[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11109-S11115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AFGHANISTAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN RELIEF ACT OF 2001
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today
to again raise the plight of women, girls and children in Afghanistan.
I commend Senator Hutchison and Senator Mikulski for taking the
initiative to introduce the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of
2001.
Many of us have been working since the Taliban seized control in
Afghanistan to give voice to women who have been silenced, beaten,
harassed and even executed.
Afghanistan has been in a cycle of war and conflict for more than
twenty years. These two decades have been hard on the Afghani people
but especially difficult for women, young girls and children. When the
Taliban seized control in Afghanistan, the plight of women, girls and
children went from a crisis existence to a catastrophic one.
As noted in our bill and mentioned by my colleagues, women in Kabul,
Afghanistan represented 70 percent of the teachers when the Taliban
came to power. Women in Kabul represented 50 percent of the public
employees and more than 40 percent of the medical professionals
including doctors. Women students made up 50 percent of the student
body at Kabul universities.
Throughout Afghan society women served their country, their culture
and their families as scientists and professors, as members of
parliament, as leaders of their communities. The Taliban changed all of
that quickly and cruelly with little consideration for the rights of
women or the many roles played in Afghan society by women.
The Taliban now bans women from working as teachers, doctors or for
that matter, in any profession.
The Taliban closed schools to women. Not just the teachers. But to
all young girls. It is against the law for a young girl to attend a
school in Afghanistan. To attend school, women and young girls in
Afghanistan risk floggings, death by stoning, or single shot execution.
Women cannot leave their homes without the heavy veil style clothing.
They must be accompanied by a male. Women must not laugh or make noise
in public. The punishment for violating Taliban law as we have now seen
in several informative documentary pieces can be deadly. Many of my
constituents have contacted me shocked and outraged at the video clip
of the woman ushered into a soccer stadium to the jeers of a crowd.
She's forced onto the playing field on her knees where she is quickly
executed by a single shot from a rifle.
Women in Afghanistan, every generation now living, is suffering under
the Taliban rule. Some have been forced from meaningful lives to
absolute poverty. Others now see no future in Afghanistan for
themselves and their children. Still others, war widows and elderly
women, are forced into prostitution or forced to sell all of their
possessions to feed themselves.
Yesterday, we passed the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I
served on this subcommittee for a long time and its many programs offer
hope to women in Afghanistan. The Afghan Women and Children's Relief
Act notes many of these programs.
We provide assistance to help educate and immunize young girls in the
world. We provide assistance in the form of maternal health care and
family planning in the most needy areas of the world. We support
microcredit lending, particularly to women led households, in many
impoverished areas of the world.
We support international organizations from UNICEF and other UN
entities to non-governmental organizations based here in the United
States and throughout the world. Our bill would include Afghani women
and girls in these vital programs.
As we look to aid women, young girls and children in Afghanistan, we
must not assume that simply ending the Taliban rule will cure the
problem. We walked away from Afghanistan when the Cold War ended, we
cannot do that again when the Taliban goes. We must ensure that women
and children are fully protected in the Afghan government which will
eventually follow the Taliban. Women in Afghanistan must be brought
back--fully brought back--into Afghani society. All of Afghanistan will
be better when women are allowed again to teach, to serve publicly, and
to treat illness.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for raising this issue. I join
them as an original cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its prompt
passage. Further, I call on all of our colleagues to support the
appropriate funding levels which will ultimately make a great
difference in the lives of Afghani women, young girls and children.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill sponsored
by Senators Hutchison and Mikulski that would authorize the use of
Federal resources to increase the education, health and living
standards for women and children in living in Afghanistan, and as
refugees in neighboring countries. Importantly, it also specifies that
this assistance is provided in a way that protects and promotes the
human rights of all people in Afghanistan.
Allow me to begin by praising the work and leadership of my colleague
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, on behalf of women both at home and
abroad. This legislation is entirely consistent with her strong beliefs
and leadership to extend opportunities to women throughout the world,
and I am proud to join her in support of this effort.
It is simply unconscionable that we should even have to consider such
a measure in this day and age. But there should be no mistake, the
facts show that Congressional support for women in Afghanistan is
nothing short of a moral imperative.
[[Page S11110]]
This issue is not simply a matter of cultural differences, of
imposing a particular viewpoint on another country or people. This is a
core human rights issue, and to ignore the plight of Afghan women is to
turn our backs on a terrible wrong that we have the power and I would
say the obligation as fellow human beings to help right.
This is a matter of basic justice, and it's basic justice denied
under the current Taliban regime.
Prior to the Taliban's assent to power, Afghani women enjoyed both
stature and freedom. In fact, many Americans may be unaware that
Afghani women were not only well educated, they constituted 70 percent
of the nation's school teachers, half of the government's civilian
workers, and 40 percent of the doctors in its capital.
But that all changed, or, more accurately, came to a crashing and
tragic halt, with the seizure of the Afghanistan capital in September
of 1996, when the Taliban began a regime of gender-based apartheid.
It's a regime, I'm sad to say, that's been enforced with the most
extreme brutality.
Talk about going backwards, what's happened in Afghanistan hasn't
just turned back the clock, it's turned back the centuries. While the
calendars tell us it's a new millennium, you'd never know it from the
graphic and disturbing footage we see from the Taliban-occupied regions
of Afghanistan, which paint a very different picture of Afghanistan
than even five years ago.
Today, women have been banished from the work force, flat out not
allowed to work . . . to earn a living . . . or to support themselves
or their family. And let's not forget that, according to an October 23
article in the Chicago Tribune, and I quote, ``Tens of thousands of
women were said to be widowed by Afghanistan's long-running battle
against Soviet occupation in the 1980's. Many have had to turn to
begging and prostitution.''
Under the Taliban, girls aren't allowed to go to school. And women
have been expelled from the universities. In fact, incredibly, women
are prohibited from leaving their homes at all unless accompanied by a
close male relative, even in the event of a medical emergency for
themselves or their children. These women are under house arrest, they
are prisoners of their own homes.
And if that's not bad enough, they are prisoners within themselves,
with the Taliban going to great and inhumane lengths to strip Afghani
women's sense of self and personhood. As the world has seen over and
over again in the past five years and even more so since the start of
the military campaign on October 7th, Afghani women are forced to wear
a burqa, leaving only a mesh hole from which they can view the world in
which they cannot participate.
And heaven help those who dare to tread upon or flout these laws.
Penalties for violations of Taliban laws range from beatings to public
floggings to killings, all state sanctioned. While these tragedies are
not new, with the world's focus on the plight of the Afghani women, it
is time for us to stand up and be counted.
For myself, I have continually supported efforts to improve the lot
of women in Afghanistan, cosponsoring a resolution in the last Congress
to condemn the systemic human rights abuses that are being committed
against women and girls in Afghanistan, and supported a similar
resolution this year that passed unanimously.
We've been a leader in assisting the people of Afghanistan, in fact,
the U.S. is the largest single provider of assistance to the Afghan
people, and we should continue our leadership, now more than ever, as
the Taliban has brought even greater woe upon the Afghan people.
It is imperative that we distinguish between the Afghan people and
the oppressive ruling Taliban that harbors terrorists within their
borders. This bill highlights the ongoing plight of the Afghani women.
By authorizing the President to provide educational and health care
assistance to women and children living in Afghanistan, and as refugees
in neighboring countries, we recognize that women must have a future in
Afghanistan. This potential for prosperity can only be realized if, as
in the United States, both men and women have an opportunity to
participate and contribute. That's what this bill is all about, and I
hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting it.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1574. A bill to ensure that hospitals that participate in the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act are able
to appropriately recognize and respond to epidemics resulting from
natural causes and bioterrorism; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I do not have to tell my colleagues
here in the Senate that bioterrorism has become a reality. Here, and
throughout the Nation, we are frightened and frustrated by the lack of
clear information on what the threats are, and how we are to find the
resources to protect ourselves. With this need in mind, I proudly offer
the ``Public Health Emergency Planning and Information Act of 2001,'' a
bill which would provide grants to hospitals to prepare for public
health emergencies, and that would fund programs to provide the public
and medical providers with accurate information about potential
biological attacks.
As we have seen in the past few weeks, the first line of defense
against the threat of bioterrorism relies upon swift action by local
health care providers and public health officials. The quick response
of doctors in Florida to that first case of anthrax on October 4th gave
the medical community and the public a warning of what was to come.
Despite this recognition, and despite a small number of additional
actual anthrax cases, we are currently struggling with how to respond,
who to treat, what to expect next, and what information we can trust.
We cannot simply wait to see what happens next, we must face this new
and terrifying threat immediately.
Epidemics, whether natural or the result of deliberate attacks,
unfold in communities, and may happen without warning. Our hospitals,
and our physicians and nurses, must be prepared to detect outbreaks,
diagnose diseases, treat patients, and activate state and federal
response systems. They must be able to care for the public without
becoming ill themselves.
These tasks will be made more challenging by the sadly diminished
public health care infrastructure. The legacy of this chronic
underfunding of state and local health departments has become all too
obvious in the past few days. Last year, Congress passed legislation
authored by my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Frist, to begin
supplying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and our State
and local health departments with the funding that they so desperately
need. I applaud this goal, and trust that we can continue to build on
those efforts.
I remain concerned, however, about the resources available to local
hospitals. Under pressures to contain the costs of health care,
providers have shifted emphasis from hospital-based care to outpatient
treatment over the last decade. This change, accompanied by ever
shrinking staffing levels, has eroded our ability to care for a large
number of patients at once. Annual epidemics of influenza already
overwhelm the capacity of local health care systems, and now hospitals
struggle to care for the ill while preparing for the unthinkable.
Providers in small communities, particularly, have been less involved
in Federal disaster training, and are most likely to lack the resources
to accommodate a surge of patients during a deliberate or natural
epidemic. Many caregivers from my own State of West Virginia have
contacted me in recent weeks, desperate for resources to aid their
preparations.
Current standards established by accrediting organizations and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline basic steps in
emergency preparedness that should, or must, for accreditation
purposes, be undertaken by all hospitals and health care facilities.
However, almost all Federal funding for medical disasters has been
released in response to emergencies, rather than to prepare for them.
Hospitals have seen little financial incentive for purchasing equipment
or supplies that might never be used, especially in the climate of
managed care.
The legislation that I introduce today would provide funding to aid
these hospitals in preparing for emergencies, and to equip and train
medical
[[Page S11111]]
professionals to protect themselves and their patients during a public
health crisis. My bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to award grants directly to Medicare-eligible hospitals to
meet emergency preparedness standards. These funds could be used to
train personnel, increase communications between hospitals and local
emergency response systems, and purchase necessary supplies or
equipment. This bill would also protect hospitals that meet the
public's need in a designated disaster area by covering the costs of
replacing safety equipment and caring for the uninsured, so hospitals
are not bankrupted by supporting public health.
In addition to preparing our medical professionals for the
possibility of an epidemic, we must prepare ourselves. The past week
has revealed a glaring flaw in our public health response: the failure
to provide essential facts about the symptoms and best responses to
suspected bioterrorist attacks. Even here, in the United States Senate,
staff who might have been exposed to a biological threat have wrestled
with a lack of information and with misinformation. Poor information
about basic personal safety, and about symptoms and risk, has made a
bad situation worse, and the panic has spread from the Capitol
throughout the Nation.
During a public health crisis, such as a deliberate act of
bioterrorism or a natural epidemic, qualified professionals should be
able to deliver accurate and timely information to the public. We
cannot ask individuals to make good decisions about protecting
themselves and their families without helping them to understand the
risks and the realities of potential outbreaks. We must act to ensure
that American citizens can turn to a reliable, understandable source of
information on agents such as anthrax.
My legislation would provide funding for public health crisis
education and information, and would require publication of educational
materials for use by medical professionals and the general public.
These materials would be designed to prepare the public for the most
likely foreseeable events in order to avert panic, and to promote good
public health.
These programs will help hospitals and the public prepare not only
for the threat of bioterrorism, but for the equally demanding tasks of
controlling now-familiar epidemics of influenza and food-borne
illnesses. We have been forced to confront our vulnerability to attacks
that were until recently unthinkable, and to seek new ways to prepare
and to protect ourselves, not only for the anthrax attack unfolding
before us, but for the possible threats of the future. We must act now
to prepare for whatever challenges lie ahead, as well as react to the
fear at hand. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, so that
we may begin the steps necessary to protect the health of our Nation.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Bond):
S. 1575. A bill to provide new discretionary spending limits for
fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be
discharged.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce budget
legislation to increase the discretionary spending limits for fiscal
year 2002 and eliminate the current balances on the pay-go scorecard.
While it is likely that this or similar language will be included in
one of the remaining appropriations bills, I believe it is important to
introduce this bill and have it referred to the Committee on the Budget
in order to assert the committee's jurisdiction over such matters.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief summary
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1575
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FY 2002 BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.
(a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--
(1) New discretionary caps for 2002.--Section 251(c)(6) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(2 U.S.C. 901(c)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) for the discretionary category: $681,441,000,000 in
new budget authority and $670,447,000,000 in outlays;''.
(2) New allocation to the appropriations committees.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of H. Con. Res. 83, as agreed
to on May 10, 2001 (107th Congress) and the joint statement
of managers accompanying the conference report for the
resolution, the budget authority and outlays for fiscal year
2002 allocated under section 302 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633) to the Committees on
Appropriations shall be as follows:
(In millions)
Budget
Authority Outlays
General purpose discretionary.............. 683,201 702,806
Memo:
On-budget................................ 679,622 699,281
Off-budget............................... 3,579 3,525
(3) Enforcement of budget aggregates.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of H. Con. Res. 83, as agreed to on May 10, 2001
(107th Congress) and the joint statement of managers
accompanying the conference report for the resolution, for
the purpose of enforcing the provisions of section 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the recommended levels and
amounts set out in sections 101(2) and 101(3) with respect to
fiscal year 2002 of that resolution shall be--
(A) $1,653,193,000,000 in new budget authority; and
(B) $1,615,308,000,000 in outlays.
(4) Adjustments for emergencies.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in
making any adjustments required by section 314(b)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and in preparing the report
as required by section 254(f)(2) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 904(f)(2))
with respect to fiscal year 2002, the adjustments required by
section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not exceed $2,200,000,000
in budget authority and $1,030,000,000 in outlays.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to legislation that is designated by the President
and Congress as providing emergency funding in response to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
(b) Treatment of Pay-Go Spending.--In preparing the final
sequestration report required by section 254(f)(3) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for
fiscal year 2002, in addition to the information required by
that section, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall change any balance of direct spending and
receipts legislation for fiscal year 2002 under section 253
of that Act so as to eliminate any balances resulting from
legislation enacted prior to the date of enactment of this
Act. All legislation enacted subsequently shall be recorded
in accordance with section 253 of that Act.
(c) Repeal.--Section 203 of H. Con. Res. 83, agreed to May
10, 2001 (107th Congress) is repealed.
____
S. 1575--Summary
Amends section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide discretionary spending
limits for fiscal year 2002 consistent with those negotiated
by the Administration and Leaders of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Provides a new section 302(a) allocation to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations consistent with the amended
statutory limits.
Both the statutory limits and the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations in this bill are consistent with
those set forth in the legislation reported on a bipartisan
basis from the House Committee on the Budget, see H.R. 3084.
Provides new budget resolution aggregates with respect to
new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002, for
enforcement of section 311 of the Budget Act.
Limits the congressional scorekeeping and statutory
adjustments for emergency spending to $2.2 billion in keeping
with the agreement between the Administration and the
Appropriations Committees. Provides an exception for
emergency spending related to the attacks of September 11,
2001.
Eliminates the balance on OMB's pay-go scorecard as of the
date of enactment. Consequently requires any additional
mandatory spending or revenue reductions to be either offset
or designated as an emergency.
Repeals section 203 of the fiscal year 2002 budget
resolution which created a mechanism for congressional
implementation of a change in the statutory spending limits
and a ``firewall'' between defense and non-defense
discretionary spending.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1576. A bill to amend section 1710 of title 38, United States
Code, to extend the eligibility for health care of veterans who served
in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
legislation that would ensure that Gulf War
[[Page S11112]]
veterans suffering from unexplained illnesses continue to get the care
that they need. If we do not act quickly, these veterans will soon lose
their priority eligibility for health care through the Department of
Veterans Affairs, despite the sad fact that we still do not understand
the causes of their symptoms.
As many of my colleagues know, servicemembers returning from the Gulf
War in 1991 began to report a range of unexplained illnesses that many
believed might have resulted from their service. Investigations by
Congress, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and the
Institute of Medicine showed that the men and women who served in
Operation Desert Storm might have been exposed to many battlefield
hazards, including smoke from oil-well fires, pesticides, organic
solvents, the drug pyridostigmine bromide, numerous vaccinations, and
sarin nerve gas.
Unfortunately, our efforts to determine whether any or all of these
hazards might be linked to specific symptoms have been limited by poor
data, a lack of research into the long-term effects of low-dose
exposures, and incomplete military recordkeeping. In response to
concerns about the health of Gulf War veterans, Congress passed Public
Law 102-585, authorizing health examinations, tasking the National
Academy of Sciences to evaluate scientific evidence regarding potential
Gulf War exposures, and establishing the Gulf War Veterans Health
Registry, and Public Law 102-310, authorizing VA to provide health care
services on a priority basis to Gulf War veterans through December 31,
2001.
Now, more than a decade after the war, scientific research has
determined neither the causes of veterans' symptoms, nor the long-term
health consequences of Gulf War-era exposures. In addition, the
Department of Defense recently released new estimates of the number and
locations of service personnel exposed to nerve agents. To meet the
medical needs of these Gulf War veterans, now and as they continue to
unfold, we must extend this period for providing health care services
on a priority basis. The legislation that I have introduced would
extend this period for 10 more years.
I ask my colleagues in joining me to extend this critical service for
the men and women who served this Nation.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 1577. A bill to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources
Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize additional
projects under that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. 1577
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 ``Lower Rio Grande Valley
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Section 4(a) of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources
Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576;
114 Stat. 3067) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) In the United Irrigation District of Hidalgo County,
Texas, a pipeline and pumping system, as identified in the
study conducted by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood, and
Associates, Inc., dated January 2001.
``(6) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No.
2, proposed improvements to Canal C, as identified in the
engineering report completed by Martin, Brown, and Perez,
dated February 8, 2001.
``(7) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No.
2, a proposed Canal C and Canal 13 Inner Connect, as
identified in the engineering report completed by Martin,
Brown, and Perez, dated February 12, 2001.
``(8) In Delta Lake Irrigation District of Hidalgo and
Willacy Counties, Texas, proposed water conservation
projects, as identified in the engineering report completed
by AW Blair Engineering, dated February 13, 2001.
``(9) In the Hidalgo and Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation
District No. 9, a proposed project to salvage spill water
using automatic control of canal gates, as identified in the
engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated
February 14, 2001.
``(10) In the Brownsville Irrigation District of Cameron
County, Texas, a proposed main canal replacement, as
identified in the engineering report completed by Holdar-
Garcia & Associates, dated February 14, 2001.
``(11) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District
No. 16, a proposed off-district pump station project, as
identified in the engineering report completed by Melden &
Hunt, Inc., dated February 14, 2001.
``(12) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District
No. 1, a proposed canal replacement of the North Branch East
Main, as identified in the engineering analysis completed by
Melden & Hunt, Inc., dated February 2001.
``(13) In the Donna (Texas) Irrigation District, a proposed
improvement project, as identified in the engineering
analysis completed by Melden & Hunt, Inc., dated February 13,
2001.
``(14) In the Hudspeth County, Texas, Conservation and
Reclamation District No. 1--
``(A) the Alamo Arroyo Pumping Plant water quality project,
as identified in the engineering report and drawings
completed by Gebliard-Sarma and Associates, dated July 1996;
and
``(B) the construction of a 1,000 acre-foot off-channel
regulating reservoir for the capture and conservation of
irrigation water, as identified in the engineering report by
completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated March 2001.
``(15) In the El Paso County, Texas, Water Improvement
District No. 1, the Riverside Canal Improvement Project Phase
I, Reach A, a canal lining and water conservation project, as
identified in the engineering report and drawings completed
by AW Blair Engineering, dated November 1999.
``(16) In the Maverick County, Texas, Water Improvement and
Control District No. 1, the concrete lining project of 12
miles of the Maverick Main Canal, as identified in the
engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated
March 2001.
``(17) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District
No. 6, rehabilitation of 10.2 miles of concrete lining in the
main canal between Lift Stations Nos. 2 and 3, as identified
in the engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering,
dated March 2001.
``(18) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District
No. 2, Wisconsin Canal Improvements, as identified in the
engineering report completed by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood
and Associates, Inc., dated February 2001.
``(19) In the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2,
Lateral `A' Canal Improvements, as identified in the
engineering report completed by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood
and Associates, Inc., dated July 25, 2001.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Lower Rio Grande Water Conservation and Improvement
Program.--Section 3 of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-576; 114 Stat. 3065) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``The Secretary'' and all that follows through ``in
cooperation'' and inserting ``The Secretary, acting through
the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall carry out a program
under cooperative agreements'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Review and Evaluation.--The Secretary shall review
and evaluate project proposals in accordance with the
guidelines described in the document published by the Bureau
of Reclamation entitled `Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Proposals for Water Conservation and Improvement
Projects Under Public Law 106-576', dated June 2000.'';
(3) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, including operation, maintenance,
repair, and replacement'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``the criteria
established pursuant to this section'' and inserting ``the
guidelines referred to in subsection (b)'';
(5) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Report Preparation; Reimbursement.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), project
sponsors may choose to enter into 1 or more contracts with
the Secretary under which the Secretary shall prepare the
reports required under this section.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
report preparation by the Secretary described in paragraph
(1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of that
preparation.''; and
(6) in subsection (g), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and
inserting ``$8,000,000''.
(b) Lower Rio Grande Construction Authorization.--Section 4
of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation
and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 114 Stat.
3067) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``costs of any
construction'' and inserting ``total project cost of any
project''; and
(B) in the last sentence, by striking ``spent'' and
inserting ``expended''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$47,000,000, as adjusted to reflect the change,
relative to September 30, 2001, in the Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers published by the Department of
Labor''.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Inouye,
and Mr. Reid):
[[Page S11113]]
S. 1578. A bill to preserve the continued viability of the United
States travel industry; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the ``Freedom to Travel'' is a basic
freedom. And since September 11 we have given a great deal of focus,
and rightfully so, to the airline industry. But I rise today to direct
my colleague's attention to the rest of the travel industry which has
also been deeply affected by the events of September 11.
In the part of the country I come from, we're familiar with
disasters. We know what it's like when, through no fault of your own,
the world falls out from under you as a result of natural disaster.
There was nothing natural about the cowardly and deadly acts of
September 11, but they were certainly unpredictable, unexpected and
clearly beyond the control of anyone who was affected by them.
Just as America has generously responded to natural disasters, we
must now respond to this new disaster and help our fellow countrymen
and women rebuild their lives and livelihood. In the aftermath of the
tragedy we acted quickly, and responsibly, to stabilize the airlines
with a financial package of grants and loan guarantees. And we were
right to pass the aviation security bill to dramatically increase the
number of sky marshals, strengthen cockpit doors and federalize the
screening of passengers and luggage at our airports because we need to
make sure people feel it is safe to fly.
While I supported both of those measures, we now must address the
devastating impact September 11 has had on the U.S. travel and tourism
industry. The network of hotels, travel agents, car rental companies,
restaurants, and attractions that make up the tourism industry, has
also been hard hit, and needs our support. A huge segment of our
economy, the travel and tourism industry is the third largest retail
industry. It generates more than $582 billion in revenue each year, and
directly and indirectly employed more than 19 million people.
North Dakota is a long way from Ground Zero in New York City, from
the Pentagon in Virginia, and from that lonely farm field in
Pennsylvania. But the violence that took place at each of those
locations continues to be felt half a continent away in my home State,
in our hearts and yes, in our State's tourism industry.
Let me share just two reports from North Dakota.
Randy Hatzenbuhler, executive director of the Theodore Roosevelt
Medora Foundation, writes me to say this: his ``organization has great
concerns about our 2002 season. We are preparing our business plans to
anticipate significant decreases in visitation--10-25 percent.''
Katherine Satrom, of Satrom Travel and Tour in Bismarck, ND tells the
story even more starkley. She writes that ``The week of September 11
and the week of September 17, our company's revenue was about 25
percent of normal at best. Following weeks have been about 50 percent
of average revenue for the period.'' ``On September 26,'' she
continues, ``our company cut all employee salaries by 10 percent and
management salaries 20 percent in an effort to avoid a reduction in
workforce.'' ``We have been a viable business for 23 years, providing
jobs and contributing to the economy,'' she concludes. ``We now need
some assistance to bridge this disaster-related downturn and regroup
for the future.''
That's a measure of just how far-reaching, broad and deep the
economic disaster now ripping through the tourism industry has grown.
It reaches every State. And while what's going on in my State is
serious and grave, what is happening closer to the scene of the attacks
is much, much worse. So today, along with Senators Specter, Conrad,
Inouye, and Reid, I introduce the American Tourism Stabilization Act.
Our bill follows through on a suggestion that came out of a hearing
that we held in the Commerce Committee on how the travel industry is
dealing with the impact of September 11. What we learned was not good.
Almost uniformly we heard from rental car companies, hoteliers, travel
agencies, who are struggling to stay in business as they try to cope
with the sudden drop-off in business since September 11. We also heard
from individual hotel workers from across the country that are part of
the \1/3\d of the hospitality industry that is now struggling to pay
their bills since being laid-off after September 11.
Out of that hearing came the suggestion, that as we did with the
airline industry, we provide loan guarantees to help the U.S. tourism
industry function until business returns.
So, the American Tourism Stabilization Act would provide $5 billion
worth of loan guarantees for eligible travel-related businesses.
Building on the airline stabilization bill the American Tourism
Stabilization Act would simply have the already created, Air
Transportation Stabilization Board, process loan guarantees for
eligible travel-related businesses that have been adversely affected by
the government shutdown of the airline industry. Specifically the bill
is intended to make loans available to travel agencies, rental car
companies, airport concessionaires, and others with contractual
relationships with the airlines that have been directly affected by the
tragedies of September 11.
The purpose of the bill is to provide liquidity to businesses that
have been hurt because of their direct ties to an air carrier such as
travel agencies, and airline vendors or an airport concessionaires. It
would do so by making loan guarantees available, based on the ability
to repay, to help tide these businesses over until air traffic and
pleasure travel returns to normal. I urge my colleagues to support our
effort to help the 19 million people who work in the travel industry.
______
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1579. A bill to expand the applicability of daylight saving time;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Halloween
Safety Act of 2001. The purpose of this act is to extend the end date
of Daylight Saving Time from the last Sunday in October to the first
Sunday in November to include the night of Halloween.
The idea of extending Daylight Saving Time was introduced to me by
Sharon Rasmussen, a second grade teacher from Sheridan, WY, and her
students. Ten years ago Mrs. Rasmussen's class began writing to
Wyoming's representatives expressing their wish to have an extra hour
of daylight on Halloween to increase the safety of small children. Each
year I receive a packet of letters from Mrs. Rasmussen's class
encouraging support for this reasonable proposal. Halloween is a time
of great importance and excitement for youngsters throughout the United
States and many celebrate by trick-or-treating door to door.
Legislation has been introduced in the past to extend Daylight Saving
Time. Although many of the bills sought to change both the starting
date and the ending date, the legislation I introduced today would
simply extend it for one week.
The need to protect our children is apparent. According to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, nearly five thousand
pedestrians died in 1999, that is an average of 13 deaths per day.
Fatal pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions occur most often between 6
and 9 pm. Unfortunately, these general trends are highly magnified on
Halloween given the considerable increase in pedestrians, most of whom
are children. A study by the National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control concluded that the occurrence of pedestrian deaths for children
ages 5 to 14 is four times higher on Halloween than any other night of
the year. School and communities encourage children and parents to use
safety measures when children venture out on Halloween and the
Halloween Safety Act can further help protect our Nation's youth.
When students take an interest in improving our Nation's laws,
especially when it would serve to protect other children, I believe it
is our duty to pay close attention. If children are concerned about
their own safety and create a reasonable approach to make their world a
little bit safer, I believe that accommodating their request is not too
much to ask. The fact that second and third grade students in Sheridan,
WY, have been working on this legislation shows that protecting the
children of our country is a primary concern of these students, and it
should be for all of us as lawmakers. If one life can be saved or one
accident averted by extending Daylight Saving Time, it would be
worthwhile. I encourage all my colleagues to support this
[[Page S11114]]
act for the important benefits the Halloween Safety Act of 2001 would
have for children and their parents.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1581. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
business deduction for the purchase and installation of qualifying
security enhancement property; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that
reflects the changed societal dynamic that we have witnessed since the
attacks of September 11. This legislation, the American Security
Enhancement Act of 2001, will allow every business in America to
immediately write off the cost of security enhancements needed to keep
their business operating in a safe and secure manner.
All one has to do is take a walk around the Capitol to see how much
extra the Congress is spending to secure our facilities. Concrete
barriers, higher security visibility, closer monitoring of cars, are
just a few of the many security enhancements that have become an
ordinary part of life on Capitol Hill now. The Postal Service will be
spending millions to enhance the security of the mail. And the same
will hold true for many businesses in this country.
It is not just the extras that airlines will have to spend. Every
business in America knows that it can potentially confront threats of
unknown proportions. They need to protect their employees and they need
to protect their customers. In order to achieve greater security,
American business is going to have to spend billions in the next
several years.
My legislation attempts to alleviate some of the financial costs
companies will inevitably incur whether they purchase high tech
electronic monitoring equipment or low tech concrete barriers.
Currently, such equipment must be depreciated over periods ranging from
5 to 15 years. Under my bill all security enhancement equipment
purchased after September 11 can be expensed, written off immediately.
While investments in such equipment has become a fundamental cost of
doing business; such equipment does absolutely nothing to enhance a
company's profitability. Quite the contrary, it represents a cost that
will have to be absorbed in the ultimate product or service the company
provides.
It seems to this Senator that allowing companies to write off these
costs when they purchase them is the fairest thing we can do to
encourage companies to secure their employees and facilities.
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. 1581
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 ``American Security
Enhancement Investment Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. BUSINESS DEDUCTION FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
QUALIFYING SECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to itemized
deductions for individuals and corporations) is amended by
inserting after section 179A the following new section:
``SEC. 179B. SECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROPERTY.
``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--A taxpayer may elect to
treat the cost of any qualifying security enhancement
property as an expense which is not chargeable to capital
account. Any cost so treated shall be allowed as a deduction
for the taxable year in which such device is placed in
service.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualifying security enhancement property.--The term
`qualifying security enhancement property' means security
enhancement property--
``(A) to which section 168 applies,
``(B) which is acquired by purchase (as defined in section
179(d)(2)), and
``(C) which is installed or placed in service in or outside
of a building which is owned or occupied by the taxpayer and
which is located in the United States.
``(2) Security enhancement property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `security enhancement property'
means property which is specifically and primarily designed
when installed in or outside of a building--
``(i) to detect or prevent the unlawful access by
individuals into the building or onto its grounds,
``(ii) to detect or prevent the unlawful bringing into the
building or onto its grounds of weapons, explosives,
hazardous materials, or other property capable of harming the
occupants of the building or damaging the building, or
``(iii) to protect occupants of the building or the
building from the effects of property described in clause
(ii).
``(B) Certain property included.--The term `security
enhancement property' includes--
``(i) any security device, or
``(ii) any barrier to access to the building grounds.
``(3) Security device.--The term `security device' means
any of the following:
``(A) An electronic access control device or system.
``(B) Biometric identification or verification device or
system.
``(C) Closed-circuit television or other surveillance and
security cameras and equipment.
``(D) Locks for doors and windows, including tumbler, key,
and numerical or other coded devices.
``(E) Computers and software used to combat cyberterrorism.
``(F) Electronic alarm systems to provide detection
notification and off-premises transmission of an unauthorized
entry, attack, or fire.
``(G) Components, wiring, system displays, terminals,
auxiliary power supplies, and other equipment necessary or
incidental to the operation of any item described in
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F).
``(4) Building.--The term `building' includes any structure
or part of a structure used for commercial, retail, or
business purposes.
``(c) Special Rules.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--For purposes of this subtitle, if a
deduction is allowed under this section with respect to the
purchase of a qualifying security device, the basis of such
device shall be reduced by the amount of the deduction so
allowed.
``(2) Only incremental cost included.--If qualifying
security enhancement property has a use or function other
than that described in subsection (b)(2), only the
incremental cost of the use or function so described shall be
taken into account.
``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 179(b), section 179(c),
and paragraphs (3), (4), (8), and (10) of section 179(d),
shall apply for purposes of this section.''
(b) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 263(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (H)
the following new subparagraph:
``(I) expenditures for which a deduction is allowed under
section 179B.''
(2) Section 312(k)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``or 179A'' and inserting ``, 179A, or
179B'', and
(B) by striking ``or 179a'' in the heading and inserting
``, 179a, or 179b''.
(3) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (27), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (28) and inserting ``, and'', and by
inserting after paragraph (28) the following new paragraph:
``(29) to the extent provided in section 179B(c)(1),''.
(4) Section 1245(a) of such Code is amended by inserting
``179B,'' after ``179A,'' both places it appears in
paragraphs (2)(C) and (3)(C).
(5) The table of sections for part VI of subchapter B of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 179A the following new item:
``Sec. 179B. Security enhancement property.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after September 10,
2001, in taxable years ending after September 10, 2001.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1584. A bill to provide for review in the Court of International
Trade of certain determinations of binational panels under the North
American Free Trade Agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation
designed to correct a fundamental flaw within the North American Free
Trade Agreement, NAFTA, dispute resolution mechanism, known as Chapter
19. As many of my colleagues are aware, Chapter 19 has revealed itself
to be unacceptable in its current form. The Integrity of the U.S.
Courts Act, that I introduce today with my colleague Mr. Baucus, is
necessary to make certain bilateral dispute resolution decisions from
the NAFTA are made pursuant to U.S. trade laws.
At present, antidumping and countervailing duty determinations made
[[Page S11115]]
by NAFTA members are appealed to ad hoc panels of private individuals,
instead of impartial courts created under national constitutions. These
panels are supposed to apply the same standard of review as a U.S.
court in order to determine whether a decision is supported by
substantial evidence on the agency record, and is otherwise in
accordance with the law. This standard requires that the agency's
factual findings and legal interpretations be given significant
deference. Unfortunately, in spite of the panels' mandate, they all too
often depart from their directive and fail to ensure that the correct
standard of review is applied.
The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act would permit any party to a
NAFTA dispute involving a U.S. agency decision to remove appellate
jurisdiction from the Extraordinary Challenge Committee, ECC, to the
U.S. Court of International Trade. Doing so would resolve some of the
constitutional issues raised by the Chapter 19 system, expedite
resolution of cases, and ensure conformity with U.S. law.
The infirmities of Chapter 19 are real, and have been problematic
from the beginning. The Justice Department, the Senate Finance
Committee, and other authorities are on record of having expressed
serious concern about giving private panelists, sometimes a majority of
whom are foreign nationals, the authority to issue decisions about U.S.
domestic law that have the binding force of law. These appointed
panelists, coming from different legal and cultural disciplines and
serving on an ad hoc basis, do not necessarily have the interest that
unbiased U.S. courts have in maintaining the efficacy of the laws, as
Congress wrote them.
One of the most egregious examples of the flaws of Chapter 19 is
reflected in a case from early in this process, reviewing a
countervailing duty finding that Canadian lumber imports benefit from
enormous subsidies. Three Canadian panelists outvoted two leading U.S.
legal experts to eliminate the countervailing duty based on patently
erroneous interpretations of U.S. law--interpretations that Congress
had expressly rejected only two months before. Two of the Canadian
panelists served despite undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter
was then argued before a Chapter 19 appeals committee, and the two
committee members outvoted the one U.S. member to once again insulate
the Canadian subsidies from U.S. law.
The U.S. committee member was Malcolm Wilkey, the former Chief Judge
of the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and one of the
United States' most distinguished jurists. In his opinion, Judge Wilkey
wrote that the lumber panel decision ``may violate more principles of
appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a reviewing body
which I have ever read.'' Judge Wilkey and former Judge Charles
Renfrew, also a Chapter 19 appeals committee member, have since
expressed serious constitutional reservations about the system. While
some have claimed that Chapter 19 decides many cases well, its
inability to resolve appropriately large disputes, and its
constitutional infirmity, demand a remedy.
It is clear that the time is long past due to remedy Chapter 19. From
the outset, the NAFTA agreement contemplated that given the sensitive
and unusual subject matter, signatories might have to alter their
obligations under Chapter 19. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act is a
reasonable solution to a serious problem.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Baucus and Cochran and me in
our effort to fix this problem that is unfairly harming American
industry, and more important, the U.S. Constitution.
____________________