia Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 11-902. Organization of the court.

       ``(a) In General.--The Superior Court shall consist of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The Civil Division.
       ``(2) The Criminal Division.
       ``(3) The Family Court.
       ``(4) The Probate Division.
       ``(5) The Tax Division.
       ``(b) Branches.--The divisions of the Superior Court may be 
     divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule 
     prescribe.
       ``(c) Designation of Presiding Judge of Family Court.--The 
     chief judge of the Superior Court shall designate one of the 
     judges assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court to 
     serve as the presiding judge of the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court.
       ``(d) Jurisdiction Described.--The Family Court shall have 
     original jurisdiction over the actions, applications, 
     determinations, adjudications, and proceedings described in 
     section 11-1101.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Chapter 9.--Section 11-906(b), 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting ``the 
     Family Court and'' before ``the various divisions''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to Chapter 11.--(1) The heading 
     for chapter 11 of title 11, District of Columbia, is amended 
     by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family 
     Court''.
       (2) The item relating to chapter 11 in the table of 
     chapters for title 11, District of Columbia, is amended by 
     striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family Court''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments to Title 16.--
       (1) Calculation of child support.--Section 16-916.1(o)(6), 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking ``Family 
     Division'' and inserting ``Family Court of the Superior 
     Court''.
       (2) Expedited judicial hearing of cases brought before 
     hearing commissioners.--Section 16-924, District of Columbia 
     Code, is amended by striking ``Family Division'' each place 
     it appears in subsections (a) and (f) and inserting ``Family 
     Court''.
       (3) General references to proceedings.--Chapter 23 of title 
     16, District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after 
     section 16-2301 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court 
       of the Superior Court.

       ``Any reference in this chapter or any other Federal or 
     District of Columbia law, Executive order, rule, regulation, 
     delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to 
     the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia shall be deemed to refer to the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court of the District of Columbia.''.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter I of chapter 23 of title 16, District of Columbia, 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     16-2301 the following new item:

``16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court of the Superior 
              Court.''.

     SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES; NUMBER AND 
                   QUALIFICATIONS.

       (a) Number of Judges for Family Court; Qualifications and 
     Terms of Service.--Chapter 9 of title 11, District of 
     Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-908 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and 
       service of judges of Family Court.

       ``(a) Number of Judges.--
       ``(1) In general.--The number of judges serving on the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court at any time may not be 
     less than 12 or more than 15.
       ``(2) Report.--The total number of judges on the Superior 
     Court may exceed the limit on such judges to the extent 
     necessary to maintain the requirements of this subsection if 
     the chief judge of the Superior Court--
       ``(A) obtains the approval of the Joint Committee on 
     Judicial Administration; and
       ``(B) reports to Congress regarding the circumstances that 
     gave rise to the necessity to exceed the cap.
       ``(b) Qualifications.--The chief judge may not assign an 
     individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court 
     unless--
       ``(1) the individual has training or expertise in family 
     law;
       ``(2) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the 
     individual intends to serve the full term of service, except 
     that this paragraph shall not apply with respect to 
     individuals serving as senior judges under section 11-1504 
     and individuals serving as temporary judges under section 11-
     908;
       ``(3) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the 
     individual will participate in the ongoing training programs 
     carried out for judges of the Family Court under section 11-
     1104(c); and
       ``(4) the individual meets the requirements of section 11-
     1732A(b).
       ``(c) Term of Service.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Serving judges.--An individual assigned to serve as a 
     judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is 
     serving as a judge in the Superior Court on the date of the 
     enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 
     2001 shall serve for a term of not fewer than 3 years as 
     determined by the chief judge of the Superior Court 
     (including any consecutive period of service on

[[Page S8955]]

     the Family Division of the Superior Court immediately 
     preceding the date of the enactment of such Act).
       ``(B) New judges.--An individual assigned to serve as a 
     judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is not 
     serving as a judge in the Superior Court on the date of the 
     enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 
     2001 shall serve for a term of 5 years.
       ``(2) Assignment for additional service.--After the term of 
     service of a judge of the Family Court (as described in 
     paragraph (1)) expires, at the judge's request the judge may 
     be assigned for additional service on the Family Court for a 
     period of such duration (consistent with section 431(c) of 
     the District of Columbia Home Rule Act) as the chief judge 
     may provide.
       ``(3) Permitting service on family court for entire term.--
     At the request of the judge, a judge may serve as a judge of 
     the Family Court for the judge's entire term of service as a 
     judge of the Superior Court under section 431(c) of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
       ``(d) Reassignment to Other Divisions.--The chief judge may 
     reassign a judge of the Family Court to any division of the 
     Superior Court if the chief judge determines that the judge 
     is unable, for cause, to continue serving in the Family 
     Court.''.
       (b) Plan for Family Court Transition.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior 
     Court of the District of Columbia shall prepare and submit to 
     the President and Congress a transition plan for the Family 
     Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in the plan 
     the following:
       (A) The chief judge's determination of the role and 
     function of the presiding judge of the Family Court.
       (B) The chief judge's determination of the number of judges 
     needed to serve on the Family Court.
       (C) The chief judge's determination of the number of 
     magistrate judges of the Family Court needed for appointment 
     under section 11-1732, District of Columbia Code.
       (D) The chief judge's determination of the appropriate 
     functions of such magistrate judges, together with the 
     compensation of and other personnel matters pertaining to 
     such magistrate judges.
       (E) A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing 
     needs (including the needs for both judicial and nonjudicial 
     personnel) for the Family Court.
       (F) A plan for space, equipment, and other physical plant 
     needs and requirements during the transition, as determined 
     in consultation with the Administrator of General Services.
       (G) An analysis of the success of the use of magistrate 
     judges under the expedited appointment procedures established 
     under section 6(d) in reducing the number of pending actions 
     and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Family Court 
     (as described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia, as 
     amended by subsection (a)).
       (H) Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (2), a 
     proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court 
     of actions and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the 
     Family Court as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
     (together with actions and proceedings described in section 
     11-1101, District of Columbia Code, which were initiated in 
     the Family Division but remain pending in other Divisions of 
     the Superior Court as of such date) in a manner consistent 
     with applicable Federal and District of Columbia law and best 
     practices, including best practices developed by the American 
     Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and 
     Family Court Judges.
       (2) Implementation of the proposal for transfer or 
     disposition of actions and proceedings to family court.--
       (A) In general.--The chief judge of the Superior Court and 
     the presiding judge of the Family Court shall take such steps 
     as may be required as provided in the proposal for 
     disposition of actions and proceedings under paragraph (1)(H) 
     to ensure that each action or proceeding within the 
     jurisdiction of the Family Court of the Superior Court (as 
     described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as 
     amended by subsection (a)) is transferred to the Family Court 
     or otherwise disposed of as provided in subparagraph (B). The 
     requirement of this subparagraph shall not apply to an action 
     or proceeding pending before a senior judge as defined in 
     section 11-1504, District of Columbia Code.
       (B) Deadline.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act or any amendment made by this Act, no action or 
     proceeding which is within the jurisdiction of the Family 
     Court (as described in section 11-902(d), District of 
     Columbia Code, as amended by subsection (a)) shall remain 
     pending with a judge not serving on the Family Court upon the 
     expiration of 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (C) Progress reports.--The chief judge of the Superior 
     Court shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of each 
     House, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, 
     and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives 6 months and 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act on the progress made towards disposing 
     of actions or proceedings described in subparagraph (B).
       (3) Effective date of implementation of plan.--The chief 
     judge of the Superior Court may not take any action to 
     implement the transition plan under this subsection until the 
     expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date the 
     chief judge submits the plan to the President and Congress 
     under paragraph (1).
       (c) Transition to Required Number of Judges.--
       (1) Analysis by chief judge of superior court.--The chief 
     judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall 
     include in the transition plan prepared under subsection 
     (b)--
       (A) the chief judge's determination of the number of 
     individuals serving as judges of the Superior Court who meet 
     the qualifications for judges of the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court under section 11-908A, District of Columbia 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)); and
       (B) if the chief judge determines that the number of 
     individuals described in subparagraph (A) is less than 15, a 
     request that the Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and 
     the President nominate (in accordance with section 433 of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act) such additional number of 
     individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the 
     qualifications for judges of the Family Court under such 
     section as may be required to enable the chief judge to make 
     the required number of assignments.
       (2) Role of district of columbia judicial nomination 
     commission.--For purposes of section 434(d)(1) of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the submission of a 
     request from the chief judge of the Superior Court of the 
     District of Columbia under paragraph (1)(B) shall be deemed 
     to create a number of vacancies in the position of judge of 
     the Superior Court equal to the number of additional 
     appointments so requested by the chief judge, except that the 
     deadline for the submission by the District of Columbia 
     Judicial Nomination Commission of nominees to fill such 
     vacancies shall be 90 days after the creation of such 
     vacancies. In carrying out this paragraph, the District of 
     Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission shall recruit 
     individuals for possible nomination and appointment to the 
     Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court.
       (d) Report by Comptroller General.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress and the chief judge of the 
     Superior Court of the District of Columbia a report on the 
     implementation of this Act (including the transition plan 
     under subsection (b)), and shall include in the report the 
     following:
       (A) An analysis of the procedures used to make the initial 
     appointments of judges of the Family Court under this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act, including an analysis of the 
     time required to make such appointments and the effect of the 
     qualification requirements for judges of the Court (including 
     requirements relating to the length of service on the Court) 
     on the time required to make such appointments.
       (B) An analysis of the impact of magistrate judges for the 
     Family Court (including the expedited initial appointment of 
     magistrate judges for the Court under section 6(d)) on the 
     workload of judges and other personnel of the Court.
       (C) An analysis of the number of judges needed for the 
     Family Court, including an analysis of how the number may be 
     affected by the qualification requirements for judges, the 
     availability of magistrate judges, and other provisions of 
     this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
       (2) Submission to chief judge of superior court.--Prior to 
     submitting the report under paragraph (1) to Congress, the 
     Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary version of 
     the report to the chief judge of the Superior Court and shall 
     take any comments and recommendations of the chief judge into 
     consideration in preparing the final version of the report.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     11-908(a), District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking 
     ``The chief judge'' and inserting ``Subject to section 11-
     908A, the chief judge''.
       (f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     9 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 11-908 the 
     following new item:

``11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and service of judges of 
              Family Court.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS IN 
                   FAMILY COURT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 11, District of 
     Columbia, is amended by striking section 1101 and inserting 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 11-1101. Jurisdiction of the Family Court.

       ``(a) In General.--The Family Court of the District of 
     Columbia shall be assigned and have original jurisdiction 
     over--
       ``(1) actions for divorce from the bond of marriage and 
     legal separation from bed and board, including proceedings 
     incidental thereto for alimony, pendente lite and permanent, 
     and for support and custody of minor children;
       ``(2) applications for revocation of divorce from bed and 
     board;
       ``(3) actions to enforce support of any person as required 
     by law;
       ``(4) actions seeking custody of minor children, including 
     petitions for writs of habeas corpus;
       ``(5) actions to declare marriages void;

[[Page S8956]]

       ``(6) actions to declare marriages valid;
       ``(7) actions for annulments of marriage;
       ``(8) determinations and adjudications of property rights, 
     both real and personal, in any action referred to in this 
     section, irrespective of any jurisdictional limitation 
     imposed on the Superior Court;
       ``(9) proceedings in adoption;
       ``(10) proceedings under the Act of July 10, 1957 (D.C. 
     Code, secs. 30-301 to 30-324);
       ``(11) proceedings to determine paternity of any child born 
     out of wedlock;
       ``(12) civil proceedings for protection involving 
     intrafamily offenses, instituted pursuant to chapter 10 of 
     title 16;
       ``(13) proceedings in which a child, as defined in section 
     16-2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need 
     of supervision;
       ``(14) proceedings under chapter 5 of title 21 relating to 
     the commitment of the mentally ill;
       ``(15) proceedings under chapter 11 of title 21 relating to 
     the commitment of the substantially retarded; and
       ``(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on Juveniles 
     (described in title IV of the District of Columbia Court 
     Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).
       ``(b) Definition.--In this chapter, the term `action or 
     proceeding' with respect to the Family Court refers to cause 
     of action described in paragraphs (1) through (16) of 
     subsection (a).

     ``Sec. 11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution.

       ``To the greatest extent practicable and safe, cases and 
     proceedings in the Family Court of the Superior Court shall 
     be resolved through alternative dispute resolution 
     procedures, in accordance with such rules as the Superior 
     Court may promulgate.

     ``Sec. 11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel.

       ``The Superior Court shall establish standards of practice 
     for attorneys appointed as counsel in the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court.

     ``Sec. 11-1104. Administration.

       ``(a) `One Family, One Judge' Requirement for Cases and 
     Proceedings.--To the greatest extent practicable and 
     feasible, if an individual who is a party to an action or 
     proceeding assigned to the Family Court has an immediate 
     family or household member who is a party to another action 
     or proceeding assigned to the Family Court, the individual's 
     action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or 
     magistrate judge to whom the immediate family member's action 
     or proceeding is assigned.
       ``(b) Retention of Jurisdiction Over Cases.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the requirement of 
     subsection (a), any action or proceeding assigned to the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court shall remain under the 
     jurisdiction of the Family Court until the action or 
     proceeding is finally disposed.
       ``(2) One family, one judge.--
       ``(A) For the duration.--An action or proceeding assigned 
     pursuant to this subsection shall remain with the judge or 
     magistrate judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned 
     for the duration of the action or proceeding to the greatest 
     extent practicable, feasible, and lawful.
       ``(B) All cases involving an individual.--If an individual 
     who is a party to an action or proceeding assigned to the 
     Family Court becomes a party to another action or proceeding 
     assigned to the Family Court, the individual's subsequent 
     action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or 
     magistrate judge to whom the individual's initial action or 
     proceeding is assigned to the greatest extent practicable, 
     feasible, and lawful.
       ``(C) Reassignment.--If the judge to whom the action or 
     proceeding is assigned ceases to serve on the Family Court 
     prior to the final disposition of the action or proceeding, 
     the presiding judge of the Family Court shall ensure that the 
     matter or proceeding is reassigned to a judge serving on the 
     Family Court, except that a judge who ceases to serve in 
     Family Court but remains in Superior Court may retain the 
     case or proceeding for not more than 6 months after ceasing 
     to serve if such retention is in the best interests of the 
     parties.
       ``(3) Standards of judicial ethics.--The actions of a judge 
     or magistrate judge in retaining an action or proceeding 
     under this paragraph shall be subject to applicable standards 
     of judicial ethics.
       ``(c) Training Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The presiding judge of the Family Court 
     shall carry out an ongoing program to provide training in 
     family law and related matters for judges of the Family 
     Court, including magistrate judges, attorneys who practice in 
     the Family Court, and appropriate nonjudicial personnel, and 
     shall include in the program information and instruction 
     regarding the following:
       ``(A) Child development.
       ``(B) Family dynamics, including domestic violence.
       ``(C) Relevant Federal and District of Columbia laws.
       ``(D) Permanency planning principles and practices.
       ``(E) Recognizing the risk factors for child abuse.
       ``(F) Any other matters the presiding judge considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Use of cross-training.--The program carried out under 
     this section shall use the resources of lawyers and legal 
     professionals, social workers, and experts in the field of 
     child development and other related fields.
       ``(d) Accessibility of Materials, Services, and 
     Proceedings; Promotion of `Family-Friendly' Environment.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the greatest extent practicable, the 
     presiding judge of the Family Court shall ensure that the 
     materials and services provided by the Family Court are 
     understandable and accessible to the individuals and families 
     served by the Court, and that the Court carries out its 
     duties in a manner which reflects the special needs of 
     families with children.
       ``(2) Location of proceedings.--To the maximum extent 
     feasible, safe, and practicable, cases and proceedings in the 
     Family Court shall be conducted at locations readily 
     accessible to the parties involved.
       ``(e) Integrated Computerized Case Tracking and Management 
     System.--The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia 
     courts under section 11-1703 shall work with the chief judge 
     of the Superior Court--
       ``(1) to ensure that all records and materials of cases and 
     proceedings in the Family Court are stored and maintained in 
     electronic format accessible by computers for the use of 
     judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the 
     Family Court, and for the use of other appropriate offices of 
     the District government in accordance with the plan for 
     integrating computer systems prepared by the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia under section 4(b) of the District of 
     Columbia Family Court Act of 2001;
       ``(2) to establish and operate an electronic tracking and 
     management system for cases and proceedings in the Family 
     Court for the use of judges and nonjudicial personnel of the 
     Family Court, using the records and materials stored and 
     maintained pursuant to paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) to expand such system to cover all divisions of the 
     Superior Court as soon as practicable.

     ``Sec. 11-1105. Social services and other related services.

       ``(a) On-Site Coordination of Services and Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia, 
     in consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court, 
     shall ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices 
     of the District government which provide social services and 
     other related services to individuals and families served by 
     the Family Court (including the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, the 
     Child and Family Services Agency, the Office of the 
     Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, the 
     Department of Health, and other offices determined by the 
     Mayor) are available on-site at the Family Court to 
     coordinate the provision of such services and information 
     regarding such services to such individuals and families.
       ``(2) Duties of heads of offices.--The head of each office 
     described in paragraph (1), including the Superintendent of 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Director of 
     the District of Columbia Housing Authority, shall provide the 
     Mayor with such information, assistance, and services as the 
     Mayor may require to carry out such paragraph.
       ``(b) Appointment of Social Services Liaison With Family 
     Court.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall appoint 
     an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court 
     and the District government for purposes of subsection (a) 
     and for coordinating the delivery of services provided by the 
     District government with the activities of the Family Court 
     and for providing information to the judges, magistrate 
     judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the Court regarding the 
     services available from the District government to the 
     individuals and families served by the Court. The Mayor shall 
     provide on an ongoing basis information to the chief judge of 
     the Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family 
     Court regarding the services of the District government which 
     are available for the individuals and families served by the 
     Family Court.

     ``Sec. 11-1106. Reports to Congress.

       ``Not later than 90 days after the end of each calendar 
     year, the chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the activities of the Family Court 
     during the year, and shall include in the report the 
     following:
       ``(1) The chief judge's assessment of the productivity and 
     success of the use of alternative dispute resolution pursuant 
     to section 11-1102.
       ``(2) Goals and timetables as required by the Adoption and 
     Safe Families Act of 1997 to improve the Family Court's 
     performance in the following year.
       ``(3) Information on the extent to which the Court met 
     deadlines and standards applicable under Federal and District 
     of Columbia law to the review and disposition of actions and 
     proceedings under the Court's jurisdiction during the year.
       ``(4) Information on the progress made in establishing 
     locations and appropriate space for the Family Court that are 
     consistent with the mission of the Family Court until such 
     time as the locations and space are established.
       ``(5) Information on any factors which are not under the 
     control of the Family Court which interfere with or prevent 
     the Court from carrying out its responsibilities in the most 
     effective manner possible.
       ``(6) Based on outcome measures derived through the use of 
     the information stored in electronic format under section 11-
     1104(d), an analysis of the Court's efficiency and 
     effectiveness in managing its case load during the

[[Page S8957]]

     year, including an analysis of the time required to dispose 
     of actions and proceedings among the various categories of 
     the Court's jurisdiction, as prescribed by applicable law and 
     best practices, including (but not limited to) best practices 
     developed by the American Bar Association and the National 
     Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
       ``(7) If the Court failed to meet the deadlines, standards, 
     and outcome measures described in the previous paragraphs, a 
     proposed remedial action plan to address the failure.''.
       (b) Expedited Appeals for Certain Family Court Actions and 
     Proceedings.--Section 11-721, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Any appeal from an order of the Family Court of the 
     District of Columbia terminating parental rights or granting 
     or denying a petition to adopt shall receive expedited review 
     by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and shall be 
     certified by the appellant. An oral hearing on appeal shall 
     be deemed to be waived unless specifically requested by a 
     party to the appeal.''.
       (c) Plan for Integrating Computer Systems.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia shall submit to the President and Congress a plan 
     for integrating the computer systems of the District 
     government with the computer systems of the Superior Court of 
     the District of Columbia so that the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court and the appropriate offices of the District 
     government which provide social services and other related 
     services to individuals and families served by the Family 
     Court of the Superior Court (including the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing 
     Authority, the Child and Family Services Agency, the Office 
     of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department, the Department of Health, and other offices 
     determined by the Mayor) will be able to access and share 
     information on the individuals and families served by the 
     Family Court.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     11 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new items:

``11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution.
``11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel.
``11-1104. Administration.
``11-1105. Social services and other related services.
``11-1106. Reports to Congress.''.

     SEC. 5. TREATMENT OF HEARING COMMISSIONERS AS MAGISTRATE 
                   JUDGES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Redesignation of title.--Section 11-1732, District of 
     Columbia Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``hearing commissioners'' each place it 
     appears in subsection (a), subsection (b), subsection (d), 
     subsection (i), subsection (l), and subsection (n) and 
     inserting ``magistrate judges'';
       (B) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it 
     appears in subsection (b), subsection (c), subsection (e), 
     subsection (f), subsection (g), subsection (h), and 
     subsection (j) and inserting ``magistrate judge'';
       (C) by striking ``hearing commissioner's'' each place it 
     appears in subsection (e) and subsection (k) and inserting 
     ``magistrate judge's'';
       (D) by striking ``Hearing commissioners'' each place it 
     appears in subsections (b), (d), and (i) and inserting 
     ``Magistrate judges''; and
       (E) in the heading, by striking ``Hearing commissioners'' 
     and inserting ``Magistrate Judges''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 11-1732(c)(3), 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking ``, except 
     that'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (B) Section 16-924, District of Columbia Code, is amended--
       (i) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``magistrate judge''; and
       (ii) in subsection (f), by striking ``hearing 
     commissioner's'' and inserting ``magistrate judge's''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to section 11-
     1732 of the table of sections of chapter 17 of title 11, D.C. 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``11-1732. Magistrate judges.''.

       (b) Transition Provision Regarding Hearing Commissioners.--
     Any individual serving as a hearing commissioner under 
     section 11-1732 of the District of Columbia Code as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall serve the remainder 
     of such individual's term as a magistrate judge, and may be 
     reappointed as a magistrate judge in accordance with section 
     11-1732(d), District of Columbia Code, except that any 
     individual serving as a hearing commissioner as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act who was appointed as a hearing 
     commissioner prior to the effective date of section 11-1732 
     of the District of Columbia Code shall not be required to be 
     a resident of the District of Columbia to be eligible to be 
     reappointed.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. SPECIAL RULES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGES OF FAMILY COURT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 11, District of 
     Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-1732 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of the 
       Family Court of the Superior Court.

       ``(a) Use of Social Workers in Advisory Merit Selection 
     Panel.--The advisory selection merit panel used in the 
     selection of magistrate judges for the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court under section 11-1732(b) shall include 
     certified social workers specializing in child welfare 
     matters who are residents of the District and who are not 
     employees of the District of Columbia Courts.
       ``(b) Special Qualifications.--Notwithstanding section 11-
     1732(c), no individual shall be appointed as a magistrate 
     judge for the Family Court of the Superior Court unless that 
     individual--
       ``(1) is a citizen of the United States;
       ``(2) is an active member of the unified District of 
     Columbia Bar;
       ``(3) for the 5 years immediately preceding the appointment 
     has been engaged in the active practice of law in the 
     District, has been on the faculty of a law school in the 
     District, or has been employed as a lawyer by the United 
     States or District government, or any combination thereof;
       ``(4) has not fewer than 3 years of training or experience 
     in the practice of family law; and
       ``(5)(A) is a bona fide resident of the District of 
     Columbia and has maintained an actual place of abode in the 
     District for at least 90 days immediately prior to 
     appointment, and retains such residency during service as a 
     magistrate judge; or
       ``(B) is a bona fide resident of the areas consisting of 
     Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland, 
     Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and the City of Alexandria in 
     Virginia, has maintained an actual place of abode in such 
     area for at least 5 years prior to appointment, and certifies 
     that the individual will become a bona fide resident of the 
     District of Columbia not later than 90 days after 
     appointment.
       ``(c) Service of Current Hearing Commissioners.--Those 
     individuals serving as hearing commissioners under section 
     11-1732 on the effective date of this section who meet the 
     qualifications described in subsection (b)(4) may request to 
     be appointed as magistrate judges for the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court under such section.
       ``(d) Functions.--A magistrate judge, when specifically 
     designated by the presiding judge of the Family Court of the 
     Superior Court, and subject to the rules of the Superior 
     Court and the right of review under section 11-1732(k), may 
     perform the following functions:
       ``(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take 
     acknowledgements.
       ``(2) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and 
     applicable Federal and District of Columbia law, conduct 
     hearings, make findings and enter interim and final orders or 
     judgments in uncontested or contested proceedings within the 
     jurisdiction of the Family Court of the Superior Court (as 
     described in section 11-1101), excluding jury trials and 
     trials of felony cases, as assigned by the presiding judge of 
     the Family Court.
       ``(3) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court, enter an 
     order punishing an individual for contempt, except that no 
     individual may be detained pursuant to the authority of this 
     paragraph for longer than 180 days.
       ``(e) Location of Proceedings.--To the maximum extent 
     feasible, safe, and practicable, magistrate judges of the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court shall conduct proceedings 
     at locations readily accessible to the parties involved.
       ``(f) Training.--The Family Court of the Superior Court 
     shall ensure that all magistrate judges of the Family Court 
     receive training to enable them to fulfill their 
     responsibilities, including specialized training in family 
     law and related matters.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 11-1732(a), 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after 
     ``the duties enumerated in subsection (j) of this section'' 
     the following: ``(or, in the case of magistrate judges for 
     the Family Court of the Superior Court, the duties enumerated 
     in section 11-1732A(d))''.
       (2) Section 11-1732(c), District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended by striking ``No individual'' and inserting ``Except 
     as provided in section 11-1732A(b), no individual''.
       (3) Section 11-1732(k), District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (j),'' and inserting the 
     following: ``subsection (j) (or proceedings and hearings 
     under section 11-1732A(d), in the case of magistrate judges 
     for the Family Court of the Superior Court),''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``appropriate division'' the 
     following: ``(or, in the case of an order or judgment of a 
     magistrate judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court, 
     by a judge of the Family Court)''.
       (4) Section 11-1732(l), District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``responsibilities'' the 
     following: ``(subject to the requirements of section 11-
     1732A(f) in the case of magistrate judges of the Family Court 
     of the Superior Court)''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District of 
     Columbia, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 11-1732 the following new item:


[[Page S8958]]


``11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of Family Court of the 
              Superior Court.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Expedited initial appointments.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior 
     Court of the District of Columbia shall appoint not more than 
     5 individuals to serve as magistrate judges for the Family 
     Division of the Superior Court in accordance with the 
     requirements of sections 11-1732 and 11-1732A, District of 
     Columbia Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (B) Appointments made without regard to selection panel.--
     Sections 11-1732(b) and 11-1732A(a), District of Columbia 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)) shall not apply with 
     respect to any magistrate judge appointed under this 
     paragraph.
       (C) Priority for certain actions and proceedings.--The 
     chief judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge of 
     the Family Division of the Superior Court (acting jointly) 
     shall first assign and transfer to the magistrate judges 
     appointed under this paragraph actions and proceedings 
     described as follows:
       (i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of 
     abuse or neglect.
       (ii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act is not assigned 
     to the Family Division.
       (iii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the Family 
     Division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BORDER AGREEMENT WITH 
                   MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.

       It is the sense of Congress that the State of Maryland, the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia should 
     promptly enter into a border agreement to facilitate the 
     timely and safe placement of children in the District of 
     Columbia's welfare system in foster and kinship homes and 
     other facilities in Maryland and Virginia.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF COURT 
                   APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Chief Judge of the 
     Superior Court and the Presiding Judge of the Family Division 
     should take all steps necessary to encourage and support the 
     use of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) in family 
     court actions or proceedings.

     SEC. 9. INTERIM REPORTS.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court and the 
     presiding judge of the Family Court--
       (1) in consultation with the General Services 
     Administration, shall submit to Congress a feasibility study 
     for the construction of appropriate permanent courts and 
     facilities for the Family Court; and
       (2) shall submit to Congress an analysis of the success of 
     the use of magistrate judges under the expedited appointment 
     procedures established under section 6(d) in reducing the 
     number of pending actions and proceedings within the 
     jurisdiction of the Family Court (as described in section 11-
     902(d), District of Columbia).

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Courts of 
     the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the amendments made by 
     this Act.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 4 shall take effect upon the 
     expiration of the 18 month period which begins on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 1383. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the treatment of incentive stock options and employee stock purchases; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill 
to support the efforts of the many companies in New York and elsewhere 
who grant stock options to their employees. Over the past three 
decades, companies have increasingly used stock options to attract and 
motivate employees. These companies give their workers the right to 
purchase company stock, at a small discount from the listed price, 
through Employee Stock Purchase Plans, ESPP and Incentive Stock 
Options, ISO. Employees stock ownership has been shown to motivate 
workers and enhance relationship between management and workers. 
Indeed, for many workers, these plans are the only way to amass any 
assets.
  For nearly thirty years, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS has taken 
the position that income from these stock options is not subject to 
employment taxes. However, recent audits and rulings on individual 
companies have raised the troubling prospect that the IRS may now 
reverse its policy.
  ESPPs and ISOs were created by Congress to provide tools to build 
strong companies through increased employee ownership of company stock. 
The purpose of the bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator 
Roberts, is to clarify that it was not the intent of Congress to dilute 
these incentives by requiring employment tax withholding when the stock 
is purchased. While the IRS has in place a moratorium until January 1, 
2003 on assessing employment taxes on stock options, we must take 
action to eliminate any uncertainty for companies and workers as to 
whether options are subject to withholding taxes.
  Again, the legislation I am introducing would clarify that the 
difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of 
stock offered by the ISO and ESPP is excluded from employment taxes. In 
addition, wage withholding is not required on disqualifying 
dispositions of ISO stock or on the fifteen percent discount offered to 
employees by ESPPs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1384. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to expand the definition of the term ``Major 
disaster'' to include an application of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 that souses severe economic hardship; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, earlier this month I went to the 
Santiam Canyon community of Detroit. Along with my visit to Klamath 
Falls in May, it was probably one of the most emotional days I have had 
as a Senator.
  This beautiful community, located on one of Oregon's most popular 
recreational lakes, has been devastated by a combination of natural and 
man-made disasters. I stood next to one of the Detroit Lake marinas, 
which in past years had been the busiest spot on the lake, provided 
services to hundreds of boaters. I was amazed to see this marina was 
high and dry. Now there are only tree stumps and mud flats in the 
reservoir. Again, a result of both natural and man-made disasters. I 
hosted a town hall where 350 community residents, nearly the entire 
population of the City of Detroit, came to share their desperate 
concerns.
  I need to tell you what brought the community of Detroit, OR, to this 
point.
  Over 50 years ago, the town was forced by the Federal Government to 
move from its original location so that Detroit Dam & Reservoir could 
be built. The original city site was buried under several feet of 
water. Detroit was a hearty community of strong-willed men and women. 
Instead of giving up, they moved their community to higher ground, and 
they survived. Years later, the Federal Government again came to 
Detroit. Like a number of other timber dependent communities in Santiam 
Canyon, the timber supply from the surrounding Federal land was cut off 
and the mills were forced to close. Again, the residents of Detroit 
refused to be broken, and instead retooled their economy from timber to 
tourism.
  Now, the Federal Government is visiting Detroit, Oregon again. This 
time, as a result of drought and the government's decision to drain 
Detroit Reservoir, upon which that new economy was based, the community 
is once again facing extinction. Even with economic losses estimated at 
$1.75 million, the Small Business Administration and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency tell me that according to their 
regulations, there is no disaster in Detroit, OR, today.
  I am here to tell you that there is a disaster in Detroit, it was 
caused by the Federal Government, and it should be made right by the 
Federal Government.
  The Corps of Engineers drained Detroit Lake this summer before it 
ever had a chance to fill. The Corps tells me that under a negotiated 
agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS and 
other State and Federal agencies, it devised an operating plan to drain 
the reservoir in order to meet far downstream needs for water quality 
under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and even to 
meet the power needs of California. Once again, the needs of rural 
communities were left out of the equation.

[[Page S8959]]

  I hope that the Senate will work with me to find more effective ways 
of addressing drought. Detroit Lake is the prime example of how Federal 
programs fail to prepare and assist non-agricultural communities 
through drought disasters. This must change. The Federal Government 
must engage the States in preparing comprehensive drought contingency 
plans that address all those who are affected, agricultural and non-
agricultural communities alike.
  Areas like Detroit Lake and the Klamath Basin also portray in bold 
proportion the Federal Government's failure to take responsibility for 
its own actions, actions it deems necessary to meet environmental 
goals. I do not believe, however, that commitment to shared 
environmental values means leaving dustbowls, wastelands, and paralyzed 
communities in the wake of Federal actions. There must be a better way.
  Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that would qualify 
government-induced disasters for Disaster relief under the same 
guidelines as natural disasters. It seems only fitting that if the 
Government causes the disaster, it should provide the same relief as 
when nature causes the problem.
  I understand our environmental ethic, and I believe in our 
environmental stewardship obligations. But I know that I am not alone 
when I say this Government of the people and by the people, must also 
be for the people. Including those people hurting in Detroit, OR, 
today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1385. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant 
to the provisions of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act to participate in the design, planning, and 
construction of the Lakehaven water reclamation project for the 
reclamation and reuse of water; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation to improving the capacity and reliability of wastewater 
systems in the State of Washington.
  I thank my friend, Washington state's senior Senator, Patty Murray, 
who worked on this legislation in the last Congress and who has been a 
champion of clean water as a member of this body. I look forward to 
working with her as we build on those efforts in the years to come.
  The United States economy, the strongest economy in the world, is 
built on our human infrastructure and our physical infrastructure. We 
have among the most comprehensive air traffic, public transit, highway, 
and navigable waterway transportation systems; perhaps the most 
sophisticated energy transmission grids and communication networks; and 
the most effective drinking water and wastewater systems in the world.
  However, in the face of the natural aging and deterioration of these 
resources, combined with significant population growth, our Nation has 
a massive need for investment in the maintenance and improvement of our 
resources. Our Nation's economic health, and literally the physical 
health of our constituents, depends on that investment.
  In March, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a ``Report 
Card for America's Infrastructure.'' After an extensive survey of the 
Nation's infrastructure, the group of professionals perhaps most 
familiar with the technical capabilities of the roads, bridges, dams, 
runways, and water treatment plants, gave our Nation a cumulative grade 
of D+. The group estimated that our Nation needs to invest $1.3 
trillion over the next five years to bring our infrastructure up to the 
standards that keep our overall economy out of the gridlock that has 
gripped many of our metropolitan areas, that will keep our families 
safe, and that simply befits the nature of this great Nation in 
striving to be the best in the world.
  The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today 
addresses only a small piece of this infrastructure, but it is 
nonetheless important in addressing the growth of our region and the 
impacts of that growth on the water systems of one part of Washington. 
This legislation will authorize one project, in one area of our state, 
but it is essential to maintaining water quality in the Puget Sound 
region for fish habitat, for wetland restoration, and for meeting the 
growing demands for water in the many communities served by the 
Lakehaven Utility District.
  Since 1972 the Federal Government has spent about $73 billion on 
wastewater treatment programs. That's certainly no minor contribution, 
and we have made progress, the elimination of nearly 85 percent of 
wastewater. Unfortunately, with aging water collection and treatment 
systems across the Nation, it is still estimated that between 35 
percent and 45 percent of U.S. surface waters do not meet current 
water-quality standards. Our Nation's 16,000 wastewater systems still 
face enormous infrastructure funding needs.
  While last year Congress appropriated $1.35 billion for wastewater 
infrastructure, and another $1.35 billion in the legislation for fiscal 
year 2002 that this body passed yesterday, EPA has estimated that we 
will need to spend $126 billion by 2016 to fully achieve secondary 
treatment improvements of existing facilities. So we still have a long 
way to go, and I intend to keep working on increasing that Federal 
commitment with my colleagues.
  Again, the legislation that we are introducing today will take steps 
toward solving some of these infrastructure needs in the Puget Sound 
area and I will take a moment to explain the legislation.
  The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest 
water and sewer utilities providing 10.5 million gallons of water a day 
to over 100,000 residents and numerous corporate facilities in south 
King county and parts of Pierce county. The demand for water from these 
sources has increased to a point that the district may soon exceed safe 
water production limits and has resulted in reduction of water levels 
in all local aquifers.
  The District has two secondary wastewater treatment plants that 
currently discharge more than 6 million gallons of water a day to Puget 
Sound and the district is certain that techniques successfully used in 
many parts of this Nation to utilize reclaimed water to manage 
groundwater levels could be used in this region. The district has 
prepared a plan to construct additional treatment systems at the two 
wastewater treatment plants in the district, to improve pipeline 
distribution systems for transporting water to the reuse areas, and 
systems to direct water back to the aquifer system. if we make these 
improvements, the district will be able to better maintain stream 
levels during droughts and recharge the aquifers without using 
additional surface water.
  The legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the 
planning, land acquisition and construction of this important water 
reclamation project. The bill limits the Federal contribution to 25 
percent and would comply with other limitations and obligations of the 
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act.
  This project would begin to meet the needs of improving the 
wastewater systems serving a large segment of the Northwest population, 
and will provide additional protection for vital natural resources, 
using economically feasible and proven technologies. The Federal 
Government has a role in maintaining these systems and assisting in 
building additional infrastructure to handle our nation's massive 
needs.
  Thus I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this critical 
legislation for the state of Washington and our Nation, I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to expeditiously take up and pass this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 1386. A bill to amen the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the equitable operation of welfare benefit plans for employees, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, 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. 1386

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

[[Page S8960]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENT TO 1986 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Employee 
     Welfare Benefit Equity Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; amendment to 1986 Code.

                 TITLE I--CERTAIN WELFARE BENEFIT PLANS

Sec. 101. Modification of definition of ten-or-more employer plans.
Sec. 102. Clarification of deduction limits for certain collectively 
              bargained plans.
Sec. 103. Clarification of standards for section 501(c)(9) approval.
Sec. 104. Tax shelter provisions not to apply.
Sec. 105. Effective dates.

                    TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Clarification of section 4976.
Sec. 202. Effective date.

       (c) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or a repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

                 TITLE I--CERTAIN WELFARE BENEFIT PLANS

     SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF TEN-OR-MORE EMPLOYER 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Additional Requirements.--Paragraph (6)(B) of section 
     419A(f) (relating to the exception for 10 or more employer 
     plans) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause 
     (i), by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new 
     clauses:
       ``(iii) which meets the requirements of section 505(b)(1) 
     with respect to all benefits provided by the plan,
       ``(iv) which has obtained a favorable determination from 
     the Secretary that such plan (or a predecessor plan) is an 
     organization described in section 501(c)(9), and
       ``(v) under which no severance pay benefit is provided.''
       (b) Clarification of Experience Rating.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (6)(A) of section 419A(f) 
     (relating to the exception for 10 or more employer plans) is 
     amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to any 
     plan which is an experience-rated plan.''
       (2) Experience-rated plan.--Section 419A(f)(6) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Experience-rated plan.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `experience-rated plan' means a 
     plan which determines contributions by individual employers 
     on the basis of actual gain or loss experience.
       ``(ii) Exception for guaranteed benefit plan.--

       ``(I) In general.--The term `experience-rated plan' shall 
     not include a guaranteed benefit plan.
       ``(II) Guaranteed benefit plan.--The term `guaranteed 
     benefit plan' means a plan the benefits of which are funded 
     with insurance contracts or are otherwise determinable and 
     payable to a participant without reference to, or limitation 
     by, the amount of contributions to the plan attributable to 
     any contributing employer. A plan shall not fail to be 
     treated as a guaranteed benefit plan solely because benefits 
     may be limited or denied in the event a contributing employer 
     fails to pay premiums or assessments required by the plan as 
     a condition of continued participation.''

       (c) Single Plan Requirement.--Section 419A(f)(6), as 
     amended by subsections (a) and (b), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``means a plan'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``means a single plan'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Single plan.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `single plan' means a written plan or series of related 
     written plans the terms of which provide that--
       ``(i) all assets of the plan or plans, whether maintained 
     under 1 or more trusts, accounts, or other arrangements and 
     without regard to the method of accounting of the plan or 
     plans, are available to pay benefits of all participants 
     without regard to the participant's contributing employer, 
     and
       ``(ii) the method of accounting of the plan or plans may 
     not operate to limit or reduce the benefits payable to a 
     participant at any time before the withdrawal of the 
     participant's employer from the plan or the termination of 
     any benefit arrangement under the plan.''

     SEC. 102. CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION LIMITS FOR CERTAIN 
                   COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED PLANS.

       Paragraph (5) of section 419A(f) (relating to the 
     deductions limits for certain collectively bargained plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following flush 
     sentences:

     ``Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any plan maintained 
     pursuant to an agreement between employee representatives and 
     1 or more employers unless the taxpayer applies for, and the 
     Secretary issues, a determination that such agreement is a 
     bona fide collective bargaining agreement and that the 
     welfare benefits provided under the agreement were the 
     subject of good faith bargaining between employee 
     representatives and such employer or employers. The Secretary 
     may issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the 
     preceding sentence.''

      SEC. 103. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR SECTION 501(C)(9) 
                   APPROVAL.

       Section 505 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Clarification of Standards for Exemption.--
       ``(1) Membership.--An organization shall not fail to be 
     treated as an organization described in paragraph (9) of 
     section 501(c) solely because its membership includes 
     employees or other allowable participants who--
       ``(A) reside or work in different geographic locales, or
       ``(B) do not work in the same industrial or employment 
     classification.
       ``(2) Funding.--An organization described in paragraph (9) 
     or (20) of section 501(c) shall not be treated as 
     discriminatory solely because life insurance or other 
     benefits provided by the organization are funded with 
     different types of products, contracts, investments, or other 
     funding methods of varying costs, but only if the plan under 
     which such benefits are provided meets the requirements of 
     subsection (b).''

     SEC. 104. TAX SHELTER PROVISIONS NOT TO APPLY.

       Section 419 (relating to treatment of funded welfare 
     benefit plans) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Tax Shelter Rules Not To Apply.--For purposes of this 
     title, a welfare benefit fund meeting all applicable 
     requirements of this title shall not be treated as a tax 
     shelter or corporate tax shelter.''

     SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this title shall 
     apply to contributions to a welfare benefit fund made after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Tax Shelter Rules.--The amendment made by section 104 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 1028 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

                    TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 4976.

       Section 4976 (relating to excise taxes with respect to 
     funded welfare benefit plans) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4976. TAXES WITH RESPECT TO FUNDED WELFARE BENEFIT 
                   PLANS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--
       ``(1) General rule.--If--
       ``(A) an employer maintains a welfare benefit fund, and
       ``(B) there is--
       ``(i) a disqualified benefit provided or funded during any 
     taxable year, or
       ``(ii) a premature termination of such plan,

     there is hereby imposed on such employer a tax in the amount 
     determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Amount of tax.--The amount of the tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall be equal to--
       ``(A) in the case of a taxable event under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i), 100 percent of--
       ``(i) the amount of the disqualified benefit provided, or
       ``(ii) the amount of the funding of the disqualified 
     benefit, and
       ``(B) in the case of a taxable event under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii), 100 percent of all contributions to the fund 
     before the termination.
       ``(b) Disqualified Benefit.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `disqualified benefit' means--
       ``(A) any post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance 
     benefit provided with respect to a key employee if a separate 
     account is required to be established for such employee under 
     section 419A(d) and such payment is not from such account,
       ``(B) any post-retirement medical benefit or life insurance 
     benefit provided or funded with respect to an individual in 
     whose favor discrimination is prohibited unless the plan 
     meets the requirements of section 505(b) with respect to such 
     benefit (whether or not such requirements apply to such 
     plan), and
       ``(C) any portion of a welfare benefit fund reverting to 
     the benefit of the employer.
       ``(2) Exception for collective bargaining plans.--Paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall not apply to any plan maintained pursuant to an 
     agreement between employee representatives and 1 or more 
     employers if the Secretary finds that such agreement is a 
     collective bargaining agreement and that the benefits 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(B) were the subject of good 
     faith bargaining between such employee representatives and 
     such employer or employers.
       ``(3) Exception for nondeductible contributions.--Paragraph 
     (1)(C) shall not apply to any amount attributable to a 
     contribution to the fund which is not allowable as a 
     deduction under section 419 for the taxable year or any prior 
     taxable year (and such contribution shall not be included in 
     any carryover under section 419(d)).
       ``(4) Exception for certain amounts charged against 
     existing reserve.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to post-retirement benefits charged against 
     an existing reserve for post-retirement medical or life 
     insurance benefits (as defined in section 512(a)(3)(E)) or 
     charged against the income on such reserve.
       ``(c) Premature Termination.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `premature termination' means a 
     termination event which occurs on or before the date which is 
     6 years after the first contribution to a welfare benefit 
     fund which benefits any highly compensated employee.

[[Page S8961]]

       ``(2) Exception for insolvency, etc.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any termination event which occurs by reason of 
     the insolvency of the employer or for such other reasons as 
     the Secretary may by regulation determine are not likely to 
     result in abuse.
       ``(3) Termination event.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `termination event' means--
       ``(i) the termination of a welfare benefit fund,
       ``(ii) the withdrawal of an employer from a welfare benefit 
     fund to which more than 1 employer contributes, or
       ``(iii) any other action which is designed to cause, 
     directly or indirectly, a distribution of any asset from a 
     welfare benefit fund to a highly compensated employee.
       ``(B) Exception for bona fide benefits.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to any bona fide benefit (other than a 
     severance benefit) paid from a welfare benefit fund which is 
     available to all employees on a nondiscriminatory basis and 
     payable pursuant to the terms of a written plan.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided, the terms 
     used in this section shall have the same respective meanings 
     as when used in subpart D of part I of subchapter D of 
     chapter 1.
       ``(2) Post-retirement benefit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `post-retirement benefit' means 
     any benefit or distribution which is reasonably determined to 
     be paid, provided, or made available to a participant on or 
     after normal retirement age.
       ``(B) Normal retirement age.--The term `normal retirement 
     age' shall have the same meaning given the term in section 
     3(24) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 
     but in no event shall such date be later than the latest 
     normal retirement age defined in any qualified retirement 
     plan of the employer maintaining the welfare benefit fund 
     which benefits such individual.
       ``(C) Presumption in the case of permanent life 
     insurance.--In the case of a welfare benefit fund which 
     provides a life insurance benefit for an employee, any 
     contributions to the fund for life insurance benefits in 
     excess of the cumulative projected cost of providing the 
     employee permanent whole life insurance, calculated on the 
     basis level premiums for each for each year before a normal 
     retirement age, shall be treated as funding a post-retirement 
     benefit.''

      SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply to benefits 
     provided, and terminations occurring, after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1387. A bill to conduct a demonstration program to show that 
physician shortage, recruitment, and retention problems may be 
ameliorated in rural States by developing comprehensive program that 
will result in statewide physician population growth, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the ``Rural States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration 
Act of 2001,'' with Senators Domenici and Rockefeller. This Act would 
create a demonstration program to show that physician shortage, 
recruitment, and retention problems may be ameliorated in demonstration 
States by developing a training program and loan repayment program that 
will result in statewide physician population growth.
  The problem of recruiting and retaining physicians, particularly in 
some specialties, has reached crisis proportions in my State. There are 
very few small town residents who don't have a story to tell about 
losing a cherished doctor or traveling vast distances to see a 
specialist. And even in New Mexico's most populous city, Albuquerque, 
the number of practicing neurosurgeons can be counted on one hand. Not 
so long ago there were 11 of them practicing there. We know that the 
surgeons in Santa Fe are struggling to recruit a new general surgeon, 
as are many other communities throughout the State. We know that the 
thought of having an additional psychiatrist in Las Cruces would be 
considered by many to be an unrealistic fantasy. I am certain that many 
Senators from States that are demographically more similar to New 
Mexico than they are to Washington, D.C. can truly understand the 
discrepancy in physician recruitment and retention.
  Anyone representing a rural State knows that a certain amount of 
physician turn over is inevitable and understandable. It is very 
important, however, to anticipate how we can ensure an adequate supply 
of physicians in the future. Payment for Graduate Medical Education 
slots has been frozen at the number of physicians who were being 
trained in 1996. Within the past six months we have been told that the 
funding for training family physicians, general internists, 
pediatricians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and 
other health professionals should be drastically cut because ``today a 
physician shortage no longer exists''. Although aggregate data appears 
to support the notion that we need not be concerned about a physician 
shortage, this does not reflect what is happening at home.
  Health professional shortages continue to exist in geographically 
isolated and economically disadvantaged areas. This maldistribution 
problem is exacerbated by market forces that often entice physicians to 
urban or suburban areas where higher income levels can be achieved. The 
Medicare payment formula further contributes to the problem by 
assessing a lower cost of living adjustment in rural areas and, 
accordingly, decreasing the Medicare payment rate in the very area 
where the physician shortage exists in the first place. Fortunately we 
know that economics is only one of the many factors that physicians 
consider when they are choosing a place to practice. Family 
considerations and lifestyle issues also play a vital role in this 
important decision. One of the best predictors of where a physician 
will practice is directly related to the location of their post-
graduate medical education--they are likely to stay within a sixty-mile 
radius of where they did their residency training. This fact, provides 
us with a focus for this demonstration project.

  This particular piece of legislation creates a demonstration program 
in nine States that will correct the flaws in the system in two ways, 
and then will track health professionals in each demonstration State 
through a state-specific health professions database. Demonstration 
States would be identified using three criteria including an uninsured 
rate above the U.S. average, lack of primary care access above the U.S. 
average, and a combined Medicare and Medicaid population above 20 
percent.
  The first flaw in the system is the capitation limit placed on all 
residency graduate medical education positions in 1996. Whereas this 
action may have been appropriate for some States, maybe even most 
States, it has been extremely damaging to rural States where we know 
physicians are in short supply. This bill allows a sponsoring 
institution to increase the number of residency and fellowship 
positions by up to 50 percent if the sponsoring institution agrees to 
require that each resident or fellow in the affected training programs 
would spend an aggregate of 10 percent of their time during training 
providing supervised specialty services to underserved and rural 
community populations outside of their training institution. A waiver 
from this rural outreach requirement can be granted by the Secretary 
for certain hospital-based subspecialists, like neurosurgeons, if the 
demonstration State can demonstrate a shortage of physicians in that 
specialty statewide.
  The second flaw in the system revolves around the debt load carried 
by many physicians when they finish their training program. Currently 
there are several Federal and State programs that will help repay 
education loans. The problem lies in the fact that only primary care 
specialties currently qualify for these loan repayment programs. This 
legislation creates a similar loan repayment program for underserved 
specialists who agree to practice for one year in the demonstration 
State for each year of education loans that are repaid.
  Thus, this demonstration project does two critical things for 
recruitment and retention in rural States. It exposes to underserved 
areas that they may never have otherwise been exposed to, which 
increases the possibility that they will stay and practice there. It 
also relieves some of their economic burden from loans which may help 
to moderate the effect of lower Medicare reimbursement rates in rural 
areas.
  I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S8962]]

                                S. 1387

       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 ``Rural 
     States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration Act 
     of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Rural States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration 
              Program.
Sec. 4. Establishment of the Health Professions Database.
Sec. 5. Evaluation and reports.
Sec. 6. Contracting flexibility.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) COGME.--The term ``COGME'' means the Council on 
     Graduate Medical Education established under section 762 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294o).
       (2) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration 
     program'' means the Rural States Physician Recruitment and 
     Retention Demonstration Program established by the Secretary 
     under section 3(a).
       (3) Demonstration states.--The term ``demonstration 
     States'' means each State identified by the Secretary, based 
     upon data from the most recent year for which data are 
     available--
       (A) that has an uninsured population above 16 percent (as 
     determined by the Bureau of the Census);
       (B) for which the sum of the number of individuals who are 
     entitled to benefits under the medicare program and the 
     number of individuals who are eligible for medical assistance 
     under the medicaid program under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) equals or exceeds 20 
     percent of the total population of the State (as determined 
     by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services); and
       (C) that has an estimated number of individuals in the 
     State without access to a primary care provider of at least 
     17 percent (as published in ``HRSA's Bureau of Primary Health 
     Care: BPHC State Profiles'').
       (4) Eligible residency or fellowship graduate.--The term 
     ``eligible residency or fellowship graduate'' means a 
     graduate of an approved medical residency training program 
     (as defined in section 1886(h)(5)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A))) in a shortage physician 
     specialty.
       (5) Health professions database.--The term ``Health 
     Professions Database'' means the database established under 
     section 4(a).
       (6) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means 
     the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (7) MedPAC.--The term ``MedPAC'' means the Medicare Payment 
     Advisory Commission established under section 1805 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (9) Shortage physician specialty.--The term ``shortage 
     physician specialty'' means a medical or surgical specialty 
     identified in a demonstration State by the Secretary based 
     on--
       (A) an analysis and comparison of national data and 
     demonstration State data; and
       (B) recommendations from appropriate Federal, State, and 
     private commissions, centers, councils, medical and surgical 
     physician specialty boards, and medical societies or 
     associations involved in physician workforce, education and 
     training, and payment issues.

     SEC. 3. RURAL STATES PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Rural 
     States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration 
     Program for the purpose of ameliorating physician shortage, 
     recruitment, and retention problems in rural States in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section.
       (2) Consultation.--For purposes of establishing the 
     demonstration program, the Secretary shall consult with--
       (A) COGME;
       (B) MedPAC;
       (C) a representative of each demonstration State medical 
     society or association;
       (D) the health workforce planning and physician training 
     authority of each demonstration State; and
       (E) any other entity described in section 2(9)(B).
       (b) Duration.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
     demonstration program for a period of 10 years.
       (c) Conduct of Program.--
       (1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the 
     Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Centers 
     for Medicare & Medicaid Services) shall--
       (i) notwithstanding section 1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(F)) increase, by up to 
     50 percent of the total number of residency and fellowship 
     positions approved at each medical residency training program 
     in each demonstration State, the number of residency and 
     fellowship positions in each shortage physician specialty; 
     and
       (ii) subject to subparagraph (C), provide funding under 
     subsections (d)(5)(B) and (h) of section 1886 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) for each position added under 
     clause (i).
       (B) Establishment of additional positions.--
       (i) Identification.--The Secretary shall identify each 
     additional residency and fellowship position created as a 
     result of the application of subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Negotiation and consultation.--The Secretary shall 
     negotiate and consult with representatives of each approved 
     medical residency training program in a demonstration State 
     at which a position identified under clause (i) is created 
     for purposes of supporting such position.
       (C) Contracts with sponsoring institutions.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall condition the 
     availability of funding for each residency and fellowship 
     position identified under subparagraph (B)(i) on the 
     execution of a contract containing such provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate, including the provision 
     described in clause (ii) by each sponsoring institution.
       (ii) Provision described.--

       (I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), the 
     provision described in this clause is a provision that 
     provides that, during the residency or fellowship, the 
     resident or fellow shall spend not less than 10 percent of 
     the training time providing specialty services to underserved 
     and rural community populations other than an underserved 
     population of the sponsoring institution.
       (II) Exceptions.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     COGME, shall identify shortage physician specialties and 
     subspecialties for which the application of the provision 
     described in subclause (I) would be inappropriate and the 
     Secretary may waive the requirement under clause (i) that 
     such provision be included in the contract of a resident or 
     fellow with such a specialty or subspecialty.

       (D) Limitations.--
       (i) Period of payment.--The Secretary may not fund any 
     residency or fellowship position identified under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) for a period of more than 5 years.
       (ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess 
     the status of the shortage physician specialty in the 
     demonstration State prior to entering into any contract under 
     subparagraph (C) after the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the Secretary establishes the demonstration 
     program.
       (2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the 
     Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration) shall establish a loan 
     repayment and forgiveness program, through the holder of the 
     loan, under which the Secretary assumes the obligation to 
     repay a qualified loan amount for an educational loan of an 
     eligible residency or fellowship graduate--
       (i) for whom the Secretary has approved an application 
     submitted under subparagraph (D); and
       (ii) with whom the Secretary has entered into a contract 
     under subparagraph (C).
       (B) Qualified loan amount.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary 
     shall repay the lesser of--

       (I) 25 percent of the loan obligation of a graduate on a 
     loan that is outstanding during the period that the eligible 
     residency or fellowship graduate practices in the area 
     designated by the contract entered into under subparagraph 
     (C); or
       (II) $25,000 per graduate per year of such obligation 
     during such period.

       (ii) Limitation.--The aggregate amount under this 
     subparagraph may not exceed $125,000 for any graduate and the 
     Secretary may not repay or forgive more than 30 loans per 
     year in each demonstration State under this paragraph.
       (C) Contracts with residents and fellows.--
       (i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship 
     graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph 
     shall execute a contract containing the provisions described 
     in clause (ii).
       (ii) Provisions.--The provisions described in this clause 
     are provisions that require the eligible residency or 
     fellowship graduate--

       (I) to practice in a health professional shortage area of a 
     demonstration State during the period in which a loan is 
     being repaid or forgiven under this section; and
       (II) to provide health services relating to the shortage 
     physician specialty of the graduate that was funded with the 
     loan being repaid or forgiven under this section during such 
     period.

       (D) Application.--
       (i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship 
     graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in 
     such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       (ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess 
     the shortage physician specialty in the demonstration State 
     prior to accepting an application for repayment of any loan 
     under this paragraph after the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the demonstration program is established.
       (E) Construction.--Nothing in the section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.

[[Page S8963]]

       (F) Prevention of double benefits.--No borrower may, for 
     the same service, receive a benefit under both this paragraph 
     and any loan repayment or forgiveness program under title VII 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.).
       (d) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to waive any requirement of the medicare program, 
     or approve equivalent or alternative ways of meeting such a 
     requirement, if such waiver is necessary to carry out the 
     demonstration program, including the waiver of any limitation 
     on the amount of payment or number of residents under section 
     1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww).
       (e) Appropriations.--
       (1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions.--Any expenditures resulting from the establishment 
     of the funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions under subsection (c)(1) shall be made from the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i).
       (2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the loan repayment and forgiveness program 
     established under subsection (c)(2).

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS DATABASE.

       (a) Establishment of the Health Professions Database.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 7 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary (acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration) shall establish a State-specific health 
     professions database to track health professionals in each 
     demonstration State with respect to specialty certifications, 
     practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice 
     types, locations, education, and training, as well as 
     obligations under the demonstration program as a result of 
     the execution of a contract under paragraph (1)(C) or (2)(C) 
     of section 3(c).
       (2) Data sources.--In establishing the Health Professions 
     Database, the Secretary shall use the latest available data 
     from existing health workforce files, including the AMA 
     Master File, State databases, specialty medical society data 
     sources and information, and such other data points as may be 
     recommended by COGME, MedPAC, the National Center for 
     Workforce Information and Analysis, or the medical society of 
     the respective demonstration State.
       (b) Availability.--
       (1) During the program.--During the demonstration program, 
     data from the Health Professions Database shall be made 
     available to the Secretary, each demonstration State, and the 
     public for the purposes of--
       (A) developing a baseline with respect to a State's health 
     professions workforce and to track changes in a demonstration 
     State's health professions workforce;
       (B) tracking direct and indirect graduate medical education 
     payments to hospitals;
       (C) tracking the forgiveness and repayment of loans for 
     educating physicians; and
       (D) tracking commitments by physicians under the 
     demonstration program.
       (2) Following the program.--Following the termination of 
     the demonstration program, a demonstration State may elect to 
     maintain the Health Professions Database for such State at 
     its expense.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORTS.

       (a) Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--COGME and MedPAC shall jointly conduct a 
     comprehensive evaluation of the demonstration program.
       (2) Matters evaluated.--The evaluation conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include an analysis of the effectiveness 
     of the funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions and the loan repayment and forgiveness program on 
     physician recruitment, retention, and specialty mix in each 
     demonstration State.
       (b) Progress Reports.--
       (1) COGME.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which 
     the Secretary establishes the demonstration program, 5 years 
     after such date, and 10 years after such date, COGME shall 
     submit a report on the progress of the demonstration program 
     to the Secretary and Congress.
       (2) MedPAC.--MedPAC shall submit biennial reports on the 
     progress of the demonstration program to the Secretary and 
     Congress.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the demonstration program terminates, COGME and MedPAC 
     shall submit a final report to the President, Congress, and 
     the Secretary which shall contain a detailed statement of the 
     findings and conclusions of COGME and MedPAC, together with 
     such recommendations for legislation and administrative 
     actions as COGME and MedPAC consider appropriate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to COGME such sums as may be necessary for 
     the purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 6. CONTRACTING FLEXIBILITY.

       For purposes of conducting the demonstration program and 
     establishing and administering the Health Professions 
     Database, the Secretary may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1388. A bill to make election day a Federal holiday; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1388

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) democracy is an invaluable birthright of American 
     citizens and each generation must sustain and improve the 
     democratic process for its successors;
       (2) the Federal Government must actively create and enforce 
     laws that protect the voting rights of all Americans, and 
     further create an equal opportunity for all Americans to 
     participate in the voting process;
       (3) the Federal Government should encourage the value of 
     the right to vote;
       (4) 22.6 percent of Americans who do not vote in elections 
     give the reasoning that they are too busy and have a 
     conflicting work or school schedule;
       (5) the creation of a legal public holiday on election day 
     will increase the availability of poll workers and suitable 
     polling places; and
       (6) the creation of a legal public holiday on election day 
     might make voting easier for some workers and increase voter 
     participation by the American public.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTION DAY IN FEDERAL ELECTION 
                   YEARS AS A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

       Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting immediately below the item relating to Veterans 
     Day the following:
       ``Election Day, the Tuesday next after the first Monday in 
     November in each even-numbered year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1389. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain real 
property in south Dakota to the State of South Dakota with 
indemnification by the United States government, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Johnson and I are 
introducing the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001 to enable the 
construction of a new, world-renowned science laboratory in the Black 
Hills of South Dakota.
  Last Year, the Homestake Mining Company announced it is closing its 
gold mine in Lead, SD after 125 years of operation. This mine has been 
an important part of the economy in the Black Hills, and its closure 
presented South Dakota with a serious challenge.
  New opportunities for Lead became possible, however, when we learned 
that a group of prominent scientists had identified the mine as a 
potential site to establish a national underground science laboratory. 
Composed of some of the foremost researchers in the country, the 
National Underground Science Laboratory Committee found that 
Homestake's unique combination of depth, geologic stability and 
outstanding infrastructure made it an ideal location for an underground 
laboratory that could support groundbreaking new scientific research. 
In just the last few months, a $281 million proposal to construct the 
laboratory has been submitted to the National Science Foundation.
  As I learned, tiny particles known as neutrinos hold the answer to 
fundamental questions about the nature of the universe. These particles 
cannot be detected on the surface of the Earth due to the immense 
amount of interference coming in from outer space. However, research 
laboratories located deep underground, where detectors are shielded by 
thousand of feet of rock, have been able to detect these particles and 
provide important new information to scientists. Because the Homestake 
mine in Lead is over 8,000 feet deep, it offers outstanding 
opportunities for such research. In fact one neutrino experiment has 
been operating there since the 1960s.
  I have never seen such excitement in Lead as I have seen in relation 
to this proposal. Banners welcoming visiting scientists to Lead have 
been hung over the streets. The local chamber of commerce held a 
``Neutrino Day'' in February and reported the highest attendance for 
any even in recent memory. Students, teachers, miners, business

[[Page S8964]]

owners, people from every walk of life, have contacted me to express 
their excitement about the possibility of building a laboratory. The 
support for this proposal is overwhelming.
  In order to make the mine available for research, it is necessary for 
the facility to be transferred to the State of South Dakota and for the 
United States to assume a portion of the liability currently associated 
with the property. The purpose of the legislation Senator Johnson and I 
are introducing today is to ensure that this transfer takes places in a 
way that is fair to taxpayers, that protects the environment, and that 
ensures this facility can ultimately become available for research.
  This legislation establishes a number of steps that must be taken to 
meet these goals. First it requires that an independent inspection of 
the property take place to identify any condition that could pose a 
threat to human health or the environment. The Environmental Protection 
Agency must review the report accompanying this inspection and ensure 
that any problematic conditions are mitigated before transfer may be 
allowed to take place. Second, it requires that the State of South 
Dakota purchase environmental insurance to protect the taxpayers 
against any issue that may arise as a result of acquiring the mine. 
Third, it establishes a trust fund to provide a permanent source of 
revenue to finance any clean-up that may be necessary. Finally, this 
bill would take effect only if the National Science Foundation approves 
the construction of the laboratory.

  To be clear, only a portion of Homestake's existing facilities that 
are required for the laboratory are being considered for transfer. 
These include the underground portion of the mine and a small 
``footprint'' on the surface. The legislation specifically prohibits 
any tailings storage sites, waste rock dumps or other areas from being 
transferred, as these sites must be reclaimed by Homestake Mining 
Company.
  The final point I want to make is that this legislation is time-
sensitive. Homestake's current plan to reclaim the underground mine is 
to let it slowly flood with water once the mine closes in January of 
2001. If that happens, we will forever lose the opportunity to create 
this laboratory.
  This legislation has been developed over a period of months in close 
consultation with Homestake Mining Company, the environmental 
community, the scientific community, the State of South Dakota and the 
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. I want to thank all the 
individuals involved with this effort for their help. In particular, 
I'd like to thank Governor Bill Janklow, whose help and support is this 
process have been invaluable.
  I believe the resulting legislation is fair to all involved, and that 
it will ensure the success of the laboratory while protecting the 
environment. Moreover, by enabling the construction of this laboratory, 
it ultimately will bring significant benefits to the United States and 
make an important contribution to human knowledge. I look forward to 
working with all interested parties to make additional improvements to 
this legislation when we return in September, and I am personally 
committed to passing this legislation in a timely manner this fall.
  I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their support. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1389

       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 ``Homestake Mine Conveyance 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States is among the leading nations in the 
     world in conducting basic scientific research;
       (2) that leadership position strengthens the economy and 
     national defense of the United States and provides other 
     important benefits;
       (3) the Homestake Mine in Lead, South Dakota, owned by the 
     Homestake Mining Company of California, is approximately 
     8,000 feet deep and is situated in a unique physical setting 
     that is ideal for carrying out certain types of particle 
     physics and other research;
       (4) the Mine has been selected by the National Underground 
     Science Laboratory Committee, an independent panel of 
     distinguished scientists, as the preferred site for the 
     construction of a national underground laboratory;
       (5) such a laboratory would be used to conduct scientific 
     research that would be funded and recognized as significant 
     by the United States;
       (6) the establishment of the laboratory is in the national 
     interest, and would substantially improve the capability of 
     the United States to conduct important scientific research;
       (7) for economic reasons, Homestake intends to cease 
     operations and close the Mine in 2001;
       (8) on cessation of operations of the Mine, Homestake 
     intends to implement reclamation actions that would preclude 
     the establishment of a laboratory at the Mine;
       (9) Homestake has advised the State that, after cessation 
     of operations at the Mine, instead of carrying out those 
     reclamation actions, Homestake is willing to donate the 
     underground portion of the Mine and certain other real and 
     personal property of substantial value at the Mine for use as 
     the underground science laboratory;
       (10) use of the Mine as the site for the laboratory, 
     instead of other locations under consideration, would result 
     in a savings of millions of dollars;
       (11) if the National Science Foundation selects the Mine as 
     the site for the laboratory, it is essential that Homestake 
     not complete certain reclamation activities that would 
     preclude the location of the laboratory at the Mine;
       (12) Homestake is unwilling to donate, and the State is 
     unwilling to accept, the property at the Mine for the 
     laboratory if Homestake and the State would continue to have 
     potential liability with respect to the transferred property; 
     and
       (13) to secure the use of the Mine as the location for the 
     laboratory, and to realize the benefits of the proposed 
     laboratory, it is necessary for the United States to--
       (A) assume a portion of any potential future liability of 
     Homestake concerning the Mine; and
       (B) address potential liability associated with the 
     operation of the laboratory.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Affiliate.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``affiliate'' means any 
     corporation or other person that controls, is controlled by, 
     or is under common control with Homestake.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``affiliate'' includes a 
     director, officer, or employee of an affiliate.
       (3) Conveyance.--The term ``conveyance'' means the 
     conveyance of the Mine to the State under section 4(a).
       (4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Environment and 
     Project Trust Fund established under section 7.
       (5) Homestake.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Homestake'' means the Homestake 
     Mining Company of California, a California corporation.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``Homestake'' includes--
       (i) a director, officer, or employee of Homestake; and
       (ii) an affiliate of Homestake.
       (6) Laboratory.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``laboratory'' means the national 
     underground science laboratory proposed to be established at 
     the Mine after the conveyance.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``laboratory'' includes operating 
     and support facilities of the laboratory.
       (7) Mine.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Mine'' means the portion of the 
     Homestake Mine in Lawrence County, South Dakota, proposed to 
     be conveyed to the State for the establishment and operation 
     of the laboratory.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Mine'' includes--
       (i) real property, mineral and oil and gas rights, shafts, 
     tunnels, structures, in-Mine backfill, in-Mine broken rock, 
     fixtures, and personal property to be conveyed for 
     establishment and operation of the laboratory, as agreed upon 
     by Homestake, the State, and the Director of the laboratory; 
     and
       (ii) any water that flows into the Mine from any source.
       (C) Exclusions.--The term ``Mine'' does not include--
       (i) the feature known as the ``Open Cut'';
       (ii) any tailings or tailings storage facility (other than 
     in-Mine backfill); or
       (iii) any waste rock or any site used for the dumping of 
     waste rock (other than in-Mine broken rock).
       (8) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) an individual;
       (B) a trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation 
     (including a government corporation), partnership, 
     association, limited liability company, or any other type of 
     business entity;
       (C) a State or political subdivision of a State;
       (D) a foreign governmental entity; and
       (E) any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States.
       (9) Project sponsor.--The term ``project sponsor'' means an 
     entity that manages or

[[Page S8965]]

     pays the costs of 1 or more projects that are carried out or 
     proposed to be carried out at the laboratory.
       (10) State.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     South Dakota.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``State'' includes an 
     institution, agency, officer, or employee of the State.

     SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Delivery of documents.--Subject to paragraph (2) and 
     subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on the execution and delivery by Homestake of 1 or more 
     quit-claim deeds or bills of sale conveying to the State all 
     right, title, and interest of Homestake in and to the Mine, 
     title to the Mine shall pass from Homestake to the State.
       (2) Condition of mine on conveyance.--The Mine shall be 
     conveyed as is, with no representations as to the conditions 
     of the property.
       (b) Requirements for Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition precedent of conveyance and 
     of the assumption of liability by the United States in 
     accordance with this Act, the Administrator shall accept the 
     final report or certification of the independent entity under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (3).
       (2) Due diligence inspection.--
       (A) In general.--As a condition precedent of conveyance and 
     of Federal participation described in this Act, Homestake 
     shall permit an independent entity that is selected jointly 
     by Homestake, the South Dakota Department of Environment and 
     Natural Resources, and the Administrator to conduct a due 
     diligence inspection of the Mine to determine whether any 
     condition of the Mine poses a substantial risk to human 
     health or the environment.
       (B) Consultation.--As a condition precedent of the conduct 
     of a due diligence inspection, Homestake, the South Dakota 
     Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the 
     Administrator, and the independent entity shall consult and 
     agree upon the methodology and standards to be used, and 
     other factors to be considered, by the independent entity 
     in--
       (i) the conduct of the due diligence inspection;
       (ii) the scope of the due diligence inspection; and
       (iii) the time and duration of the due diligence 
     inspection.
       (3) Report to administrator.--
       (A) In general.--The independent entity shall submit to the 
     Administrator a report that--
       (i) describes the results of the due diligence inspection 
     under paragraph (2); and
       (ii) identifies any condition of or in the Mine that poses 
     a substantial risk to human health or the environment.
       (B) Procedure.--
       (i) Draft report.--Before finalizing the report under this 
     paragraph, the independent entity shall--

       (I) issue a draft report;
       (II) submit to the Administrator a copy of the draft 
     report;
       (III) issue a public notice requesting comments on the 
     draft report that requires all such comments to be filed not 
     later than 45 days after issuance of the public notice; and
       (IV) during that 45-day public comment period, conduct at 
     least 1 public hearing in Lead, South Dakota, to receive 
     comments on the draft report.

       (ii) Final report.--In the final report submitted to the 
     Administrator under this paragraph, the independent entity 
     shall respond to, and incorporate necessary changes suggested 
     by, the comments received on the draft report.
       (4) Review and approval by administrator.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving the 
     final report under paragraph (3), the Administrator shall--
       (i) review the report; and
       (ii) notify the State in writing of acceptance or rejection 
     of the final report.
       (B) Conditions for rejection.--The Administrator may reject 
     the final report only if the Administrator identifies 1 or 
     more conditions of the Mine that--
       (i) pose a substantial risk to human health or the 
     environment, as determined by the Administrator; and
       (ii) require response action to correct each condition 
     causing the substantial risk to human health or the 
     environment identified in clause (i) before conveyance and 
     assumption by the Federal Government of liability concerning 
     the Mine under this Act.
       (C) Remedial measures and certification.--
       (i) Remediation.--

       (I) In general.--If the Administrator rejects the final 
     report, Homestake may carry out, or permit the State to carry 
     out, such measures as are necessary to remove or remediate 
     any condition identified by the Administrator under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) as posing a substantial risk to human 
     health or the environment.
       (II) Long-term remediation.--

       (aa) In general.--In a case in which the Administrator 
     determines that a condition identified by the Administrator 
     under subparagraph (B)(i) requires continuing remediation, or 
     remediation that can only be completed as part of the final 
     closure of the Mine, it shall be a condition of conveyance 
     that Homestake or the National Science Foundation shall 
     deposit into the Fund such funds as are necessary to pay the 
     costs of that remediation.
       (bb) Source of funds.--Any funds deposited by the National 
     Science Foundation under this paragraph shall be made 
     available from grant funding provided for the construction of 
     the Laboratory.
       (ii) Certification.--After the remedial measures described 
     in clause (i)(I) are carried out and funds are deposited 
     under clause (i)(II), the independent entity may certify to 
     the Administrator that the conditions for rejection 
     identified by the Administrator under subparagraph (B) have 
     been corrected.
       (iii) Acceptance or rejection of certification.--Not later 
     than 60 days after an independent entity makes a 
     certification under clause (ii), the Administrator shall 
     accept or reject the certification.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY.

       (a) Assumption of Liability.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, on completion of the conveyance in 
     accordance with this Act, the United States shall assume any 
     and all liability relating to the Mine and laboratory, 
     including liability for--
       (1) damages;
       (2) reclamation;
       (3) the costs of response to any hazardous substance (as 
     defined in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601)), contaminant, or other material on, under, or relating 
     to the Mine and laboratory; and
       (4) closure of the Mine and laboratory.
       (b) Liability Protection.--On completion of the conveyance, 
     neither Homestake nor the State shall be--
       (1) liable to any person or the United States for injuries, 
     costs, injunctive relief, reclamation, damages (including 
     damages to natural resources or the environment), or 
     expenses, or liable under any other claim (including claims 
     for indemnification or contribution, claims by third parties 
     for death, personal injury, illness, or loss of or damage to 
     property, or claims for economic loss), under any law 
     (including a regulation) for any claim arising out of or in 
     connection with contamination, pollution, or other condition, 
     use, or closure of the Mine and laboratory, regardless of 
     when a condition giving rise to the liability originated or 
     was discovered; or
       (2) subject to any claim brought by or on behalf of the 
     United States under section 3730 of title 31, United States 
     Code, relating to negligence on the part of Homestake in 
     carrying out activities for the conveyance of, and in 
     conveying, the Mine.
       (c) Indemnification.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, on completion of the conveyance in accordance with 
     this Act, the United States shall indemnify, defend, and hold 
     harmless Homestake and the State from and against any and all 
     liabilities and claims described in subsections (a) and (b).
       (d) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--For the purposes of this 
     Act, the United States waives any claim to sovereign 
     immunity.
       (e) Timing for Assumption of Liability.--If the conveyance 
     is effectuated by more than 1 legal transaction, the 
     assumption of liability, liability protection, 
     indemnification, and waiver of sovereign immunity provided 
     for under this section shall apply to each legal transaction, 
     as of the date on which the transaction is completed and with 
     respect to such portion of the Mine as is conveyed under that 
     transaction.
       (f) Exceptions for Homestake Claims.--Nothing in this 
     section constitutes an assumption of liability by the United 
     States, or relief of liability of Homestake, for--
       (1) any unemployment, worker's compensation, or other 
     employment-related claim of an employee of Homestake that 
     arose before the date of conveyance;
       (2) any claim or cause of action, other than an 
     environmental claim or a claim concerning natural resources, 
     that arose before the date of conveyance;
       (3) any violation of any provision of criminal law; or
       (4) any claim, injury, damage, liability, or reclamation or 
     cleanup obligation with respect to any property or asset that 
     is not conveyed under this Act, except to the extent that any 
     such claim, injury, damage, liability, or reclamation or 
     cleanup obligation arises out of the continued existence or 
     use of the Mine subsequent to the date of conveyance.

     SEC. 6. INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       (a) Property and Liability Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, subject 
     to the requirements described in paragraph (2), the State 
     shall purchase property and liability insurance for the Mine 
     and the operation of the laboratory to provide coverage 
     against the liability described in subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 5.
       (2) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Terms of insurance.--In determining the type, extent of 
     coverage, and policy limits of insurance purchased under this 
     subsection, the State shall--
       (i) periodically consult with the Administrator and the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation; and
       (ii) consider certain factors, including--

       (I) the nature of the projects and experiments being 
     conducted in the laboratory;
       (II) the availability of commercial insurance; and
       (III) the amount of funding available to purchase 
     commercial insurance.

[[Page S8966]]

       (B) Additional terms.--The insurance purchased by the State 
     under this subsection may provide coverage that is--
       (i) secondary to the insurance purchased by project 
     sponsors; and
       (ii) in excess of amounts available in the Fund to pay any 
     claim.
       (3) Financing of insurance purchase.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to section 7, the State may 
     finance the purchase of insurance required under this 
     subsection by using--
       (i) funds made available from the Fund; and
       (ii) such other funds as are received by the State for the 
     purchase of insurance for the Mine and laboratory.
       (B) No requirement to use state funds.--Nothing in this Act 
     requires the State to use State funds to purchase insurance 
     required under this subsection.
       (4) Additional insured.--Any insurance purchased by the 
     State under this subsection shall--
       (A) name the United States as an additional insured; or
       (B) otherwise provide that the United States is a 
     beneficiary of the insurance policy having the primary right 
     to enforce all rights of the United States under the policy.
       (5) Termination of obligation to purchase insurance.--The 
     obligation of the State to purchase insurance under this 
     subsection shall terminate on the date on which--
       (A) the Mine ceases to be used as a laboratory; or
       (B) sufficient funding ceases to be available for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Mine or laboratory.
       (b) Project Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--The State, in consultation with the 
     Administrator and the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, may require, as a condition of approval of a 
     project for the laboratory, that a project sponsor provide 
     property and liability insurance or other applicable coverage 
     for potential liability associated with the project described 
     in subsections (a) and (b) of section 5.
       (2) Additional insured.--Any insurance obtained by the 
     project sponsor under this section shall--
       (A) name the State and the United States as additional 
     insureds; or
       (B) otherwise provide that the State and the United States 
     are beneficiaries of the insurance policy having the primary 
     right to enforce all rights under the policy.
       (c) State Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--To the extent required by State law, the 
     State shall purchase, with respect to the operation of the 
     Mine and the laboratory--
       (A) unemployment compensation insurance; and
       (B) worker's compensation insurance.
       (2) Prohibition on use of funds from fund.--A State shall 
     not use funds from the Fund to carry out paragraph (1).

     SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENT AND PROJECT TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--On completion of the conveyance, the 
     State shall establish, in an interest-bearing account at an 
     accredited financial institution located within the State, an 
     Environment and Project Trust Fund.
       (b) Amounts.--The Fund shall consist of--
       (1) an annual deposit from the operation and maintenance 
     funding provided for the laboratory in an amount to be 
     determined--
       (A) by the State, in consultation with the Director of the 
     National Science Foundation and the Administrator; and
       (B) after taking into consideration--
       (i) the nature of the projects and experiments being 
     conducted at the laboratory;
       (ii) available amounts in the Fund;
       (iii) any pending costs or claims that may be required to 
     be paid out of the Fund; and
       (iv) the amount of funding required for future actions 
     associated with the closure of the facility;
       (2) an amount determined by the State, in consultation with 
     the Director of the National Science Foundation and the 
     Administrator, and to be paid by the appropriate project 
     sponsor, for each project to be conducted, which amount--
       (A) shall be used to pay--
       (i) costs incurred in removing from the Mine or laboratory 
     equipment or other materials related to the project;
       (ii) claims arising out of or in connection with the 
     project; and
       (iii) if any portion of the amount remains after paying the 
     expenses described in clauses (i) and (ii), other costs 
     described in subsection (c); and
       (B) may, at the discretion of the State, be assessed--
       (i) annually; or
       (ii) in a lump sum as a prerequisite to the approval of the 
     project;
       (3) interest earned on amounts in the Fund, which amount of 
     interest shall be used only for a purpose described in 
     subsection (c); and
       (4) all other funds received and designated by the State 
     for deposit in the Fund.
       (c) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     used only for the purposes of funding--
       (1) waste and hazardous substance removal or remediation, 
     or other environmental cleanup at the Mine;
       (2) removal of equipment and material no longer used, or 
     necessary for use, in conjunction with a project conducted at 
     the laboratory;
       (3) a claim arising out of or in connection with the 
     conducting of such a project;
       (4) purchases of insurance by the State as required under 
     section 6;
       (5) payments for and other costs relating to liability 
     described in section 5; and
       (6) closure of the Mine and laboratory.
       (d) Federal Payments From Fund.--The United States--
       (1) to the extent the United States assumes liability under 
     section 5--
       (A) shall be a beneficiary of the Fund; and
       (B) may direct that amounts in the Fund be applied to pay 
     amounts and costs described in this section; and
       (2) may take action to enforce the right of the United 
     States to receive 1 or more payments from the Fund.
       (e) No Requirement of Deposit of Public Funds.--Nothing in 
     this section requires the State to deposit State funds as a 
     condition of the assumption by the United States of 
     liability, or the relief of the State or Homestake from 
     liability, under section 5.

     SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION OF LABORATORY.

       After the conveyance, nothing in this Act exempts the 
     laboratory from compliance with any law (including a Federal 
     environmental law).

     SEC. 9. CONTINGENCY.

       This Act shall be effective contingent on the selection, by 
     the National Science Foundation, of the Mine as the site for 
     the laboratory.

     SEC. 10. PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS.

       The United States may seek payment--
       (1) from the Fund, under section 7(d), to pay or reimburse 
     the United States for amounts payable or liabilities incurred 
     under this Act; and
       (2) from available insurance, to pay or reimburse the 
     United States and the Fund for amounts payable or liabilities 
     incurred under this Act.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 1390. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to 
promote innovative outreach and enrollment efforts under the State 
children's health insurance program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bipartisan legislation I am 
introducing today with Senators Lugar, Torricelli, and Corzine entitled 
the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2001'' would 
improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted at children to 
dramatically reduce the number of uninsured children in this country. 
This legislation is a companion bill to S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, 
Stay Healthy Act of 2001,'' which would expand and improve coverage to 
children and pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, CHIP.
  The legislation provides $100 million in grants annually from the 
unspent allocations in CHIP to community-based public or non-profit 
organizations, including community health centers, children's 
hospitals, disproportionate share hospitals, local and county 
government, and public health departments, for the purposes of 
conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts.
  The bill further clarifies that the outstationed workers requirement 
in Medicaid, which requires that eligibility workers be available in 
the public in our nation's community health centers and safety net 
hospitals, shall also enroll children in CHIP if they are eligible for 
coverage under that program as well.
  As you are aware, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
which was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was the 
largest expansion of health coverage since the enactment of Medicare 
and Medicaid in 1965. The program, designed to cover low-income 
children under age 18, provides on average $4 billion a year to the 
states to either expand Medicaid, establish a separate state program 
apart from Medicaid, or a combination of the two approaches.
  Unfortunately, according to an Urban Institute report entitled How 
Familiar Are Low-Income Parents with Medicaid and SCHIP?, it is 
estimated that up to 80 percent of the 11 million uninsured children in 
the country are eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Thus, 
ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority 
of uninsured children. Instead, as the report notes, ``A major 
challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who 
are eligible but who remain uninsured.''

[[Page S8967]]

  The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program 
rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. 
According to the study, ``Only 38 percent of low-income uninsured 
children have parents who have heard of Medicaid or SCHIP programs and 
who also understand the basic eligibility rules,'' Moreover, less than 
half of parents, 47 percent, of low income uninsured children were even 
aware of the separate SCHIP program.

  As the authors conclude, ``For SCHIP expansions to reduce uninsurance 
among children, it is critical that families know about the coverage 
available through separate non-Medicaid SCHIP programs . . . .''
  In addition, senior health researcher Peter J. Cunningham at the 
Center for Studying Health System Change recently published an article 
in Health Affairs entitled ``Targeting Communities With High Rates of 
Uninsured Children'' that highlights that the ``key to getting children 
insured'' is improved ``enrollment outreach.''
  As the article notes, ``Policymakers have understood from the 
beginning that the key to the success of SCHIP is in getting eligible 
children to enroll . . . The results of this study suggest that 
outreach activities and other efforts to stimulate enrollment need to 
be especially focused in high-uninsurance areas, both because they 
include a large concentration of the nation's uninsured children and 
because take-up rates of public and private coverage have historically 
been lower in these areas.''
  Cunningham particularly notes that children in high-uninsured 
communities are disproportionately Hispanic. As he points out, 
``Hispanics typically have lower take-up rates for health insurance 
programs for which they are eligible. This could be attributable to 
immigration concerns, language barriers, lack of awareness of public 
programs, or not understanding the roll that insurance coverage plays 
in the United States in securing access to high-quality health care.''
  As a result, the legislation also contains a provision giving 
priority to community-based organizations in communities with high 
rates of eligible but unenrolled children and in areas with high rates 
of families for whom English is not their primary language. It is 
certainly my desire for programs such as ``promotoras'' or community 
health advisors to receive these grants, as they have been incredibly 
effective in New Mexico in improving health insurance coverage to 
children.
  An estimated 11 million children under age 19 were without health 
insurance in 1999, including 129,000 in New Mexico, representing 15 
percent of all children in the United States and 22 percent of children 
in New Mexico, the fourth highest rate of uninsured children in the 
country. An estimated 103,000 of those children are in families with 
incomes below 200 percent of poverty, so the majority of those children 
are already eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid.
  Why is this important? According to the American College of 
Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, uninsured children, 
compared to the insured, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone 
without needed medical, dental or other health care; 2 times more 
likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; 
up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 
10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 
times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 
30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury.
  In fact, one study has ``estimated that the 15 percent rise in the 
number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 
decreased child mortality by 5 percent.'' This expansion of coverage 
for children occurred, I would add, during the Reagan and Bush 
Administrations, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves 
further bipartisan action.
  Mr. President, I urge this legislation's immediate passage. We can 
and must do better for our children.
  I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1390

       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 ``Children's Health Coverage 
     Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS TO PROMOTE INNOVATIVE OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT 
                   EFFORTS UNDER SCHIP.

       (a) In General.--Section 2104(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Grants to promote innovative outreach and enrollment 
     efforts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Prior to any redistribution under 
     paragraph (1) of unexpended allotments made to States under 
     subsection (b) or (c) for fiscal year 2000 and any fiscal 
     year thereafter, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) reserve from such unexpended allotments the lesser of 
     $100,000,000 or the total amount of such unexpended 
     allotments for grants under this paragraph for the fiscal 
     year in which the redistribution occurs; and
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), use such reserved funds 
     to make grants to local and community-based public or 
     nonprofit organizations (including organizations involved in 
     pediatric advocacy, local and county governments, public 
     health departments, Federally-qualified health centers, 
     children's hospitals, and hospitals defined as 
     disproportionate share hospitals under the State plan under 
     title XIX) to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment 
     efforts that are consistent with section 2102(c) and to 
     promote parents' understanding of the importance of health 
     insurance coverage for children.
       ``(B) Priority for grants in certain areas.--In making 
     grants under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall give 
     priority to grant applicants that propose to target the 
     outreach and enrollment efforts funded under the grant to 
     geographic areas--
       ``(i) with high rates of eligible but unenrolled children, 
     including such children who reside in rural areas; or
       ``(ii) with high rates of families for whom English is not 
     their primary language.
       ``(C) Applications.--An organization that desires to 
     receive a grant under this paragraph shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary in such form and manner, and 
     containing such information, as the Secretary may decide.''.
       (b) Extending Use of Outstationed Workers To Accept Title 
     XXI Applications.--Section 1902(a)(55) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(55)) is amended by inserting ``, and applications 
     for child health assistance under title XXI'' after 
     ``(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1391. A bill to establish a grant program for Sexual Assault 
Forensic Examiners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual 
Assault Forensic Examiners Act of 2001, which is being co-sponsored by 
Senator DeWine. This bill aims to vastly improve the care of victims of 
sexual assault and help see to it that their attackers end up behind 
bars.
  Over 300,000 women are sexually assaulted each year in the United 
States. Unlike all other violent crimes, rape is not declining in 
frequency. When a woman suffers the horrific crime of sexual assault, 
there are two minimal things our system owes her. First, we owe it to 
her to do everything in our power to find and put her assailants behind 
bars. Second, we owe her prompt and caring treatment when she's 
reported the crime, which in itself is often an act of great courage. 
Yet, all too often, we fail in these basic obligations.
  Most rape victims who seek treatment go to hospital emergency rooms, 
where they often wait hours in public waiting rooms. Some leave the 
hospital altogether rather than endure extended delay, decreasing the 
likelihood the offense will ever be reported or prosecuted. Once 
victims are finally attended to, most victims are treated by a series 
of rushed emergency room nurses, doctors and lab technicians who often 
lack specialized training in the particular physical and psychological 
care rape victims need. Emergency room nurses and doctors also 
typically have little training in collecting, correctly handling and 
preserving forensic evidence from rape victims. Moreover, many 
hospitals lack the last forensic tools, such as dye that reveals 
microscopic scratches, and colposcopes, which detect and photograph 
otherwise invisible pelvic injuries. As a result, evidence is 
mishandled or never uncovered in the first place--jeopardizing 
prosecutions. Finally, emergency room personnel, already overworked, 
are sometimes reluctant to cooperate with police and prosecutors in 
sexual assault cases,

[[Page S8968]]

knowing this entails time-consuming interviews, witness preparation and 
court appearances--to say nothing of unpleasant cross-examinations.
  SAFE programs dramatically improve the situation. SAFE examiners are 
specially trained in the latest techniques of forensic evidence 
gathering. They cooperate fully with police and prosecutors, and their 
specialized training and experience makes them better witnesses in 
court. When defendants claim consent, physical evidence of force, which 
can be difficult to uncover and explain to juries--can make all the 
difference. Prosecutors support SAFE programs because they lead to more 
prosecutions and convictions.
  SAFE programs also provide better care to victims. Rather than face a 
long public wait and a revolving door of emergency room care-givers, 
victims treated by SAFEs are seen immediately in private, tell their 
story to and receive care from a single attendant, and are treated with 
greater sensitivity by examiners with specialized psychological 
training.
  There are now fewer than 750 SAFE programs in the United States, 
serving less than 5 percent of all victims. Our bill aims to expand 
SAFE programs by providing $10 million a year from 2002 to 2006 in 
grants to new or existing SAFE programs. SAFE programs currently have 
to compete against a myriad of other law enforcement and victims' 
programs for federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act and 
the Victims of Crime Act; by contrast, the SAFE Grant Act of 2001 will 
provide a unique and direct source of Federal funding for SAFEs. The 
Department of Justice, which is already responsible for developing 
national standards for SAFE programs, will administer the grants, 
ensure that recipients conform to the national standards, and give 
priority to SAFE programs in currently undeserved areas.
  Being the victims of a sexual assault is bad enough. We have to see 
to it that the system doesn't exacerbate the problem with shoddy care 
and mishandled cases. This bill should provide some help and I'm proud 
to introduce it today.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Sexual 
Assault Forensic Examiners Act of 2001, sponsored by my colleague, 
Senator Charles Schumer, to whom I am grateful for introducing this 
important legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to 
appropriate $10 million annually for the support of programs that 
utilize Sexual Assault Forensic Nurses in the treatment and counseling 
of rape victims.
  Somewhere in America, a woman is sexually assaulted every two 
minutes. In the past year alone, 307,000 women were sexually assaulted 
in this country, and unlike other violent crimes, rape is not 
decreasing in frequency. Unfortunately, the treatment that many rape 
victims presently receive is far from adequate. Most victims of sexual 
assault who report their crimes do so in a hospital emergency room, 
where they frequently wait hours for treatment only to see doctors 
without specialized training who lack the proper forensic tools for 
evidence collection. Many victims report that their post-traumatic 
experiences in hospitals constitute another humiliating victimization. 
Victims of sexual assault should not be traumatized twice, especially 
when there are better programs in place that could help them.
  A Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner, often referred to as a SAFE, is a 
registered nurse who has received advanced training and clinical 
preparation in the forensic examination of sexual assault victims. As 
opposed to rape survivors seen by typical emergency room personnel, 
patients seen by these SAFEs rarely wait for treatment, see a single 
specially trained examiner instead of any number of different doctors, 
and receive sensitive, specialized care. The intervention of SAFEs in a 
sex crimes case bolsters the odds of prosecution and conviction of 
offenders, as these nurses are trained in the proper methods to utilize 
``rape kits'' and collect forensic evidence. Furthermore, the expertise 
of SAFE nurses renders them better witnesses than most emergency room 
personnel during trials, which can make the difference between a 
conviction and an acquittal. The Department of Justice reports that in 
areas where SAFE programs have been established for more than 10 years, 
there is a 96 percent rape conviction rate, as opposed to the 4% 
average conviction rate in areas without SAFE facilities.
  Five hundred SAFE programs currently exist in the United States, but 
these programs treat less than 5 percent of all sexual assault victims. 
Financial hurdles hinder the growth of SAFE programs, which frequently 
compete with other law enforcement and victims' programs to obtain the 
limited Federal funds available from existing sources. By creating a 
specific and substantial source of Federal funding for SAFE programs, 
more SAFE programs will be established, improving both the quality of 
care provided to victims and the conviction rate of their assailants.
  In the short time that I have been speaking here, two women became 
victims of sexual violence. By lending your support to the ``Sexual 
Assault Forensic Examiner Grant Act of 2001,'' you can help assure that 
the hundreds of thousands of women who are raped each year receive the 
sensitive medical care that hey both require and deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 1392. A bill to establish procedures for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs of the Department of the Interior with respect to tribal 
recognition; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 1393. A bill to provide grants to ensure full and fair 
participation in certain decisionmaking processes at the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of 
legislation intended to help reform and improve the process by which 
the Federal Government acknowledges the sovereign rights of American 
Indian tribes and their Governments.
  I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation 
that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how 
the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's 
native peoples. Senator Inouye and Senator Campbell have provided 
invaluable leadership on this issue and I hope that the bills I am 
introducing today will serve as a modest, but useful contribution that 
will help move us toward a more speedy and more fair recognition 
process.
  Currently there are more than 150 Indian groups that have petitions 
for recognition as sovereign tribes pending before the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, BIA. No fewer than nine of those petitions are from groups 
based in Connecticut.
  Several recent actions by the BIA have generated considerable debate 
about the timeliness, accuracy, and fairness of the BIA's actions. I 
believe that careful reform of the recognition process can help prevent 
future doubts before they emerge.
  As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, 
we ought to be guided by several firm principles: fairness, openness, 
respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all 
Americans. The two bills that I am introducing today are based on these 
principles and I believe will bring us closer to our shared objectives.
  Problems with the current recognition process have been well 
documented. It is widely recognized that the process is taking too long 
to resolve the claims of many Indian groups. It is also known that 
towns and other interested parties often believe that their input is 
ignored.
  Last year, the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs testified 
before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on the BIA's tribal 
recognition process. In a remarkable statement, he called for an 
overhaul of that process. I do not disagree. In fact, I believe that we 
have an obligation to restore public confidence in the recognition 
process.
  I have proposed a three-part legislative initiative to make the 
process more accurate, more fair, and more timely. Those parts are: 
one, provide more money to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have 
previously called for increases in the budget for the BIA so it can 
upgrade its recognition process. For several years, I have sought and 
supported additional funding for the BIA's branch of acknowledgment and

[[Page S8969]]

research. The legislation that I am introducing today would 
dramatically increase the BIA's budget for this office. Right now, the 
BIA has about 150 recognition petitions pending. At the current pace, 
it takes an average of eight to ten years for a tribe's petition to be 
decided upon. It seems to me that is an unacceptably long amount of 
time. Indeed, I can think of no other area of law where Americans must 
wait as long to have their rights adjudicated and vindicated. Under any 
scenario for reform, the BIA should have more resources to get the job 
done efficiently, thoroughly, and most importantly, accurately. The 
tribal recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, which I am 
introducing would authorize $10 million to help BIA quickly address its 
backlog. This funding increase is critical to help remedy deficiencies 
in the process by which Indian groups are evaluated and recommended for 
acknowledgment as sovereign legal entities.

  Two, this legislation will provide assistance grants to local 
governments and tribes so that they can fully participate in the 
recognition process and other BIA proceedings. Any government or tribe 
would have to demonstrate financial need as a condition of receiving 
these funds. And they would have to demonstrate that a grant would 
promote the interests of just administration at the BIA. My intention 
here is to help improve the fact-finding process and ensure that the 
Bureau's recognition decisions are based on the best available 
information.
  Three, I propose that we make the recognition process more 
transparent. It bears noting that there has never been an unambiguous 
grant of authority from Congress to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
administer a program for the recognition of Indian Tribes. I believe 
that it is time for Congress to make such a clear grant of authority. 
The legislation I am proposing would essentially codify many of the 
regulations that the BIA has been operating under for years. I believe 
that it is in the interest of the general public and American's 
sovereign tribes to ensure that those parts of the BIA regulations that 
are working well will have the full force of statutory law. Relying on 
statutory authority, rather than regulations, will afford the public 
and tribes with a measure of certainty and permanency that has 
heretofore been lacking. Anchoring the BIA's authority in legislation 
will also restore Congress to an appropriate position where it can more 
effectively monitor and oversee execution of its law.
  Let me stress something about these proposed reforms: We should seek 
not to dictate an outcome, but to ensure a process that is fair, open, 
and respectful to all. That is the best guarantee of an outcome that is 
just whatever it may be.
  In concluding, I appreciate that the steps I announced today may 
appear modest to some, excessive to others. I know they will not please 
everyone. But they do, I believe, outline a series of actions that can 
bring greater fairness, openness, and respect to this area of Federal 
policy. That is my sincere hope, in any event.
  I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman 
Inouye, Senator Campbell, and their colleagues on the Indians Affairs 
Committee. I submit these bills to them in humble recognition of their 
wealth of wisdom and understanding about these matters. I also look 
forward to discussing them with our other colleagues here in the Senate 
and with members of the communities that may be impacted by these 
proposals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1392

       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 ``Tribal 
     Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purposes.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
Sec. 5. Effect of acknowledgment of tribal existence.
Sec. 6. Scope.
Sec. 7. Letter of intent.
Sec. 8. Duties of the Department.
Sec. 9. Requirements for the documented petition.
Sec. 10. Mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment.
Sec. 11. Previous Federal acknowledgment.
Sec. 12. Notice of receipt of a letter of intent or documented 
              petition.
Sec. 13. Processing of the documented petition.
Sec. 14. Testimony and the opportunity to be heard.
Sec. 15. Written submissions by interested parties.
Sec. 16. Publication of final determination.
Sec. 17. Independent review, reconsideration, and final action.
Sec. 18. Implementation of decision acknowledging status as an Indian 
              tribe.
Sec. 19. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has an obligation to recognize and 
     respect the sovereignty of Native American peoples who have 
     maintained their social, cultural, and political identity.
       (2) All Native American tribal governments that represent 
     tribes that have maintained their social, cultural, and 
     political identity, to the extent possible within the context 
     of history, are entitled to establish government-to-
     government relations with the United States and are entitled 
     to the rights appertaining to sovereign governments.
       (3) The Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the 
     Interior exercises responsibility for determining whether 
     Native American groups constitute ``Federal Tribes'' and are 
     therefore entitled to be recognized by the United States as 
     sovereign nations.
       (4) In recent years, the decisionmaking process used by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs to resolve claims of tribal 
     sovereignty has been widely criticized.
       (5) In order to ensure continued public confidence in the 
     Federal Government's decisions pertaining to tribal 
     recognition, it is necessary to reform the recognition 
     process.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To establish administrative procedures to extend 
     Federal recognition to certain Indian groups.
       (2) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be 
     Indian tribes the protection, services, and benefits 
     available from the Federal Government pursuant to the Federal 
     trust responsibility with respect to Indian tribes.
       (3) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be 
     Indian tribes the immunities and privileges available to 
     other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their 
     status as Indian tribes with a government-to-government 
     relationship with the United States.
       (4) To ensure that when the Federal Government extends 
     acknowledgment to an Indian group, the Federal Government 
     does so based upon clear, factual evidence derived from an 
     open and objective administrative process.
       (5) To provide clear and consistent standards of 
     administrative review of documented petitions for Federal 
     acknowledgment.
       (6) To clarify evidentiary standards and expedite the 
     administrative review process by providing adequate resources 
     to process petitions.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (3) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition'' 
     means the detailed arguments made by a petitioner to 
     substantiate the petitioner's claim to continuous existence 
     as an Indian tribe, together with the factual exposition and 
     all documentary evidence necessary to demonstrate that the 
     arguments address the mandatory criteria set forth in section 
     10.
       (4) Historically, historical, or history.--The term 
     ``historically'', ``historical'', or ``history'' means dating 
     from the first sustained contact with non-Indians.
       (5) Indian group or group.--The term ``Indian group'' or 
     ``group'' means any Indian or Alaska Native aggregation 
     within the continental United States that the Secretary does 
     not acknowledge to be an Indian tribe.
       (6) Indian tribe; tribe.--The terms ``Indian tribe'' and 
     ``tribe'' mean any group that the Secretary determines to 
     have met the mandatory criteria set forth in section 10.
       (7) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any entity 
     that has submitted a letter of intent to the Secretary 
     requesting acknowledgment that the entity is an Indian tribe.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. EFFECT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRIBAL EXISTENCE.

       Acknowledgment of an Indian tribe under this Act--
       (1) confers the protection, services, and benefits of the 
     Federal Government available to Indian tribes by virtue of 
     their status as tribes;
       (2) means that the tribe is entitled to the immunities and 
     privileges available to other

[[Page S8970]]

     federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their 
     government-to-government relationship with the United States;
       (3) means that the United States recognizes that the tribe 
     has the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and 
     obligations of a federally acknowledged Indian tribe; and
       (4) subjects the Indian tribe to the same authority of 
     Congress and the United States to which other federally 
     acknowledged tribes are subjected.

     SEC. 6. SCOPE.

       (a) In General.--This Act applies only to those Native 
     American Indian groups indigenous to the continental United 
     States which are not currently acknowledged as Indian tribes 
     by the Department. It is intended to apply only to groups 
     that can present evidence of a substantially continuous 
     tribal existence and which have functioned as autonomous 
     entities throughout history until the date of the submission 
     of the documented petition.
       (b) Exclusions.--The procedures established under this Act 
     shall not apply to any of the following:
       (1) Any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, Alaska Native 
     village, or community that, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, has been acknowledged as such and is receiving 
     services from the Bureau.
       (2) An association, organization, corporation, or group of 
     any character that has been formed after December 31, 2002.
       (3) Splinter groups, political factions, communities, or 
     groups of any character that separate from the main body of a 
     currently acknowledged tribe, except that any such group that 
     can establish clearly that the group has functioned 
     throughout history until the date of the submission of the 
     documented petition as an autonomous tribal entity may be 
     acknowledged under this Act, even though the group has been 
     regarded by some as part of or has been associated in some 
     manner with an acknowledged North American Indian tribe.
       (4) Any group which is, or the members of which are, 
     subject to congressional legislation terminating or 
     forbidding the Federal relationship.
       (5) Any group that previously petitioned and was denied 
     Federal acknowledgment under part 83 of title 25 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations prior to the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including reorganized or reconstituted petitioners 
     previously denied, or splinter groups, spinoffs, or component 
     groups of any type that were once part of petitioners 
     previously denied.
       (c) Pending Petitions.--Any Indian group whose documented 
     petition is under active consideration under the regulations 
     referred to in subsection (b)(5) as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and for which a determination is not final and 
     effective as of such date, may opt to have their petitioning 
     process completed in accordance with this Act. Any such group 
     may request a suspension of consideration in accordance with 
     the provisions of section 83.10(g) of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, of not more than 180 days in order to provide 
     additional information or argument.

     SEC. 7. LETTER OF INTENT.

       (a) In General.--Any Indian group in the continental United 
     States that desires to be acknowledged as an Indian tribe and 
     that can satisfy the mandatory criteria set forth in section 
     10 may submit a letter of intent to the Secretary. A letter 
     of intent may be filed in advance of, or at the same time as, 
     a group's documented petition.
       (b) Approval of Governing Body.--A letter of intent must be 
     produced, dated, and signed by the governing body of the 
     Indian group submitting the letter.

     SEC. 8. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT.

       (a) Publication of List of Indian Tribes.--The Department 
     shall publish in the Federal Register, no less frequently 
     than every 3 years, a list of all Indian tribes entitled to 
     receive services from the Bureau by virtue of their status as 
     Indian tribes. The list may be published more frequently, if 
     the Secretary deems it necessary.
       (b) Guidelines for Preparation of Documented Petitions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available 
     guidelines for the preparation of documented petitions. Such 
     guidelines shall include the following:
       (A) An explanation of the criteria and other provisions 
     relevant to the Department's consideration of a documented 
     petition.
       (B) A discussion of the types of evidence which may be used 
     to demonstrate satisfaction or particular criteria.
       (C) General suggestions and guidelines on how and where to 
     conduct research.
       (D) An example of a documented petition format, except that 
     such example shall not preclude the use of any other format.
       (2) Supplementation and revision.--The Secretary may 
     supplement or update the guidelines as necessary.
       (c) Assistance.--The Department shall, upon request, 
     provide petitioners with suggestions and advice regarding 
     preparation of the documented petition. The Department shall 
     not be responsible for any actual research necessary to 
     prepare such petition.
       (d) Notice Regarding Current Petitions.--Any Indian group 
     whose documented petition is under active consideration as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall be notified of the 
     opportunity under section 6(c) to choose whether to complete 
     their petitioning process under the provisions of this Act or 
     under the provisions of part 83 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before such 
     date.
       (e) Notice to Groups With a Letter of Intent.--Any group 
     that has submitted a letter of intent to the Department as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall be notified that any 
     documented petition submitted by the group shall be 
     considered under the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 9. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCUMENTED PETITION.

       (a) In General.--The documented petition may be in any 
     readable form that contains detailed, specific evidence in 
     support of a request to the Secretary to acknowledge tribal 
     existence.
       (b) Approval of Governing Body.--The documented petition 
     must include a certification, signed and dated by members of 
     the group's governing body, stating that it is the group's 
     official documented petition.
       (c) Satisfaction of Mandatory Criteria.--A petitioner must 
     satisfy all of the mandatory criteria set forth in section 10 
     in order for tribal existence to be acknowledged. The 
     documented petition must include thorough explanations and 
     supporting documentation in response to all of such criteria.
       (d) Standards for Denial.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a 
     petitioner shall not be acknowledged if the evidence 
     presented by the petitioner or others is insufficient to 
     demonstrate that the petitioner meets each of the mandatory 
     criteria in section 10.
       (2) Reasonable likelihood of validity.--A criterion shall 
     be considered met if the Secretary finds that it is more 
     likely than not that the evidence presented demonstrates the 
     establishment of the criterion.
       (3) Conclusive proof not required.--Conclusive proof of the 
     facts relating to a criterion shall not be required in order 
     for the criterion to be considered met.
       (e) Consideration of Historical Situations.--Evaluation of 
     petitions shall take into account historical situations and 
     time periods for which evidence is demonstrably limited or 
     not available. The limitations inherent in demonstrating the 
     historical existence of community and political influence or 
     authority shall also be taken into account. Existence of 
     community and political influence or authority shall be 
     demonstrated on a substantially continuous basis, but such 
     demonstration does not require meeting these criteria at 
     every point in time. Fluctuations in tribal activity during 
     various years shall not in themselves be a cause for denial 
     of acknowledgment under these criteria.

     SEC. 10. MANDATORY CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

       The mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment are the 
     following:
       (1) Identification on a substantially continuous basis.--
     The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian 
     entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. 
     Evidence that the group's character as an Indian entity has 
     from time to time been denied shall not be considered to be 
     conclusive evidence that this criterion has not been met. 
     Evidence to be relied upon in determining a group's Indian 
     identity may consist of any 1, or a combination, of the 
     following, as well as other evidence of identification by 
     other than the petitioner itself or its members:
       (A) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal 
     authorities.
       (B) Relationships with State governments based on 
     identification of the group as Indian.
       (C) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local 
     government in a relationship based on the group's Indian 
     identity.
       (D) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists, 
     historians, or other scholars.
       (E) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and 
     books.
       (F) Identification as an Indian entity in relationships 
     with Indian tribes or with national, regional, or State 
     Indian organizations.
       (2) Distinct community.--
       (A) In general.--A predominant portion of the petitioning 
     group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a 
     community from historical times until the date of the 
     submission of the documented petition. This criterion may be 
     demonstrated by some combination of the following evidence or 
     other evidence:
       (i) Significant rates of marriage within the group, or, as 
     may be culturally required, patterned out-marriages with 
     other Indian populations.
       (ii) Significant social relationships connecting individual 
     members.
       (iii) Significant rates of informal social interaction 
     which exist broadly among the members of a group.
       (iv) A significant degree of shared or cooperative labor or 
     other economic activity among the membership.
       (v) Evidence of strong patterns of discrimination or other 
     social distinctions by nonmembers.
       (vi) Shared sacred or secular ritual activity encompassing 
     most of the group.
       (vii) Cultural patterns shared among a significant portion 
     of the group that are different from those of the non-Indian 
     populations with whom it interacts. Such patterns must 
     function as more than a symbolic identification of the group 
     as Indian, and may include language, kinship organization, or 
     religious beliefs and practices.

[[Page S8971]]

       (viii) The persistence of a named, collective Indian 
     identity continuously over a period of more than 50 years, 
     notwithstanding changes in name.
       (ix) A demonstration of historical political influence 
     under the criterion in paragraph (3) shall be evidence for 
     demonstrating historical community.
       (B) Sufficient evidence.--A petitioner shall be considered 
     to have provided sufficient evidence of community at a given 
     point in time if evidence is provided to demonstrate any 1 of 
     the following:
       (i) More than 50 percent of the members reside in a 
     geographical area exclusively or almost exclusively composed 
     of members of the group, and the balance of the group 
     maintains consistent interaction with some members of the 
     community.
       (ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in the group are 
     between members of the group.
       (iii) At least 50 percent of the group members maintain 
     distinct cultural patterns such as language, kinship 
     organization, or religious beliefs and practices.
       (iv) There are distinct community social institutions 
     encompassing most of the members, such as kinship 
     organizations, formal or informal economic cooperation, or 
     religious organizations.
       (v) The group has met the criterion in paragraph (3) using 
     evidence described in paragraph (3)(A).
       (3) Political influence or authority.--
       (A) In general.--The petitioner has maintained political 
     influence or authority over its members as an autonomous 
     entity from historical times until the date of the submission 
     of the documented petition. This criterion may be 
     demonstrated by some combination of the following evidence or 
     by other evidence:
       (i) The group is able to mobilize significant numbers of 
     members and significant resources from its members for group 
     purposes.
       (ii) Most of the membership considers issues acted upon or 
     actions taken by group leaders or governing bodies to be of 
     importance.
       (iii) There is widespread knowledge, communication, and 
     involvement in political processes by most of the group's 
     members.
       (iv) The group meets the criterion in paragraph (2) at more 
     than a minimal level.
       (v) There are internal conflicts which show controversy 
     over valued group goals, properties, policies, processes, or 
     decisions.
       (B) Sufficient evidence.--
       (i) In general.--A petitioning group shall be considered to 
     have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the exercise 
     of political influence or authority at a given point in time 
     by demonstrating that group leaders or other mechanisms exist 
     or existed that--

       (I) allocate group resources such as land and residence 
     rights on a consistent basis;
       (II) settle disputes between members or subgroups by 
     mediation or other means on a regular basis;
       (III) exert strong influence on the behavior of individual 
     members, such as the establishment or maintenance of norms 
     and the enforcement of sanctions to direct or control 
     behavior; or
       (IV) organize or influence economic subsistence activities 
     among the members, including shared or cooperative labor.

       (ii) Presumptive evidence.--A group that has met the 
     requirements in paragraph (2)(A) at a given point in time 
     shall be considered to have provided sufficient evidence to 
     meet this criterion at that point in time.
       (4) Governing document and membership criteria.--Submission 
     of a copy of the group's governing document and membership 
     criteria. In the absence of a written document, the 
     petitioner must provide a statement describing in full its 
     membership criteria and current governing procedures.
       (5) Descendants from a historical indian tribe.--
       (A) In general.--The petitioner's membership consists of 
     individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or 
     from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned 
     as a single autonomous political entity. Evidence acceptable 
     to the Secretary which can be used for this purpose includes 
     the following:
       (i) Rolls prepared by the Secretary on a descendancy basis 
     for purposes of distributing claims money, providing 
     allotments, or other purposes.
       (ii) Federal, State, or other official records or evidence 
     identifying group members or ancestors of such members as 
     being descendants of a historical tribe or tribes that 
     combined and functioned as a single autonomous political 
     entity.
       (iii) Church, school, and other similar enrollment records 
     identifying group members or ancestors of such members as 
     being descendants of a historical tribe or tribes that 
     combined and functioned as a single autonomous political 
     entity.
       (iv) Affidavits of recognition by tribal elders, leaders, 
     or the tribal governing body identifying group members or 
     ancestors of such members as being descendants of a 
     historical tribe or tribes that combined and functioned as a 
     single autonomous political entity.
       (v) Other records or evidence identifying members or 
     ancestors of such members as being descendants of a 
     historical tribe or tribes that combined and functioned as a 
     single autonomous political entity.
       (B) Certified membership list.--The petitioner must provide 
     an official membership list, separately certified by the 
     group's governing body, of all known current members of the 
     group. The list must include each member's full name 
     (including maiden name), date of birth, and current 
     residential address. The petitioner shall also provide a copy 
     of each available former list of members based on the group's 
     own defined criteria, as well as a statement describing the 
     circumstances surrounding the preparation of the current list 
     and, insofar as possible, the circumstances surrounding the 
     preparation of former lists.
       (6) Membership is composed principally of individuals who 
     are not members of an acknowledged tribe.--
       (A) In general.--The membership of the petitioning group is 
     composed principally of individuals who are not members of 
     any acknowledged North American Indian tribe.
       (B) Exception.--A petitioning group may be acknowledged 
     even if its membership is composed principally of individuals 
     whose names have appeared on rolls of, or who have been 
     otherwise associated with, an acknowledged Indian tribe, if 
     the group establishes that it has functioned throughout 
     history until the date of the submission of the documented 
     petition as a separate and autonomous Indian tribal entity, 
     that its members do not maintain a bilateral political 
     relationship with the acknowledged tribe, and that its 
     members have provided written confirmation of their 
     membership in the petitioning group.
       (7) No legislation terminates or prohibits the federal 
     relationship.--Neither the petitioner nor its members are the 
     subject of congressional legislation that has expressly 
     terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship.

     SEC. 11. PREVIOUS FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

       The provisions of section 83.8 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall apply with respect to petitioners claiming 
     previous Federal acknowledgment under this Act.

     SEC. 12. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF A LETTER OF INTENT OR 
                   DOCUMENTED PETITION.

       (a) Notice and Publication.--
       (1) In general.--Within 30 days after receiving a letter of 
     intent, or a documented petition if a letter of intent has 
     not previously been received and noticed, the Secretary shall 
     acknowledge such receipt in writing and shall have published 
     within 60 days in the Federal Register a notice of such 
     receipt.
       (2) Requirements.--The notice published in the Federal 
     Register shall include the following:
       (A) The name, location, and mailing address of the 
     petitioner and such other information as will identify the 
     entity submitting the letter of intent or documented 
     petition.
       (B) The date the letter or petition was received.
       (C) Information regarding how interested and informed 
     parties may submit factual or legal arguments in support of, 
     or in opposition to, the petitioner's request for 
     acknowledgment or to request to be kept informed of all 
     general actions affecting the petition.
       (D) Information regarding where a copy of the letter of 
     intent and the documented petition may be examined.
       (b) Other Notification.--The Secretary shall notify, in 
     writing, the chief executive officer, members of Congress, 
     and attorney general of the State in which a petitioner is 
     located and of each State in which the petitioner 
     historically has been located. The Secretary shall also 
     notify any recognized tribe and any other petitioner which 
     appears to have a relationship with the petitioner, including 
     a historical relationship, or which may otherwise be 
     considered to have a potential interest in the acknowledgment 
     determination. The Secretary shall also notify the chief 
     executive officers of the counties and municipalities located 
     in the geographic area historically occupied by the 
     petitioning group.
       (c) Other Publication.--The Secretary shall also publish 
     the notice of receipt of the letter of intent, or documented 
     petition if a letter of intent has not been previously 
     received, in a major newspaper or newspapers of general 
     circulation in the town or city nearest to the petitioner. 
     Such notice shall include the information required under 
     subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 13. PROCESSING OF THE DOCUMENTED PETITION.

       The provisions of section 83.10 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall apply with respect to the processing of a 
     documented petition under this Act.

     SEC. 14. TESTIMONY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall consider all relevant 
     evidence from any interested party including neighboring 
     municipalities that possess information bearing on whether to 
     recognize an Indian group or not.
       (b) Hearing Upon Request.--Upon an interested party's 
     request, and for good cause shown, the Secretary shall 
     conduct a formal hearing at which all interested parties may 
     present evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, or 
     rebut evidence in the record or presented by other parties 
     during the hearing.
       (c) Transcript Required.--A transcript of any hearing held 
     under this section shall be made and shall become part of the 
     administrative record upon which the Secretary is entitled to 
     rely in determining whether to recognize an Indian group.

[[Page S8972]]

     SEC. 15. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY INTERESTED PARTIES.

       The Secretary shall consider any written materials 
     submitted to the Bureau from any interested party, including 
     neighboring municipalities, that possess information bearing 
     on whether to recognize an Indian group.

     SEC. 16. PUBLICATION OF FINAL DETERMINATION.

       The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     complete and detailed explanation of the Secretary's final 
     decision regarding a documented petition under this Act, 
     including express finding of facts and of law with regard to 
     each of the critera listed in section 10.

     SEC. 17. INDEPENDENT REVIEW, RECONSIDERATION, AND FINAL 
                   ACTION.

       The provisions of section 83.11 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall apply with respect to the independent review, 
     reconsideration, and final action of the Secretary on a 
     documented petition under this Act.

     SEC. 18. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION ACKNOWLEDGING STATUS AS 
                   AN INDIAN TRIBE.

       The provisions of section 83.12 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall apply with respect to the implementation of a 
     decision under this Act acknowledging a petitioner as an 
     Indian tribe.

     SEC. 19. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
                                  ____


                                S. 1393

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

     SECTION 1. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--To the extent that amounts are 
     appropriated and acceptable requests are submitted, the 
     Secretary shall award grants to eligible local governments 
     and eligible Indian groups to promote the participation of 
     such governments and groups in the decisionmaking process 
     related to the actions described in subsection (b), if the 
     Secretary determines that the assistance provided under such 
     a grant is necessary to protect the interests of the 
     government or group and would otherwise promote the interests 
     of just administration within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       (b) Actions For Which Grants May Be Available.--The 
     Secretary may award grants under this section for 
     participation assistance related to the following actions:
       (1) Acknowledgment.--An Indian group is seeking Federal 
     acknowledgment or recognition, or a terminated Indian tribe 
     is seeking to be restored to Federally-recognized status.
       (2) Trust status.--A Federally-recognized Indian tribe has 
     asserted trust status with respect to land within the 
     boundaries of an area over which a local government currently 
     exercises jurisdiction.
       (3) Trust land.--A Federally-recognized Indian tribe has 
     filed a petition with the Secretary of the Interior 
     requesting that land within the boundaries of an area over 
     which a local government is currently exercising jurisdiction 
     be taken into trust.
       (4) Land claims.--An Indian group or a Federally-recognized 
     Indian tribe is asserting a claim to land based upon a treaty 
     or a law specifically applicable to transfers of land or 
     natural resources from, by, or on behalf of any Indian, 
     Indian tribe, or group, or band of Indians (including the 
     Acts commonly known as the Trade and Intercourse Acts (1 
     Stat. 137; 2 Stat. 139; and 4 Stat. 729).
       (5) Other actions.--Any other action or proposed action 
     relating to an Indian group or Federally-recognized Indian 
     tribe if the Secretary determines that the action or proposed 
     action is likely to significantly affect the citizens 
     represented by a local government.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants awarded under this section to 
     a local government or eligible Indian group for any one 
     action may not exceed $500,000 in any fiscal year.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Acknowledged indian tribe.--The term ``acknowledged 
     Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 
     or other organized group or community which is recognized as 
     eligible for the special programs and services provided by 
     the United States to Indians because of their status as 
     Indians.
       (2) Eligible indian group.--The term ``eligible Indian 
     group'' means a group that--
       (A) is determined by the Secretary to be in need of 
     financial assistance to facilitate fair participation in a 
     pending action described in subsection (b);
       (B) is an acknowledged Indian Tribe or has petitioned the 
     Secretary to be acknowledged as a Indian Tribe; and
       (C) petitions the Secretary for a grant under subsection 
     (a).
       (3) Eligible local government.--The term ``eligible local 
     government'' means a municipality or county that--
       (A) is determined by the Secretary to be in need of 
     financial assistance to facilitate fair participation in a 
     pending action described in subsection (b); and
       (B) petitions the Secretary for a grant under subsection 
     (a).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (e) Effective Date.--Grants awarded under this section may 
     only be applied to expenses incurred after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

                          ____________________