[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10390-S10397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr.
Allen):
S. 1513. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
marriage penalty relief effective immediately in the 15-percent bracket
and the standard deduction; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce
legislation that will build upon the historic Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 by accelerating the marriage penalty
tax relief in that bill and make it effective beginning next year. I am
joined in my effort by Senators Brownback, Miller, Smith of New
Hampshire, Hutchinson, Fitzgerald, and Allen.
Earlier this year we delivered to the American people long overdue
tax relief. Unfortunately, we did not have the ability to give married
couples the relief from the marriage penalty as soon as we would have
liked. My bill will complete this unfinished business by treating
married couples fairly in the tax code beginning next year.
Particularly now, as the President and Congress consider additional tax
relief to bolster the economy in these difficult times, this
legislation would be a smart option. At times like this, what better
way to help our Nation than by strengthening the building blocks of
society, our families, by adding to their budgets through marriage
penalty relief.
Every year for the past four years I introduced a bill to eliminate
the marriage penalty tax as I simply could not understand why two
single people should be thrown into a higher tax bracket and pay more
in taxes simply because they got married. Not because of a promotion,
not because of a raise, but because they got married! This year, we
finally told all Americans that they do not have to choose between love
and money, that they should not be penalized for exchanging wedding
vows. I am proud to say that in this year's tax relief plan we
corrected this quirk in the tax code. We returned to the commonsense
principles that made this country great, and away from the concept that
``no good deed goes unpunished.''
The marriage penalty relief that was passed earlier this year will
offer critical relief to our married couples, but unfortunately it will
not take place immediately. I want to improve this timing because when
the situation is as ridiculous as the marriage penalty, that is wrong.
There are more than 20 million married couples in America today that
pay a penalty just because they got married, a penalty that averages
around $1,400. That is a lot of money! Especially when you are just
starting out, $1,400 to a young couple could be part of the down
payment on the new house or the new car for the expenses associated
with having children. However, they choose to spend that money, or for
whatever expenses they need it for, we want them to be able to make
their own choices with the money they earn.
And we want them to have the ability to do so now, not several years
from now. What the bill does that I am introducing today is that it
takes the relief we finally offered in the tax plan and makes it
effective immediately for the 15 percent bracket and the standard
deduction.
Today, if you take the standard deduction when you do your taxes as
an individual, you do not get the same amount of deduction if you get
married. That is, the standard deduction does not simply double for
couples. Whereas today the standard deduction for a single person is
$4,550, and for a married couple is $7,600, our tax relief bill
insisted that married couples receive a standard deduction that is
exactly double that of the single person, or $9,100. Under my bill
today, this doubling of the standard deduction will occur immediately.
In addition, we addressed the fact that when most couples marry, the
second income bumps them up to a higher tax bracket. Therefore, we
decided to widen every tax bracket so that a married couple will not
have to pay more in income taxes simply because they go into a higher
bracket when they combined incomes.
In this way, a combined income will be taxed at the same rate as if
it was a single person making two incomes. For example, if each
individual in a relationship is in the 15-percent income tax bracket
but they get married and their combined incomes now bump them into the
30-percent bracket, our tax relief means that they will effectively
remain in the 15 percent bracket.
This is critically important, especially to those who are at the
lower income rates and for whom jumping from the 15 percent bracket to
the next one could make all the difference in their budget. Our earlier
legislation widens
[[Page S10391]]
the 15-percent bracket by $9,000 for married couples. My bill today
will accelerate this relief by making this change now, thereby
eliminating the marriage penalty for those couples who are in the 15
percent bracket.
Earlier this year a bipartisan majority agreed that it is very
important that we relieve the pressure on the more than 20 million
American couples who pay the marriage penalty tax. We all agreed then
that this is wrong, and must be changed. Today, we have the chance to
put our money where our mouth is and offer help to struggling couples
now. I call upon my colleagues to join in this effort to provide this
immediate assistance to the working families of America.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1515. A bill to provide for enhanced security with respect to
aircraft; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to introduce the
``Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act of 2001.'' This legislation
strengthens security measures for those aircraft that are currently not
required to comply with an FAA approved security program. The events of
September 11 have shown us a new reality, that our aircraft can be used
as lethal weapons against innocent civilians on the ground.
I applaud the FAA, the Administration, and Congress for quickly
moving to address this threat as it applies to commercial aircraft.
With the new security measures put in place by S. 1447, I am certain we
will not again see a commercial common carrier be hijacked and turned
into a bomb. However, the proposals under consideration today do
nothing to stop other aircraft, such as chartered planes, leased
planes, and cargo planes, from being hijacked and crashed into
buildings or landmarks.
I believe many of my colleagues would be surprised to learn that, for
purposes of security, these aircraft are virtually unregulated. The
protection of these aircraft, some as big or bigger than those used in
the September 11 attack, is left to the private sector owners and
operators, an approach we now reject for commercial common carriers.
As the Senate continues to work on legislation to enhance security
measures for commercial common carriers, it is vital that we address
the gaping hole in our security as it relates to currently unregulated
aircraft. It would be criminally negligent to pass an Aviation Security
Act that leaves thousands of aircraft still unprotected from those
terrorists who would turn our own planes into weapons of mass
destruction.
The Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act is an attempt to address this
difficult problem. It is based on three goals:
First, the legislation seeks to maintain the FAA's flexibility to
design different screening systems for all sorts of aircraft, used for
all sorts of purposes and boarding and deplaning at airports with a
wide variety of experience in security.
Second, the legislation recognizes the time consuming and difficult
task of putting together a security program for smaller aircraft, many
of which operate out of very small airports without any security in
place currently.
And third, and perhaps most importantly, the legislation addresses
the immediate threat of a near term repeat terrorist attack.
To achieve these goals, this legislation requires the FAA
Administrator to issue a security screening program for all aircraft
operations with an aircraft that weighs more than 12,500 pounds. That
means every operator of an aircraft that takes-off in this country with
more than approximately 15 seats will be subject to new security
measures. To address the varying types of aircraft and aircraft
operations, the Administrator will have the authority to waive this new
requirement in cases reviewed and approved by the Administrator and
Congress.
For those aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, this legislation
requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, within
6 months of enactment, recommendations on how to improve security for
general aviation. Within one year of enactment, the Administrator must
turn that report into an actual program.
Finally, effective immediately upon enactment, this legislation
requires aliens and persons identified by the Secretary of
Transportation to undergo a background check before buying, leasing, or
chartering any aircraft. This provision would expire as the
Administrator issues security rules for each class of aircraft.
Though this final step may seem extreme, it is a quick and simple way
to immediately protect our entire aircraft fleet from capture and use
as a weapon. The section is designed to mirror the requirements for
background checks for aliens and others seeking flight school training
already agreed to in S. 1447. If we need to protect ourselves from
terrorists seeking flight school training in the future, we have an
equal, if not greater need to protect our aircraft from terrorists who
may have already received their flight training.
Current policy falls short of the level of protection that the
American people require and deserve. Any comprehensive airline safety
legislation must include all types of aircraft conducting operations in
our sky. While not placing a heavy burden on the FAA or the general
aviation industry, the Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act protects our
airline passengers and those of us on the ground by reducing the
likelihood of another attack from the skies.
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. 1515
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR AIRCRAFT.
(a) Security for Larger Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall commence implementation
of a program to provide security screening for all aircraft
operations conducted with respect to any aircraft having a
maximum certified takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds
that is not operating as of the date of the implementation of
the program under security procedures prescribed by the
Administrator.
(2) Waiver.--
(A) Authority to waive.--The Administrator may waive the
applicability of the program under paragraph (1) with respect
to any aircraft or class of aircraft otherwise described by
that paragraph if the Administrator determines that aircraft
described in that paragraph can be operated safely without
the applicability of the program to such aircraft or class of
aircraft, as the case may be.
(B) Limitations.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) may not
go into effect--
(i) unless approved by the Secretary of Transportation; and
(ii) until 10 days after the date on which notice of the
waiver has been submitted to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
(3) Program elements.--The program under paragraph (1)
shall require the following:
(A) The search of any aircraft covered by the program
before takeoff.
(B) The screening of all crew members, passengers, and
other persons boarding any aircraft covered by the program,
and their property to be brought on board such aircraft,
before boarding.
(4) Procedures for searches and screening.--The
Administrator shall develop procedures for searches and
screenings under the program under paragraph (1). Such
procedures may not be implemented until approved by the
Secretary.
(b) Security for Smaller Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
commence implementation of a program to provide security for
all aircraft operations conducted with respect to any
aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 12,500
pounds or less that is not operating as of the date of the
implementation of the program under security procedures
prescribed by the Administrator. The program shall address
security with respect to crew members, passengers, baggage
handlers, maintenance workers, and other individuals with
access to aircraft covered by the program, and to baggage.
(2) Report on program.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing
a proposal for the program to be implemented under paragraph
(1).
(c) Background Checks for Aliens Engaged in Certain
Transactions Regarding Aircraft.--
(1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to paragraph (3), no person or entity may
sell, lease, or charter any aircraft to an alien, or any
other individual specified by the Secretary
[[Page S10392]]
for purposes of this subsection, within the United States
unless the Attorney General issues a certification of the
completion of a background investigation of the alien, or
other individual, as the case may be, that meets the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Background investigation.--A background investigation
or an alien or individual under this subsection shall consist
of the following:
(A) A determination whether or not there is a record of a
criminal history for the alien or individual, as the case may
be, and, if so, a review of the record.
(B) In the case of an alien, a determination of the status
of the alien under the immigration laws of the United States.
(C) A determination whether the alien or individual, as the
case may be, presents a risk to the national security of the
United States.
(3) Expiration.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall
expire as follows:
(A) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds, upon
implementation of the program required by subsection (a).
(B) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, upon implementation
of the program required by subsection (b).
(4) Alien defined.--In this subsection, the term ``alien''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)).
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 1516. A bill to remove civil liability barriers that discourage
the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001. On September
11, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic
firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment
worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability
lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus
equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing
apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The
basic purpose of the bill is to induce donations of surplus
firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for
organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish
to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers
to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability
standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.''
The legislation is modeled after legislation passed into law in Texas
in 1997 which has resulted in an additional $6 million of equipment
donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer
departments which may not be as well equipped. Representative Castle
has introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act,
H.R. 1919, which has 63 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of
Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire
Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a
former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, James
Lee Witt.
The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001 is
modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and
signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush. Now companies in Texas
can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then
certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments
that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original
specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. The
Texas program has already received more then $6 million worth of
equipment for volunteer fire departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana,
and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the State level.
The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations thereby
reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for
volunteer fire departments.
This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create
additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill gets rid of
unnecessary inspection bureaucracies, whether they are State run or a
manufacturer's technician. This is for three reasons. First,
bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs
make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State
bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are
private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State,
allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is
no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a
State bureaucracy in charge of picking the winners and losers.
The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas state law. Federally,
precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the last Representative Bill
Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate
millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of
1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals who do volunteer
work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from
liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer
work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures
in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were
also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity
Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind
charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use.
The same provision passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R.
7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001.
Volunteers comprise 74 percent of firefighters in the United States.
Of the total estimated 1,082,500 volunteer and paid firefighters across
the country, 804,200 are volunteer. Of the total 31,114 fire
departments in the country, 22,636 are all volunteer; 4,848 are mostly
volunteer; 1,602 are mostly career; and 2,028 are all career. In 1998,
54 of the 91 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers.
This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional
contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and
would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to
fire departments in the other States. At this time when all of America
has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of
firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area, I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision
of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their
lives on the line every day throughout this great Nation.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1517. A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to
enhance the Montgomery GI bill, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on
legislation I am introducing today to put into effect several
recommendations made by the United States Commission on National
Security/21st century relative to Montgomery GI bill, MGIB, educational
assistance benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA. The Commission, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, was tasked with reexamining U.S. national security policies and
processes, and making recommendations on how the United States could
best ensure the safety of its citizenry against emerging national
security threats. Sadly, one of the emerging threats anticipated by the
Commission, the threat of state or group-sponsored terrorism, was
realized on September 11, 2001.
Our Armed Forces, the best in the world, have now engaged the enemy,
and we rely on these dedicated men and women in service to sacrifice
their lives, if necessary, to defend liberty and secure justice. The
Nation must reciprocate by assuring that the benefits provided to
service members during, and after, their service measure up to the
grave responsibilities entrusted to them. The Hart-Rudman Commission
understood that, and, consistent with that understanding, the
Commission recommended specific improvements in veterans' educational
assistance benefits to assure that the armed forces are able to
attract, and retain, highly qualified, dedicated service members.
The Commission made, in total, seven recommendations on how MGIB
[[Page S10393]]
benefits could be enhanced. It recommended that the MGIB monthly
benefit be increased and indexed to the average education costs at
four-year public colleges. It recommended, further, that the payment of
benefits be accelerated to the beginning of a student's school term.
The Commission recommended, in addition, that MGIB benefits be made
available to students taking technical training courses. Further, it
recommended the repeal of the requirement that service members make
contributions totaling $1200 in order to ``buy'' eligibility for MGIB
benefits. It recommended, in addition, that potential beneficiaries be
given 20 years after discharge from the service, not just 10 years, as
is currently specified by law, to make use of their MGIB benefits. It
also recommended that service members with 15 years of service or more
be entitled to transfer their entitlement to MGIB benefits to their
spouse or dependent children. Finally, the Commission recommended that
MGIB benefits made available to Reserves called to serve in overseas
contingency operations be increased on a sliding scale basis.
The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a Committee on which I
serve as ranking minority member, has considered, and moved favorably
on, the first three Commission recommendations listed above;
legislation which would, in whole or in part, accomplish these
recommendations will soon be before the Senate. The committee has not,
however, acted on the final four recommendations of the Commission,
mainly because those proposals were not before the committee. It is my
hope that by introducing this legislation, I will assure that the
committee continues its consideration of MGIB improvements in the
months ahead.
To summarize the bill briefly, section 2 of my bill would eliminate
the $1,200 pay reduction currently required of service members during
their first 12 months of active duty as a precondition to eligibility
for MGIB benefits. The Hart-Rudman Commission is not alone in
recommending the repeal of this requirement. In 1999, the Commission on
Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, a commission headed
by the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Anthony J.
Principi, made the same recommendation. It surely can be argued with
considerable force that service members, who are asked to risk life and
limb in service to the Nation, should not be asked, in addition, to
contribute a portion of their pay, while in service, to ``earn''
eligibility for veterans' educational assistance benefits.
Section 3 of this legislation would allow service members with at
least 15 years of active duty to transfer their entitlement to MGIB
benefits to their spouses or dependent children. This past January, I
met with some of our troops stationed in Bosnia who expressed
considerable interest in this idea. Many of them mentioned that they
have families back home and that, rather than paying for their own
education, they needed funds to pay for their children's education. At
the very least, the idea needs to be further considered. I am aware
that Senator Cleland has been working on a concept which is similar,
but not identical to, this provision. I would like to work with Senator
Cleland on this important issue.
Section 4 of my bill would allow former service members 20 years
after discharge, rather than 10 years, as is specified in current law,
to utilize their MGIB benefits. I understand that, historically, MGIB
benefits are intended to assist in the transition to civilian status,
so that economic opportunities lost due to temporary military service
can be ameliorated upon transition back to civilian life. This concept
may have been useful when most departing service members were single
persons with no family or financial obligations preventing the use of
education benefits very quickly after discharge. Many former service
members, however, are married and have children and, with these
obligations, often find it difficult to return to school immediately
after separation from service. In addition, today's rapidly-changing
economy demonstrates that the skills which employers demand today may
change tomorrow. Extending the MGIB ``delimiting date'' would encourage
``lifetime learning'' and enable veterans to keep their skills current.
Finally, section 5 of my bill would enable members of the Selected
Reserve who are called to active duty as part of a ``contingency
operation,'' such as the operations to which Reserves are now being
called, to be eligible for increased MGIB benefits if they serve in
such an operation for more than one year. Currently, those who enlist
for a six year reserve commitment are eligible for $251 per month in
education benefits, whether or not they are called to active duty. It
would seem to me that Reserves who are activated, especially during
times of conflict or war, bear close resemblance to individuals who are
serving an active duty enlistment, and so too should the educational
benefits made available to such persons. Therefore, my legislation
would provide that, in cases where a member of the Selected Reserves
serves one year in a contingency operation, his or her education
benefit would be adjusted to the half-way point between the benefit
afforded to a Reserve Member under current law, now, $251 per month,
and that provided to service members who have served two years active
duty, currently, $528 per month. In cases involving members of the
Selected Reserves who serve two years of active service in a
contingency operation, the amount of educational assistance afforded to
them would be the same as that which is provided to veterans who had
served two years of active duty, currently, $528 per month. And for
those who have served three years active duty in a contingency
operation, their benefit amount would be the same, currently, $650 per
month, as that afforded to service members who have served a three year
enlistment. In this national emergency, it is time to recognize the
sacrifices made by reservists called to active duty by increasing their
benefits commensurate with time served on active duty.
One of the Hart-Rudman Commission's recommendations, that an Office
of Homeland Security be created to coordinate the Federal government's
counterterrorism efforts, has already been embraced the President.
Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, who was just sworn in yesterday,
will, I am sure, serve with great distinction as head of that office.
We need to address more of the Commission's recommendations, including
those that would enhance national security by making the military a
more competitive employer so it can attract and retain quality people.
Beyond that, we need to let our fighting men and women know that we
value their service by providing them with the tools to succeed upon
completion of their military careers. This legislation would accomplish
those purposes. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1518. A bill to improve procedures with respect to the admission
to, and departure from, the United States of aliens; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, among the many things that makes our
country great is the freedom we possess to move about the country and
exit and return to our country as we desire. Being a great Nation that
believes strongly in that freedom and that has paid a tremendous price
in defending that freedom, we like it to be on display to the rest of
the world and we continually and generously open our doors to others.
We as a Nation benefit from foreign visitors coming to the United
States and other countries benefit when their citizens visit this
country, whether it be to study at our schools and universities, learn
at our institutions, use our medical facilities, do business with our
dynamic private sector or visit our great cities and parks.
However, on September 11, this great Nation endured a terrible
tragedy, perpetrated by individuals who entered this country legally,
as guests, on a visa. Nineteen people who were in this country on
travel, work and student visas carried out the most deadly attack ever
on our soil. Three of those people had stayed beyond the expiration of
their visa. As the investigation of the Attorney General proceeds, many
others have been detained. Initial reports indicated that a large
number of these people were in this country on expired visas and I
suspect we will find that a large number of those involved in the
planning of the attack
[[Page S10394]]
were in the United States on expired visas.
At this time, the only system in place to track the entry and exit of
visa holders is antiquated and completely inadequate. The government
has little ability to track those who have entered the United States
and to be notified if they violate the terms of their visa. As there
are approximately 300 million immigrants and visitors that enter this
country every year, getting a handle on this problem will not be
simple. However, we must know if those who enter the United States to
study arrive and attend school, if those who come her to work are at
their jobs, if those who come here to do business do their business and
return home and if those who we admit into the United States to
vacation return home at the end of their time in the United States. We
should strive to keep our borders open, to keep commerce flowing freely
and not let the terrorist attack disrupt our relations with our good
neighbors and other friends. But at the same time, we must have a
better idea of who is entering this country, catch and screen out those
who may pose a threat and know who has violated the terms of their visa
and remained in the United States beyond the expiration date.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues Kent Conrad and
Olympia Snowe for their assistance and valuable input on this
legislation.
Specifically, this bill calls for the improvement of the information
received by the Department of State for checking the backgrounds of
visa applicants. It calls on law enforcement and intelligence agencies
to share regularly information that will be useful to the State
Department in identifying those who pose any type of threat to the
security or people of this country.
This bill calls for the improvement and implementation of the system
to track foreign students. Including a requirement that universities
notify the INS when foreign students do not show up for school, as Hani
Hanjour failed to do before participating in the attack on the World
Trade Center.
It is time to begin the roll of the Integrated Entry and Exit
Tracking system called for in legislation passed five years ago to
record the entry of visa holders, record their exit and notify the INS
and law enforcement agencies of the identity of anyone overstaying
their visa. This system should also utilize the latest technology,
including biometrics, to ensure that visas cannot be tampered with or
stolen. Finally, it is time for the members of the task force to be
appointed, including the Director of Homeland Security, so that the
issues surrounding this system can be settled.
The bill also calls for the tightening of the Visa Waiver Pilot
program to ensure that passports for participating countries are not
stolen or defaced by those trying to sneak into the country. It also
calls for those employing work visa holders to report to the INS if
that person leaves or is terminated from their job.
These are all reasonable proposals that will not impact commerce,
travel and relationships with friendly countries. It will also begin
the process of having an accurate picture of who has entered the
country and who has departed. It is one of many steps that needs to be
taken to avoid further terrorist attacks. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to implement this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1518
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 ``Visa Integrity and Security
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE NEED TO EXPEDITE
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED ENTRY AND EXIT
DATA SYSTEM.
(a) Sense of Congress.--In light of the terrorist attacks
perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001,
it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Attorney General should fully implement the
integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports,
and land border ports of entry, as specified in section 110
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-215), with all deliberate speed and as
expeditiously as practicable; and
(2) the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
Secretary of the Treasury, should immediately begin
establishing the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System Task
Force, as described in section 3 of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-215).
SEC. 3. ENTRY-EXIT TRACKING SYSTEM.
(a) Development of the System.--In the development of the
entry-exit tracking system, as described in the preceeding
section, the Attorney General shall particularly focus--
(1) on the utilization of biometric technology, including,
but not limited to, electronic fingerprinting, face
recognition, and retinal scan technology; and
(2) on developing a tamper-proof identification, readable
at ports of entry as a part of any nonimmigrant visa issued
by the Secretary of State.
(b) Integration With Law Enforcement Databases.--The entry
and exit data system described in this section shall be able
to be integrated with law enforcement databases for use by
State and Federal law enforcement to identify and detain
individuals in the United States after the expiration of
their visa.
SEC. 4. ACCESS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO CERTAIN
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY
RECORDS OF VISA APPLICANTS AND APPLICANTS FOR
ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 105 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1105) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``; data
exchange'' after ``security officers'';
(2) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 105.'';
(3) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and border'' after
``internal'' the second place it appears; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Attorney General and the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation shall provide the Department of State
access to the criminal history record information contained
in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate
Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File, and to
any other files maintained by the National Crime Information
Center that may be mutually agreed upon by the Attorney
General and the Department of State, for the purpose of
determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for
admission has a criminal history record indexed in any such
file. The Department of State shall merge the information
obtained under this subsection with the information in the
system currently accessed by consular officers to determine
the criminal history records of aliens applying for visas.''.
(c) Regular Reporting.--The Director of Central
Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, and the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide information to
the Secretary of State on a regular basis as agreed by the
Secretary and the head of each of these agencies that will
assist the Secretary in determining if an applicant for a
visa has a criminal background or poses a threat to the
national security of the United States or is affiliated with
a group that poses such a threat.
(d) Report on Screening Information.--Not later than 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of State shall submit a report to Congress on the information
that is needed from any United States agency to best screen
visa applicants to identify those affiliated with terrorist
organizations or those that pose any threat to the safety or
security of the United States, including the type of
information currently received by United States agencies and
the regularity with which such information is transmitted to
the Secretary.
SEC. 5. STUDENT TRACKING SYSTEM.
(a) Integration With Port of Entry Information.--For each
alien with respect to whom information is collected under
this section, the Attorney General shall include information
on the date of entry, port of entry, and nonimmigrant
classification.
(b) Expansion of System to Include Other Approved
Educational Institutions.--Section 641 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C.1372) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), subsection (c)(4)(A), and
subsection (d)(1) (in the text above subparagraph (A)), by
inserting ``, other approved educational institutions,''
after ``higher education'' each place it appears;
(2) in subsections (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D), and (d)(1)(A), by
inserting ``, or other approved educational institution,''
after ``higher education'' each place it appears;
(3) in subsections (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2), by inserting
``, other approved educational institution,'' after ``higher
education'' each place it appears; and
(4) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Other approved educational institution.--The term
`other approved educational institution' includes any air
flight school, language training school, vocational school,
or other school, approved by the Attorney
[[Page S10395]]
General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
under subparagraph (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
(c) Expansion of System to Include Additional
Information.--Section 641(b) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C.1372(b)), as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of
paragraph (1) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E),
respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) the name of any dependent spouse, child, or other
family member accompanying the alien student to the United
States;''; and
(3) in paragraph (1)(D) (as so redesignated), by inserting
after ``maintaining status as a full-time student'' the
following: ``and, if the alien is not maintaining such
status, the date on which the alien has concluded the alien's
course of study and the reason therefor''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Information on failure to commence studies.--Each
approved institution of higher education, other approved
educational institution, or designated exchange visitor
program shall inform the Attorney General within 30 days if
an alien described in subsection (a)(1) who is scheduled to
attend the institution or program fails to do so. The
Attorney General shall ensure that information received under
this paragraph is included in the National Crime Information
Center's Interstate Identification Index.''.
SEC. 6. STRENGTHENING VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 217(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1187(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Tamper proof passport.--The country employs a tamper-
proof passport, has established a program to reduce the theft
of passports, and has experienced during the preceding two-
year period a low rate of theft of passports, as determined
by the Secretary of State.''.
SEC. 7. REPORTING REQUIREMENT REGARDING H-1B NONIMMIGRANT
ALIENS.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 14 days after the
employment of a nonimmigrant alien described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is
terminated by an employer, the employer shall so report to
the Attorney General, together with the reasons for the
termination.
(b) Penalty.--Any employer who fails to make a report
required under subsection (a) shall be ineligible to employ
any nonimmigrant alien described in that subsection for a
period of one year.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Miller, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Conrad,
and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 1519. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to provide farm credit assistance for activated reservists; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am proud to be joined by Senators
Lugar, Kerry, Crapo, McConnell, Helms, Dayton, Leahy, Hutchinson,
Miller, Lincoln, Baucus, Roberts, Conrad, and Nelson today as we
introduce legislation in support of those men and women who voluntarily
leave their communities, leave their jobs, and leave their families to
serve our country. In the past few weeks, thousands of men and women
have been called to duty as reservists and members of the National
Guard. Many of these people have volunteered to leave their farms to
respond to the call. Some of these people borrow money from the USDA to
sustain their farms. Because these reservists and members of the
National Guard have been called up, they may find it difficult to
continue to meet the terms of these loans. The bill offered today would
alleviate some of the financial stress caused by the activation.
The bill directs the USDA to use its lending authority to minimize
the financial impact of a reservist being activated. The Secretary of
Agriculture is directed to take actions to help keep the farm of an
activated reservist in operation, including deferring scheduled
payments, reducing interest rates, reamortizing or consolidating loans,
or taking other restructuring actions. The bill also provides the USDA
new authority to provide emergency loan assistance to farms financially
injured because of the activation of a reservist.
I thank Senator Kerry for this idea. He introduced legislation in
1999, of which I was a cosponsor, that provided similar relief to
borrowers from the Small Business Administration who are called up.
Just as small businesses can be greatly affected by the absence of one
person, farms many times rely entirely on the labor and ingenuity of
just one or two key people.
At this time, when these men and women are sacrificing so much, the
least we can do is alleviate the financial strain at home caused by
their willingness to serve. By enacting this modest measure, we can
help lift worries about the farm at home from the minds of the
individuals and families directly affected by activation.
Madam 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. 1519
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FARM CREDIT ASSISTANCE FOR ACTIVATED RESERVISTS.
Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 376. FARM CREDIT ASSISTANCE FOR ACTIVATED RESERVISTS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Activated reservist.--The term `activated reservist'
means--
``(A) a member of a reserve component of any of the Armed
Forces of the United States who is serving on active duty in
support of a contingency operation (as defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code) pursuant to a
call or order issued on or after September 11, 2001, under a
provision of law referred to in subparagraph (B) of that
section; and
``(B) a member of the National Guard of a State not in
Federal service who is ordered to duty under the laws of the
State in support of any operation to protect persons or
property from an act of terrorism or a threat of attack by a
hostile force during the period of a national emergency
declared by the President or Congress on or after September
11, 2001.
``(2) Eligible person.--The term `eligible person' means--
``(A) an activated reservist who owns or operates a farm or
ranch;
``(B) an owner or operator of the farm or ranch who is a
member of the family of the activated reservist; and
``(C) an owner or operator of a farm or ranch on which an
activated reservist is employed.
``(b) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program to
provide assistance to any borrower of a farmer program loan
who is an eligible person.
``(c) Modification of Loan Terms.--The Secretary shall
modify the terms and conditions of a farmer program loan
(including a loan in which any participant in the loan is an
eligible person) made to an eligible person for a farm or
ranch under this title, or purchased under section 309B, to
the extent necessary, as determined by the Secretary, to
alleviate conditions of distress related to the activation of
the activated reservist and to assist in maintaining the farm
or ranch for such period of time as the Secretary determines
is fair and equitable.
``(d) Debt Restructuring.--The Secretary may modify farmer
program loans, including delinquent loans, by deferring
principal or interest scheduled payments, reducing interest
rates or accumulated interest charges, reamortizing or
consolidating loans, reducing the amount of scheduled
principal or interest payments, releasing additional income,
reducing collateral requirements, or taking any other
restructuring actions determined appropriate by the
Secretary, to alleviate conditions of distress related to the
activation of the activated reservist and to assist in
maintaining the farm or ranch for such period of time as the
Secretary determines is fair and equitable.
``(e) Emergency Loans.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make an emergency
loan under subtitle C to an eligible person for a farm or
ranch that has suffered, or that is likely to suffer,
substantial economic injury as the result of the activation
of an activated reservist, as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Administration.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an emergency loan made under this subsection shall be made
under the terms and conditions of subtitle C.
``(B) Exceptions.--An emergency loan made under this
subsection shall not be subject to--
``(i) the requirements of section 321(a) for a finding by
the Secretary that the applicants' farming, ranching, or
aquaculture operations have been substantially affected by a
natural disaster in the United States or by a major disaster
or emergency designated by the President;
``(ii) section 321(b); or
``(iii) any other requirement of subtitle C that the
Secretary waives to carry out this subsection.
``(3) Period of eligibility.--To obtain an emergency loan
under this subsection, an eligible person shall apply for the
emergency loan during the period--
``(A) beginning on the date on which the activated
reservist is activated; and
[[Page S10396]]
``(B) ending 180 days after the date on which the activated
reservist is discharged or released from active duty.
``(f) Notice.--The Secretary shall develop a program to
notify eligible persons of assistance that is available under
this section.
``(g) Spouses or Relatives.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide for procedures
under which the spouse or other close relative (as determined
by the Secretary) of an activated reservist may participate
in, or make decisions related to, a program administered by
the Secretary under this title.
``(2) Representation.--The Secretary may rely on the
representation of the spouse or close relative (even in the
absence of a power of attorney) made under the procedures
described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary--
``(A) determines that the reliance is appropriate in order
to prevent undue hardship and to provide equitable treatment
for the activated reservist; and
``(B) has no reason to believe that the representation of
the spouse or close relative is not in accordance with the
intent and interests of the activated reservist.''.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement the
amendment made by section 1.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of the amendment made by section 1 shall be
made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 1521. A bill to amend the FREEDOM Support Act to authorize the
President to waive the restriction of assistance for Azerbaijan if the
President determines that it is in the national security interest of
the United States to do so; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, in the coming weeks, we are going to
be debating several very contentious bills. However, more than at any
other point in my career we are considering these issues in an
extremely congenial, collegial, thoughtful and deliberative way.
Certainly, many of us disagree about the details of one issue or
another, however, we have consistently put the interest of the nation
ahead of the our own interests as political actors.
This is very encouraging to me. This should be very encouraging to
the American people. This should be very encouraging to freedom loving
people of the world. The tenor of the debates on this floor should
signify to everyone that the United States Government is operating not
simply as well as it did before September 11th, but better that it did
on September 11th. In the face of this attack, the American Government
is operating just as it was always intended to operate.
Today, Madam President I rise to offer a bill that will ensure that
our government continues to operate just as intended.
The administration is going about the business of fighting a war.
That process relies greatly on our government's ability to strengthen
ties with countries that agree to help us wage this war on terrorism.
These countries, in many cases, will be taking on factions within their
own borders in order to do what is right. For these efforts to prevail,
we must use all our assets. One of the most important and appealing
being trade and foreign assistance--particularly with regard to the
nations of Central and South Asia.
In this spirit, I am introducing a bill which will grant the
President the authority to waive the restriction on assistance to the
country of Azerbaijan, if the President determines that our national
security and interests will benefit from greater assistance and trade
with this country--he should have the right to pursue that policy.
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act places sanctions on Azerbaijan
that prevent any support from the United States government for the
young nation. This language ties the administration's hands as they
attempt to work with this strategically important ally in the war
against terrorism.
Unlike past efforts to repeal or waive section 907 sanctions on
Azebaijan, today our debate is about more than regional stability in
Central Asia--our debate now centers on United States national security
interests.
Section 907 stands in the way of training and assistance for
Azerbaijani military hospitals that may have to deal with casualties in
this campaign.
Section 907 stands in the way of airport and air traffic control
upgrades that may need to happen to assist our airforce.
There are over 71 million people in the Central Asian region which
includes Azerbaijan. Many of these emerging democracies are battling
fundamentalist factions. If we do not assist those who want to move
westward, we empower the factions coming in from countries which
support terrorist activities.
With the horrific attack on our country, we have been painfully
awakened to the global and complex network that terrorists have created
and aimed at our country and its interests. Our foreign policy must
help fight against the creation of new terrorist breeding grounds as we
fight the existing terrorist plague.
Azerbaijan itself is a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism in the
region. Since its independence, Azebaijan has endured Iranian pressure
to adopt its style of government. Iran secretly funds hundreds of
religious schools and colleges in Azerbaijan. Iranian diplomats and
secret service representatives have been expelled from Azerbaijan on
grounds that they are fomenting disturbances.
Iran criticizes Azerbaijan for its pro-U.S. stance and is concerned
about the Azeris increasing ties to the West--particularly with U.S.
companies. Iran seeks to ensure that Azerbaijan fails with its free
market and democratic reforms, because secular independence and
democratic Azerbaijan is perceived as a threat for the fundamentalist
regime in Iran.
Right now, we need the help and cooperation of the entire Central
Asian region--we can not afford to tie the President's hands over a
conflict between two countries. This is particularly important now
since these restrictions are used as anti-American fodder by
fundamentalist factions hoping to shape the development of the region.
To reiterate, this provides national waiver authority to the
President to lift sanctions on Azerbaijan. Briefly, the United States
has had for a series of years, now, sanctions against Azerbaijan. For
people not familiar, Azerbaijan sits in the Caspian Sea region right
above Iran.
It is part of the former Soviet Union. It is an oil- and gas-rich
area. It is a small country. But it is a small Islamic country that is
strongly supportive of the United States.
Their President, President Aliyev, has issued statements about the
strong support for the United States in the face of our attack on
terrorism and dealing with terrorism. They have provided the United
States fly-over rights, landing rights, refueling rights, and
intelligence information as well. This is in that key strategic part of
the world, the south Caucasus, just leading into central Asia. It has
the gateway city, Baku, going into Asia. Baku is an old, really
European-style city--a gorgeous place. But more important, they are
supportive of the United States, and yet as they support us, we are
sanctioning them.
We are likely to use military bases in Azerbaijan as a staging area
or as a refueling area or, potentially if we have casualties in the
region, as a hospital area as well. Yet we are sanctioning them.
If we continue with these sanctions, the Azeris are not going to be
able to effectively help us and use their territories. Because of the
sanctions we have against Azerbaijan, we cannot train their personnel
to help us in guarding the perimeter of military bases where our
aircraft may be. Because of the sanctions we have against Azerbaijan,
we cannot train their hospital personnel to be able to help treat any
potential difficulties that we may have in that region. Because of the
sanctions we have against Azerbaijan, we cannot train their personnel
in counterintelligence to help us in the gathering of information as to
what is
[[Page S10397]]
taking place, what is moving in the region, so we can be more effective
in our fight against terrorism. This is against a country that has been
strongly supportive of the United States.
There has been a long, ongoing battle between the Azeris and the
Armenians in this region of the world, and this has gone on for a long
period of time. The sanctions are somewhat associated with that. But
the point being, we have a fight now against terrorism. The President
needs to have national security waiver authority so, in those specific
areas that would be beneficial to us, he can lift those sanctions
against Azerbaijan. This will be a tough issue, but that authority is
something we should provide the President if we are going to prosecute
this effort successfully. I think it is very important that we put this
forward, that we pass it.
This is not taking the sanctions off completely. It is providing the
President with waiver authority, national security waiver authority.
There has to be a national security interest. If it is not needed, if
the reason to have it is not there, the President doesn't have the
authority to exercise it. So we should provide him that authority.
I am introducing this bill tonight. I urge my colleagues to look very
closely at this issue, and I hope they will sign onto the bill so we
can move this forward and allow the President the tools he needs to
prosecute this war on terrorism effectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately
referred.
____________________