Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13146-S13155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1816. A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of Alaska
to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the University of Alaska, the
University, is Alaska's oldest post-secondary school. The University
was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in
educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world. But the
University of Alaska is also an important asset for our Nation. Today
it provides a leadership role in Arctic Science and Arctic Engineering
Research. Bringing Arctic energy to the Nation has required new
breakthroughs in technology and engineering and our need to better
understand global climate change has placed a high value of studying
the Arctic where climate changes are most easily detected.
Additionally, the University has served as an important cornerstone
in Alaska's history. For example, the University housed the Alaska
Constitutional Convention where the fathers of statehood carved out the
rights and privilege guaranteed to Alaska's citizens. Further, the
University of Alaska is proud of the fact that it began life as the
Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, what makes the
University of Alaska truly unique is the fact that it is the only land
grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless.
As my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of
financing America's educational system has been the land grant system.
Established in 1785, this practice gives land to schools and
universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors.
In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act which created the land grant
colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher
education to more and more Americans. These colleges and universities
received land from the Federal Government for facility location and,
more importantly, as

[[Page S13147]]

a way to provide sustaining revenues to these educational institutions.
The University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any
State, with the exception of Delaware, that has a land grant college.
Even the land grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the
Federal Government than has the University of Alaska. In a state the
size of Alaska, we should logically have one of the best and most fully
funded land grant colleges in the country. Unfortunately, without the
land promised under the land grant allocation system and earlier
legislation, the University is unable to share as one of the premier
land grant colleges in the country.
Previous efforts in Congress were made to fix this problem. These
efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the
Morrill Act, when Alaska's Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a
measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter
of a million acres, in the Tanana Valley outside of Fairbanks, for the
support of an agricultural college and school of mines. Following the
practice established in the lower 48 for other land grant colleges,
Wickersham's bill set aside every Section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana
Valley for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines.
Alaska's educational future looked very bright.
Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system
similar to that established by the University of Washington in the
downtown center of Seattle, where valuable University lands are leased
and provide funding for the University of Washington which uses those
revenues in turn to provide for its programs and facilities.
Before that land could be transferred to the Alaska Agricultural
College and School of Mines, renamed the University of Alaska in 1935,
the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the exact acreage
included in the reserved land. The sections reserved for education
could not be transferred to the College until they had been delineated.
According to records of the time, it was unlikely, given the incredibly
slow speed of surveying, that the land could be completely surveyed
before the 21st century. Surveying was and is an extraordinarily slow
process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated terrain. In all, only 19
sections of land, approximately 11,211 acres, were ever transferred to
the University. Of this amount, 2,250 were used for the original campus
and the remainder was left to support educational opportunities.
Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent
legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit
of the University. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres and
to this day comprises the bulk of the University's roughly 112,000
acres of land, less than one-third of what it was originally promised.
In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the
original land grants for all lands that remained unsurveyed. Thus, the
University was left with little land with which to support itself and
thus is unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land grant
college.
The legislation I am introducing today would redeem the promises made
to the University in 1915 and put it on an even footing with the other
land grant colleges in the United States. The bill provides the
University with the land needed to support itself financially and
offers it the chance to grow and continue to act as a responsible
steward of the land and educator of our young people. The legislation
also provides a concrete timetable under which the University must
select its lands and the Secretary of the Interior must act upon those
selections.
This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land
the University can select. The University cannot select land located
within a Conservation System Unit. The University cannot select old
growth timber lands in the Tongass National Forest. Finally, the
University cannot select land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA
corporation, or land used in connection with federal or military
institutions.
Additionally, under my bill the University must relinquish extremely
valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its State/Federal
selection awarded under Section 2 of this bill. Therefore, the result
of this legislation will mean the relinquishment of prime University
inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula & Maritime
National Wildlife Refuge, The Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St.
Elias National Park and Preserve, and Glacier Bay National Park. So,
not only does this bill uphold a decades old promise to the University
of Alaska, it provides the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to
acquire thousands of acres of inholdings that will further protect
Alaska's parks and refuges.
Specifically, this Section 2 of the bill would grant to the
University up to 250,000 acres of federal land. Additionally, Section 5
of the bill establishes a matching program so that the University would
be eligible to receive up to an additional 250,000 acres on a matching
basis, acre-for-acre, with the State. This, obviously, would be done
through the state legislative process involving the Governor, the
Legislature, and the University's Board of Regents. The State matching
provision is an important component of this legislation. Most agree
with the premise that the University was shorted land. However, some
believe it is solely the responsibility of the State to grant the
University land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a
compromise giving both the State and the Federal Government the
opportunity to contribute while at the same time providing the Federal
Government with thousands of aces of valuable inholdings in parks and
refuges.
Finally, this bill contains a provision that incorporates a concept
put forth by the Governor of Alaska. This provision directs the
Secretary of the Interior to attempt to conclude an agreement with the
University and the Governor of Alaska providing for sharing NPRA
leasing revenues in lieu of land selections to prevent the University
from obtaining more than ten percent of such annual revenues or more
than nine million dollars each fiscal year. If an agreement is reached
and provides for disposition of some portion of NPRA mineral leasing
revenues to the University, the Secretary shall submit the proposed
agreement to Congress for ratification. If the Secretary fails to reach
an agreement within two years of enactment, or if Congress fails to
ratify such agreement within three years from enactment, the University
may select up to 92,000 of its 250,000 initial land grant from lands
within NPRA north of latitude 69.
Therefore, this bill has been substantially changed from versions
introduced in previous Congresses in two dramatic ways. First, in
response to concerns from the Administration and environmental
organizations the old growth areas of the Tongass National Forest are
off limits for selection by the University. The only areas of the
Tongass that could be selected by the University are those areas
previously harvested. It is important that the University be allowed to
select lands in this area as having the ability to study and manage as
such areas are important tools for the University's School of Forestry.
The second substantial change to the bill, which was previously
noted, is the revenue sharing component. This aspect provides an
alternative means of providing for the needs of the University. With
the passage of this bill, the University of Alaska will finally be able
to act fully as a land grant college. It will be able to select lands
that can provide the University with a stable revenue source as well as
provide responsible stewardship for the land.
This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promise
that was made more than 80 years ago could be fulfilled by passage of
this legislation, and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright
future for the University of Alaska and those seeking an education or
to conduct research.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Milulski):
S. 1818. A bill to ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave
without pay in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed
services or member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay
and allowances such individual is receiving for such service, will be
no less than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if
no interruption in employment has occurred; to the Committee on
Government Affairs.

[[Page S13148]]

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss the
financial burden faced by many of the men and women who serve in the
military Reserves or National Guard and who are forced to take unpaid
leave from their jobs when called to active duty. While these
individuals receive pay for the time they are on active duty, it is
often significantly less than what they receive in their normal jobs.
It is unfair to ask the men and women who have volunteered to serve
their country, often in dangerous situation, to also face a financial
strain on their families.
A number of employers have wisely acted to remedy this hardship by
establishing a financial compensation plan for their employees in the
Reserves or National Guard. In response to the recent terrorist attacks
of September 11, the Netherlands-based ABN AMRO Bank N.V., one of the
world's largest banks, has set up a special pay differential program to
provide their employees in the Reserves and National Guard compensation
equaling the income they would normally have to forfeit when called to
active duty. LaSalle Bank, a subsidiary of ABN AMRO in Chicago, has
already seen this program help 12 reservists in its ranks. The
spokesperson for LaSalle described the program as something the company
wanted to do ``to be supportive of the country's efforts''.
Let us take similar action in Washington and set an example for
employers throughout the country. Today, I am introducing with my
colleague from Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Reservist Pay
Security Act of 2001, legislation that will help alleviate the
financial problems faced by many Federal employees who serve in the
Reserves and must take time off from their jobs when called to active
duty. This bill would allow these employees to maintain their normal
salary when called to active service by requiring Federal agencies to
make up the difference between their military pay and what they would
have earned on their Federal job.
As the symbol of American values and ideals, the Federal Government
should give these special employees of our government more than just
words of support. We should not encourage Americans to protect their
country and then punish those who enlist in the armed forces by taking
away a large segment of the salary. We must provide our reservist
employees with financial support so that they can leave their civilian
lives to serve in the military without worrying about the financial
well-being of their families.
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cleland, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 1819. A bill to provide that members of the Armed Forces
performing services in the Republic of Korea shall be entitled to tax
benefits in same manner as if such services were performed in a combat
zone, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along
with Senators Sessions, Cleland, Cochran, and Dayton that simply
ensures that personnel serving in Korea get the same tax benefits as
personnel serving in other forward deployed areas of the world such as
Kuwait and the Balkans. I am hoping that this legislation can be added
to the economic stimulus package, but if not, I want to make other
Senators aware of the need to take this action for the brave men and
women serving in Korea.
We cannot fix all of the quality of life problems in Korea overnight,
but we can at least provide basic equity in the tax treatment of
military personnel who serve there so that they get the same benefits
those in Kuwait and the Balkans get.
Let me share with my colleagues some of the facts that led us to
decide that this tax equity is needed and is needed now.
While we have representatives of every service in Korea, the bulk of
our force is from the Army. Seventeen percent of the entire Army is
stationed in, on orders to, or returning from the Republic of Korea at
any given time. That's about 37,000 soldiers.
Unlike most Army postings, which tend to be for six months, ninety-
six percent of those stationed in Korea are there for at least one year
of unaccompanied duty. In some Army specialities, personnel are asked
to serve for far more than one unaccompanied, year-long tour in Korea,
which encourages experienced personnel to leave the Army.
Duty tours in Korea involve longer separations from family, under
worse quality of life conditions than almost any other overseas Army
post, in a military zone that is clearly hostile, for less pay. This is
a serious moral issue. Let me give you an example, a typical E-5 will
make $5,136 less, $2,292 in Federal taxes that must be paid and not
getting the $2,844 separation ration if sent to Korea rather than the
Balkans. Our men and women in the military do not serve to become rich,
but people notice and morale suffers when one assignment means working
in poor conditions for a year and taking a $5,000 pay-cut.
When I say the conditions are poor, I want people to know that I am
not exaggerating. The quality of life in Korea is recognized as
substantially lower than other overseas posts and far lower than within
the United States. Consider that orders for Korea have the highest
command declination rate and the highest ``no show'' rate in the Army.
Even worse, look at the housing situation. Only ten percent of the
command sponsored service members serving in Korea can be housed, and
that housing is generally substandard. Compare this to seventy-two
percent of forces deployed to Japan and seventy-four percent of forces
in Europe having housing available.
Let me explain what I mean by substandard housing in Korea. The same
Quonset huts built in the 1950s as temporary structures are still being
used in 2001 to house troops today. Those huts are being shared by 4 or
more personnel, often at a level of Sergeant or higher, which is well
below standard quarters for such rank.
I visited those Quonset huts when I traveled to Korea in August. I
saw the sand bags they have to put out when it rains to prevent major
flooding. I witnessed the cramped living quarters; even worse than my
freshman college dorm room. I have heard that when winter comes, and
Korean winters are famous for their severity, these buildings are much
like living in an igloo.
Our troops make the best of this deplorable situation, but they
deserve some relief. These are the men and women on whom we rely to
deter North Korean aggression on a peninsula that is still technically
in a state of war.
Because the tour of duty is unaccompanied for ninety-six percent of
the service members there, most of the approximately 21,000 married
military personnel in Korea are forced to maintain 2 households. The
substandard accommodations available force significant out-of-pocket
expenses for basic items like food for both households, phone access,
transportation, and other items basic to other posts. The Command
estimates that $3,000 to $5,000 per year are spent by deployed
personnel on these ``hidden costs.'' Any family that has had to budget
knows that this is a significant economic burden at a time when these
families are already enduring a year of separation.
It is no wonder that the Army has trouble filling billets in Korea.
If you combine the tax disparity and the ``hidden costs'', a mid-level
E-5 will make $8,000 to $10,000 less if deployed to Korea versus the
Balkans or Kuwait. This is unacceptable, and it is something that we
can fix now. The command estimates that granting pay equity would cost
approximately $85 million a year. That is surely the least we owe the
fine men and women serving in Korea today.
______

By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1820. A bill to enhance authorities relating to emergency
preparedness grants; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the horrific events of September 11
underscore in red the heroism of the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day, the courageous fire fighters and police officers
of this Nation, the domestic defenders of America. Each and every day,
fire fighters and police officers wake up knowing that they may have to
run into burning buildings or respond to chemical or biological
attacks. As thousands and thousands of

[[Page S13149]]

people were running for their lives out of the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, police officers and fire fighters were running in the
opposite direction, into the danger and toward the people who could not
save themselves. Tragically, many of those first responders did not
come out. Sixty police officers and 344 fire fighters are missing or
have been declared dead in the World Trade Center attacks. The majority
of the fire fighters who responded to the first five alarms of the
terrorist attacks, including the city's entire search and rescue fleet
of five squad companies, were in the Twin Towers when they collapsed.
They are, by any definition, heroes.
We ask for a tremendous amount of responsibility from a small group
of people. Fire fighters and police officers are the first responders
to almost every tragedy imaginable. From car accidents to plane
crashes, from kitchen fires to towering infernos, from domestic
disputes to hazardous material spills, we depend upon their service and
training each and every day. This Nation's fire fighters and police
officers stand ready to respond to the needs of America. The terrible
tragedy of September 11 is a daily reminder of how critical it is that
America respond to the needs of its first responders.
For the last three months our Nation has focused on how we may best
increase the security of our borders. During this time, experts on
terrorism have warned us to think outside the box, that if we fail to
do so, this Nation will put itself in the vulnerable position of
forever responding to the last terrorist attack. The number of anthrax
cases is a warning in red that biological and chemical agents are
available as weapons of mass destruction. Given this fact, the capacity
of our police officers and fire fighter to respond quickly to
emergencies involving hazardous materials becomes more important than
ever.
The U.S. Department of Transportation administers the Emergency
Preparedness Grants Program, which helps State local governments train
police and fire fighters to respond to hazmat emergencies. Currently
that program is funded at $14 million, and the money comes from
registration fees paid by certain hazmat carriers and shippers. Given
the growing need for expertise in handling hazardous materials, the $14
million pot of money is clearly inadequate. It is estimated that
current funding can provide training to only about 120,000 emergency
personnel a year out of a pool of almost 3 million. Grants to local
governments are small, ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 on average. In
fact, a recent Washington Post article stated that Washington, D.C. is
supposed to have a fire department team to respond to a chemical or
biological attack, but according to the article, its members rarely
train, and are used instead for routine firefighting.
Because money has never been fully allocated for hazmat training
grants, there is a current $15 million surplus in the Emergency
Preparedness Grants Program. This is $15 million which could be going
for critical first responder training. Today I am joined by Senators
Rockefeller and Wyden in introducing the Heroic Emergency Response
Operations Act, the HERO bill, which would allow the Department of
Transportation to access the $15 million in surplus funds, at no cost
to the taxpayer, and disperse the lion's share of this money to State
and local governments for hazmat training of the men and women who are
at ground zero during emergencies involving hazardous materials.
Under our legislation, $1 million of the $15 million surplus would be
authorized to go to the International Association of Fire Fighters,
IAFF, which provides specialized hazmat training free of charge to
local fire departments. According to the IAFF, funding of $1 million
per year would quadruple the number of fire fighters who receive the
necessary training to safeguard their health and safety as well as that
of the citizens they protect during emergency response at or along our
Nation's transportation corridor. In addition, the HERO bill would also
require the Department of Transportation to develop national standards
for security training related to the deliberate release of hazardous
materials used as weapons of mass destruction. These standards would be
in addition to the existing standards which address emergency response
to accidental hazmat spills which may occur during the transportation
of hazardous materials.
In this era of potential chemical and biological attacks, we need to
do everything we can to ensure that our local police officers and fire
fighters receive the proper training to do the difficult job we ask
them to do. We in Congress must do all we can to help the first
responders of this Nation because they do everything they can to help
us, including giving their lives in the line of duty, as we are
painfully reminded by the tragic events of September 11. Our
legislation is endorsed by the International Association of Fire
Fighters, IAFF, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
IBPO. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the HERO bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to the printed in the
Record, as follows.

S. 1820

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 ``Heroic Emergency Response
Operations Act'' or ``HERO Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS.

(a) Security Training for Transportation of Hazardous
Material.--Subsection (i) of section 5116 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) to develop minimum national standards for, and to
develop and conduct, security training relating to the
transportation of hazardous material in commerce, except that
not more than 5 percent of the amount in the account
available in any fiscal year may be used for activities under
this paragraph.''.
(b) Amount Available for Supplemental Training Grants.--
Subsection (j) of that section is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(6) The amount made available each fiscal year from the
account under subsection (i)(1) for grants under this
subsection shall be $1,000,000.''.
(c) Availability of Funds Generally.--Notwithstanding any
limitation in section 5127 of title 49, United States Code,
or in any appropriations Act (including any appropriations
Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act), all
fees collected pursuant to section 5108 of that title,
including any fees collected before the date of the enactment
of this Act that remain available for obligation, shall be
available for obligation, without further appropriation in
accordance with section 5116(i) of that title, as amended by
subsection (a).

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to join my
friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland, in cosponsoring the Heroic
Emergency Response Operations, or HERO, Act. The legislation we
introduce today honors individuals whom the tragic events of the past
few months have truly shown to be heroes, our firefighters and police
officers. The HERO Act honors these men and women by providing grants
to State and local governments to allow there dedicated public servants
to be trained in the proper handling of hazardous materials
emergencies.
The HERO Act expands upon the existing Department of Transportation,
DOT, Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants, which are
intended to provide financial and technical assistance to enhance State
and local hazardous materials planning and training. The program is
authorized to distribute up to $14 million in fees that have been
collected from shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to
emergency responders for hazmat training. Unfortunately, this money has
never been fully allocated to this important endeavor, and there is now
a $15 million surplus.
The HERO Act will allow the Secretary of Transportation to access
this $15 million in surplus funds and use it for its intended purpose.
Additionally, the HERO Act authorizes that $1 million of the surplus
funds go to the International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF),
which offers a specialized program of hazmat training, free of charge,
to firefighters across the country. The IAFF is the only organization
currently offering this specialized hazmat training, and the additional
funding will quadruple the number of firefighters with access to it.
In the course of learning some important, but painful, lessons during
the

[[Page S13150]]

past few months, our nation has had the opportunity to focus on some
positives that we may have taken for granted. As surely as the epic
tragedies of September 11 made us aware of the unspeakable evil in the
world, it also gave us great pride in the heroes in our midst. When an
anthrax-laden letter contaminated the offices of the Majority Leader
and others, we came to understand our vulnerability to chemical and
biological terrorism. At the same time, we came to more fully
appreciate the dedication of the Capitol Police, and the highly trained
biohazard units from several agencies of the Federal Government and the
armed forces. I am among a group of displaced Senators and staff
anxiously waiting for these experts to determine that the Hart Building
is safe to re-enter, and I am confident that when we do go back in, the
health of Senators and staff members will have been safeguarded by
these brave men and women.
I believe it is our duty as members of Congress to see to it that
when firefighters and police officers anywhere in the country respond
to an accident, crime, or act of terrorism that has resulted in the
release of hazardous materials, these heroes have the proper training
to protect themselves and the general public. I further believe it is
unconscionable that while hazmat teams in every State in the Union go
without this much-needed training, this stockpile of money sits unused
in the Treasury.
Even before the events of the past few months highlighted the need
for enhanced and expanded hazardous materials training, DOT and the
IAFF were training as many emergency personnel as possible. However, at
its current level of funding, the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program
can only provide hazmat training to approximately 120,000 of the
nation's 3 million emergency workers each year. Given what has
happened, it should be obvious that the need for specialized hazmat
training has quickly outpaced the money currently available. This
leaves emergency workers in big cities and small towns in the untenable
situation of knowing the risks they face, but lacking the proper
training to react appropriately.
The legislation I am cosponsoring with Senator Cleland offers an
excellent solution to this problem. At no cost to taxpayers, the HERO
Act will allow many thousands of emergency personnel to receive
hazardous materials training that they would not otherwise be able to
receive. Further, it will require DOT to develop minimal national
standards for providing security training to those who transport
hazardous materials in commerce, which should reduce the likelihood
that emergency personnel will have to put their lives at risk to
protect us. I commend Senator Cleland for his work on this issue, and I
wholeheartedly recommend it to my colleagues. I believe the Congress
should enact this bill at its earliest opportunity, and that the
President should sign it into law.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Smith of Oregon, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1825. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide
financial assistance to the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon,
California, and Idaho and tribes in the region for salmon habitat
restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be introducing the
Pacific Salmon Recovery Act to grant Federal funding for salmon
recovery efforts in California, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.
The Salmon Recovery Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide
$350 million during each of the next six fiscal years to these five
western States and the Tribes in that region.
In California, as in much of the West, wild salmon stocks have
collapsed. Their precipitous decline is the result of habitat
destruction, overfishing, pollution, and dams that block the passage of
fish to and from their spawning areas. The results have been tragic.
Fishermen have lost their jobs. Tribes have lost species that are their
religious and cultural icons. And, the environment is suffering.
This bill would help to remedy these problems by investing in the
restoration of these economic and culturally important fish.
Specifically, it will provide funds to support projects in coastal
waters and river habitats that will help restore and recover wild
salmon. It directs that priority be given to the restoration of species
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It
establishes criteria to ensure that funds are not wasted on projects
that will not benefit fish. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to
develop a process for peer reviewing proposed projects to ensure that
only scientifically sound projects receive funding. And, it requires
States and Tribes to provide an annual spending plan to Congress as
well as a one-time comprehensive plan for salmon restoration.
It is important to note that Idaho and the Tribes will finally be
eligible for Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund dollars as a result of this
bill. There is no justification for them to have been excluded in the
past. Additionally, this bill requires that the funds be divided
equally among the 5 States. This will ensure that the funding
distribution is not distorted by political pressures.
I am particularly pleased that the supporters of this bill come from
across the political spectrum. I am joined in the introduction of this
bill by Senators Craig, R-ID, Crapo, R-ID, Wyden, D-OR, Smith, R-OR,
and Feinstein, D-CA. We worked together for many months to craft this
legislation. We were ultimately successful because we all share the
same goal, saving wild salmon.
Finally, this bill illustrates clearly that our economy and our
environment are linked. I have always said we cannot have a healthy
economy without a healthy environment. In restoring the salmon, we will
also be restoring the economy of many communities in the West that are,
or were, dependent on healthy salmon runs.
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. 1825

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 ``Pacific Salmon Recovery
Act''.

SEC. 2. SALMON CONSERVATION AND SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Requirement To Provide Assistance.--Subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall provide
financial assistance in accordance with this Act to eligible
States and eligible tribal governments for conservation of
salmon and salmon habitat restoration activities.
(b) Allocation.--Subject to section 3(f), of the amounts
available to provide assistance under this section each
fiscal year, the Secretary--
(1) shall allocate 85 percent among eligible States, in
equal amounts; and
(2) shall allocate 15 percent among eligible tribal
governments, in amounts determined by the Secretary.
(c) Transfer.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly transfer--
(A) to an eligible State that has submitted and had
approved an annual spending plan under section 3(a) and a
Salmon Conservation and Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan
approved under section 3(b), amounts allocated to the
eligible State under subsection (b)(1); and
(B) to an eligible tribal government that has submitted and
had approved an annual spending plan under section 3(a) and a
memorandum of understanding under section 3(c), amounts
allocated to the eligible tribal government under subsection
(b)(2).
(2) Transfers to eligible states.--The Secretary shall make
the transfer under paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) to the Washington State Salmon Recovery Board, in the
case of amounts allocated to Washington;
(B) to the Oregon State Watershed Enhancement Board, in the
case of amounts allocated to Oregon;
(C) to the California Department of Fish and Game for the
California Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, in the case of
amounts allocated to California;
(D) to the Governor of Alaska, in the case of amounts
allocated to Alaska; and
(E) to the Office of Species Conservation, in the case of
amounts allocated to Idaho.
(d) Reallocation.--
(1) Amounts allocated to eligible states.--Amounts that are
allocated to an eligible State for a fiscal year shall be
reallocated under subsection (b)(1) among the other eligible
States, if--

[[Page S13151]]

(A) the eligible State does not have an annual salmon
spending plan approved under section 3(a);
(B) the eligible State does not have in effect at the end
of the first fiscal year after the amounts have been
allocated a Salmon Conservation and Salmon Habitat
Restoration Plan approved under section 3(b); or
(C) the amounts allocated remain unobligated at the end of
the year following the fiscal year for which the amounts were
allocated.
(2) Amounts allocated to eligible tribal governments.--
Amounts that are allocated to an eligible tribal government
for a fiscal year shall be reallocated under subsection
(b)(2) to the other eligible tribal governments, if the
eligible tribal government--
(A) does not have an annual salmon spending plan approved
under section 3(a); or
(B) has not entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the Secretary in accordance with section 3(c) at the end of
the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the
amounts were allocated.

SEC. 3. RECEIPT AND USE OF ASSISTANCE.

(a) Annual Salmon Spending Plan.--In order to receive
assistance under this Act, an eligible State or eligible
tribe shall submit and have approved by the Secretary an
annual salmon plan which shall include a description of the
projects and programs that the State or tribe plans to
implement with the funds allocated. The Secretary shall
review a State or tribal plan within 90 days and provide a
State or tribe an opportunity to resubmit the plan if
necessary. Funds shall not be transferred to a State or tribe
until an annual salmon plan is approved.
(b) Eligible State Salmon Conservation and Restoration
Plan.--
(1) In general.--In order to receive assistance under this
Act, an eligible State shall submit to the Secretary by the
end of the first fiscal year after the amounts have been
allocated, and, not later than 90 days after receipt of such
a plan, the Secretary shall approve or deny, a Salmon
Conservation and Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan that meets
the requirements of paragraph (3).
(2) Negative determination.--If the Secretary determines
that a plan described in paragraph (1) submitted by an
eligible State does not meet the requirements of paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall inform the State of the deficiencies
of the plan, and the State may resubmit the plan for review
by the Secretary.
(3) Contents.--Each Salmon Conservation and Salmon Habitat
Restoration Plan shall, at a minimum--
(A) be consistent with all applicable Federal laws;
(B) promote the recovery of salmon;
(C) except as provided in subparagraph (D), give priority
to use of assistance under this Act for projects that--
(i) provide a direct and demonstrable benefit to salmon or
their habitat;
(ii) provide the greatest benefit to salmon conservation
and salmon habitat restoration relative to the cost of the
projects; and
(iii) conserve and restore habitat for--

(I) salmon that are listed as an endangered species or
threatened species, proposed for such listing, or a candidate
for such listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(II) salmon that are given special protection under the
laws or regulations of the eligible State;

(D) in the case of a plan submitted by an eligible State in
which, on the date of enactment of this Act, there is no area
at which a salmon species referred to in subparagraph
(C)(iii)(I) spawns--
(i) give priority to use of assistance for projects
referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (C) that
contribute to programs that prevent the decline of unlisted
species and that conserve species of salmon that intermingle
with, or are otherwise related to, species referred to in
subparagraph (C)(iii)(I), which may include (among other
matters)--

(I) salmon habitat restoration;
(II) salmon supplementation and enhancement only for the
purposes of restoring naturally reproducing salmon stocks and
conserving salmon genetic diversity;
(III) salmon-related research, data collection, and
monitoring; and
(IV) national and international cooperative habitat
programs; and

(ii) provide for revision of the plan within 1 year after
any date on which any salmon species that spawns in the
eligible State--

(I) is listed as an endangered species or threatened
species;
(II) is proposed for such listing; or
(III) becomes a candidate for such listing, under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(E) establish specific goals and time lines for activities
funded with assistance under this Act;
(F) include measurable criteria by which such activities
may be evaluated;
(G) require that activities carried out with such
assistance shall--
(i) contribute to the conservation and recovery of salmon;
(ii) be scientifically based in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Secretary under section 4;
(iii) be cost-effective; and
(iv) not be conducted on private land, except with the
consent of the owner of the land; and
(H) consider whether activities funded under this Act will
have long-term benefits based, in part, on consideration of
upstream or downstream activities or activities occurring
elsewhere in the watershed.
(4) Submission of regional plans.--If the State is unable
to complete a comprehensive statewide Salmon Conservation and
Restoration Plan within the timeframe established in section
3(b) the State may submit 1 or more Plans covering distinct
regions within the State. Funding shall only be available for
States or regions within the State for which there is an
approved Plan.
(c) Memorandum of Understanding Between Tribal Government
and the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--To receive assistance under this Act, an
eligible tribal government shall--
(A) have an approved annual spending plan; and
(B) enter into a memorandum of understanding with the
Secretary regarding use of the assistance by the end of the
second fiscal year after the amounts have been allocated.
(2) Contents.--Each memorandum of understanding shall, at a
minimum--
(A) be consistent with all applicable Federal laws;
(B) be consistent with the goal of recovering salmon;
(C) give priority to use of assistance under this Act for
activities that--
(i) provide a direct and demonstrable benefit to salmon or
their habitat;
(ii) provide the greatest benefit to salmon conservation
and salmon habitat restoration relative to the cost of the
projects; and
(iii) conserve and restore habitat for--

(D) in the case of a memorandum of understanding entered
into by an eligible tribal government for an area in which,
as of the date of enactment of this Act, there is no area at
which a salmon species referred to in subparagraph
(C)(iii)(I) spawns--
(i) give priority to use of assistance for projects
referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (C) that
contribute to programs described in subsection (a)(3)(D)(i);
and
(ii) include a requirement that the memorandum shall be
revised within 1 year after any date on which any salmon
species that spawns in the area--

(E) establish specific goals and time lines for activities
funded with assistance under this Act;
(F) include measurable criteria by which such activities
may be evaluated;
(G) establish specific requirements for reporting to the
Secretary by the eligible tribal government; and
(H) require that activities carried out with such
assistance shall--
(i) contribute to the conservation or recovery of salmon;
(ii) be scientifically based, in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Secretary under section 4;
(iii) be cost-effective; and
(iv) not be conducted on private land, except with the
consent of the owner of the land.
(d) Eligible Activities.--
(1) In general.--Assistance under section 2 may be used by
an eligible State in accordance with a plan approved under
section 3(b), or by an eligible tribal government in
accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into by
the government under section 3(c), to carry out or make
grants or provide loans to carry out, among other
activities--
(A) protection and restoration of salmon habitat, including
riparian areas;
(B) acquisition from willing sellers of conservation
easements for riparian habitat protection;
(C) watershed evaluation, assessment, and planning
necessary to develop a site-specific and clearly prioritized
plan to implement watershed improvements, including for
making multiyear grants;
(D) research and collection of data on salmon, and
monitoring of salmon and salmon habitat;
(E) salmon supplementation and enhancement projects only
for the purposes of restoring naturally reproducing salmon
stocks and conserving salmon genetic diversity;
(F) maintenance and monitoring of projects completed with
assistance under this Act;
(G) technical training and education projects, including
teaching private landowners about practical means of
improving land and water management practices to contribute
to the conservation and restoration of salmon habitat; and
(H) other activities related to conservation of salmon and
salmon habitat restoration.
(2) Peer review.--Eligible science-based activities in
paragraph (1) shall be validated through a peer review
process that satisfies the requirements prescribed by the
Secretary under section 4.

[[Page S13152]]

(3) Columbia river basin.--Funds allocated to eligible
States and tribal governments for projects or activities
located within the Columbia River Basin shall be used in a
manner consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council's
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
(e) Use of Assistance for Activities Outside Jurisdiction
of Recipient.--
(1) Assistance to states.--Assistance under this Act
provided to an eligible State only may be used for activities
within that State's borders.
(2) Assistance to tribal governments.--Assistance under
this Act provided to an eligible tribal government may be
used for activities conducted within the borders of its
resident State (or States).
(f) Cost-Sharing by Eligible States.--
(1) In general.--An eligible State shall provide 25 percent
non-Federal match, in the aggregate, of any financial
assistance provided to the eligible State for a fiscal year
under this Act. The non-Federal match may be in the form of
monetary contributions or in-kind contributions of services
for projects carried out with assistance under this Act. For
purposes of this paragraph, monetary contributions by the
State shall not be considered to include funds received from
other Federal sources.
(2) Limitation on requirement for matching funds.--The
Secretary may not require an eligible State to provide
matching funds for each project carried out with assistance
under this Act.
(3) Treatment of monetary contributions.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(3)(H), the amount of monetary contributions by
an eligible State under this subsection shall be treated as
expenditures from non-Federal sources for salmon conservation
and salmon habitat restoration programs.
(4) Bonneville power administration fish and wildlife
funding.--Funds collected by the Bonneville Power
Administration from electricity ratepayers and allocated to
eligible States and tribal governments for fish and wildlife
activities shall not be considered to be funds from a Federal
source under this Act.
(g) Supplementation of State and Tribal Funding.--An
eligible State or tribal government shall maintain its
aggregate expenditures of funds from non-Federal sources for
salmon and salmon habitat restoration programs at or above
the average annual level of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal
years preceding the date of enactment of this Act or
$10,000,000 for each fiscal year, whichever is less.
(h) Coordination of Activities.--Each eligible State and
each eligible tribal government receiving assistance under
this Act is encouraged to carefully coordinate the salmon
conservation activities of that State or tribal government
to--
(1) eliminate duplicative and overlapping activities; and
(2) provide consideration of upstream or downstream
activities or activities occurring elsewhere in the watershed
that may impact the efficacy of restoration efforts.
(i) Limitations on Use of Funds.--
(1) Administrative expenses.--
(A) Federal administrative expenses.--Of the amounts
available to carry out this Act for a fiscal year, not more
than 1 percent may be used by the Secretary for
administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this Act.
(B) State and tribal administrative expenses.--Of the
amount allocated under this Act to an eligible State or
eligible tribal government each fiscal year, not more than 3
percent may be used by the eligible State or eligible tribal
government, respectively, for administrative expenses
incurred in carrying out this Act.
(2) Activities required for environmental permit.--No funds
available to carry out this Act may be used by a private
entity for activities that would otherwise be required as a
condition or requirement of a Federal, State, or local
environmental permit.

SEC. 4. PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe the
requirements for expedited peer review of science-based
activities contained in the annual spending plan for each
eligible State or tribal government. In order to achieve
salmon recovery throughout the coastal salmon's range, each
plan shall be considered separately on its own merits.
(b) Content.--The requirements for expedited peer review
shall include the following:
(1) Panels.--Establishment of sufficient peer review
panels, as determined by the Secretary, to achieve timely
peer review of activities contained in the annual spending
plan. The of number of members, qualifications for
membership, and procedure for selection of members for each
panel shall be substantially in the same manner as the peer
review panel provided for under section 4(h)(10)(D) of the
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(D)).
(2) Necessary information.--A description of the
information that must be provided to the peer review panel in
order to evaluate the activities. Each State's Salmon
Conservation and Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan and each
tribal government's memorandum of understanding shall
establish the mechanism for providing needed information to
the peer review panel.
(3) Review of proposed activities.--Review, by the panels,
of activities proposed for funding with assistance under this
Act, within the time prescribed by the Secretary.
(4) Determination and recommendations.--Submittal of the
peer review panel's determinations and recommendations
regarding the activities within each State's or tribe's
annual spending plan to the Secretary, in order to be
considered by the Secretary in approving or disapproving the
annual spending plan, in accordance with the provisions of
section 3(a). States or tribes shall be provided an
opportunity to resubmit any plan, if necessary, or to propose
alternative projects within their respective jurisdictions.
(c) Interim Funding.--An eligible State or tribal
government may receive funding under this Act prior to the
finalization by the Secretary of the peer review requirements
under this section.
(d) Peer Review Funding.--The Secretary shall pay the
expenses incurred by peer review panels in an amount not to
exceed $500,000 a year from the administrative costs
described in section 3(i)(1)(A).

SEC. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

(a) Eligible States.--Each eligible State seeking
assistance under this Act shall establish a citizen advisory
committee or provide a similar forum for local governments
and the public to participate in obtaining and using the
assistance, as well as in the development of the State Salmon
Conservation and Restoration Plan. Each eligible State
receiving assistance under this Act shall hold public
meetings to receive recommendations on the use of the
assistance.
(b) Eligible Tribal Governments.--Each eligible tribal
government receiving assistance under this Act shall hold
public meetings to receive recommendations on the use of the
assistance.

SEC. 6. CONSULTATION NOT REQUIRED.

Consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) shall not be required based solely
on the provision of financial assistance under this Act.
Projects or activities that affect listed species shall
remain subject to applicable provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.

SEC. 7. REPORTS.

Each eligible State and tribal government shall, not later
than December 31 of the second year in which amounts are
available to carry out this Act, and every 2 years
thereafter, submit to the Secretary a biennial report on the
use of financial assistance received by the eligible State or
tribal government under this Act. The report shall contain an
evaluation of the success of that State or tribal government
in meeting the criteria listed in section 3 (b) and (c),
whichever is applicable.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(2) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means each
of the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and
Idaho.
(3) Eligible tribal government.--The term ``eligible tribal
government'' means--
(A) a federally recognized tribal government of an Indian
tribe in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, or Idaho
that the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, determines--
(i) is involved in salmon management and recovery
activities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(ii) has the management and organizational capability to
maximize the benefits of assistance provided under this Act;
or
(B) an Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation, as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
or a federally recognized tribe in Alaska, that the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, determines--
(i) is involved in salmon conservation and management; and
(ii) has the management and organizational capability to
maximize the benefits of assistance provided under this Act.
(4) Salmon.--The term ``salmon'' means any naturally
produced salmonid or naturally produced trout of the
following species:
(A) Coho salmon (oncorhynchus kisutch).
(B) Chinook salmon (oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
(C) Chum salmon (oncorhynchus keta).
(D) Pink salmon (oncorhynchus gorbuscha).
(E) Sockeye salmon (oncorhynchus nerka).
(F) Steelhead trout (oncorhynchus mykiss).
(G) Sea-run cutthroat trout (oncorhynchus clarki clarki).
(H) For purposes of applying this Act to Oregon, the term
``salmon'' also includes--
(i) lahontan cutthroat trout (oncorhnychus clarki
henshawi); and
(ii) bull trout (salvelinus confluentus).
(I) For purposes of applying this Act to Washington and
Idaho, the term ``salmon'' also includes bull trout
(salvelinus confluentus).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $350,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007 to carry out the
provisions of this Act. Any funds appropriated pursuant to
this Act shall remain available until expended.

[[Page S13153]]

______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1827. A bill to provide permanent authorization for International
Labor Affairs Bureau to continue and enhance their work to alleviate
child labor and improve respect for internationally recognized worker
rights and core labor standards, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, laws are only as effective as their
implementation and enforcement. That is why today I am introducing the
Fair International Standards in Trade and Investment Act of 2001 along
with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Kennedy, chairman of the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Senator
Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
This legislation will provide much-needed policy direction to the
U.S. Labor Department DOL, and enhance the standing and capacity of the
International Labor Affairs Bureau, ILAB, within that Department in the
formulation and conduct of our nation's international economic
policies. With these tools, ILAB can better inform and equip U.S.
policy-makers in all three branches of our Federal Government to assist
and induce our foreign trading partners to enforce their own national
laws against abusive child labor and to comply with thirteen U.S. laws
that have been enacted since 1983 which link U.S. trade, investment,
and aid policies to the elimination of abusive child labor and growing
international respect for the other internationally-recognized worker
rights and core labor standards.
Currently, ILAB does not have any underlying, permanent statutory
authority for any of its international activities. It simply operates
as an adjunct to the personal office of the Secretary of Labor.
Practically speaking, this gives ILAB very little clout in inter-agency
policy-making and no real voice to insist on better enforcement of the
child labor provisions and other worker rights provisions in U.S. law,
international law, or any of the bilateral trade and investment
agreements that America has with more than 150 foreign countries.
The time has come for better equipping our government and the rest of
the world with urgently-needed tools to constructively link compliance
with child labor laws and other basic worker rights to the conduct of
continued trade and investment liberalization. We need new thinking and
new resolve to crackdown on abusive child labor throughout the global
economy and to beef up protection of internationally-recognized worker
rights and core labor standards. If enacted, this legislation will lay
a solid statutory foundation underneath ILAB. It will empower ILAB to
help ensure that as our Nation enters into additional trade and
investmennt agreements, that those new agreements as well as all of our
pre-existing agreements serve to raise the living standards and protect
the rights of working people as well as corporate managers and
investors.
I have spent more than a decade in this Senate leading the charge
against the commercial exploitation of children in the workplace at
home and abroad. Just last year, the Congress enacted provisions I
authored in the Trade and Development Act of 2000 which prohibit trade
preferences and duty-free access to the U.S. marketplace for any
trading nation that is not meeting its international legal obligations
to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Now we have to make
certain that these new provisions and our other trade-linked worker
rights laws are practically enforced and that means improving ILAB's
capacity to meet this increasingly-immportant responsibility.
In the final analysis, increased trade and investment are not ends in
themselves. They are means for achieving more broad-based, sustainable
development and greater economic and social justice in the global
economy. Our real choice is not between free trade or protectionism.
Our policy challenge is to identify new and constructive ways in which
the power of government can be used to manage globalization in ways
that curb abusive child labor and protect worker rights as much as
property rights. A well-grounded and enhanced ILAB within the one
Cabinet department in our government that was created to advance the
needs and protect the fundamental rights of working people everywhere
can help us meet this challenge for the 21st century and beyond.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1828. A bill to amend subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84
of title 5, United States Code, to include Federal prosecutors within
the definition of a law enforcement officer, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my good friend
Senator Hatch, the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act
of 2001. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current
law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable
retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the
Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement
benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them
as ``law enforcement officers'' ``LEOs'', under the Federal Employees'
Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill
would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys
employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal
prosecutors as LEO's for purposes of receiving these retirement
benefits.
The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs
is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant
United States Attorneys, ``AUSAs'', and other Federal prosecutors are
not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast
majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This
exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States
Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee
whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or
detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal
law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) and 8401(17). AUSAs and other
Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations,
interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting,
debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements
and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which
fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement
officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice
system, the person with whom they have the most fact-to-face contact,
and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal
prosecutor.
Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and
other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many
criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as
pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants,
cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they
are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the
criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for
threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous
incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made
against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant
disruption of their personal and family lives.
Only recently a veteran Federal prosecutor in the Western District of
Washington was murdered in his home, and, although the crime remains
unsolved, based upon the facts of the case the authorities have
referred to the crime as a hit. In addition, I have received many other
accounts from Federal prosecutors regarding specific threats to which
they and their families have been subjected because of the performance
of their duties. Federal prosecutors have written to me that they have
been forced to relocate themselves and their families due to death
threats; that they have been assaulted; that they and their families
have been followed by members of criminal organizations; that have been
forced to install security systems at their homes and to change
their routes to and from the office to protect their safety and the
safety of their families.

As our war against terrorism continues, Federal prosecutors will be
on the front lines once again as the symbols of our criminal justice
system, and

[[Page S13154]]

unfortunately therefore the targets of those who seek its downfall.
Among other tasks, the Attorney General has designated AUSA's to play a
major role working with police and Federal agents in forming each
judicial district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force. One Federal prosecutors
wrote to me stating that shortly after his name was in the local news
as heading his district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force and he had spoken
to his family about taking suitable precautions, that his young son
came into his bedroom one night holding a hockey stick for protection
asking about their safety. Thus, Federal prosecutors and their families
will deal more than ever with a level of stress and danger that
justifies their being treated as LEOs.
Enhanced retirement benefits are also justified by the Federal
Government's need for experienced prosecutors to bring ever more
sophisticated cases under increasingly complex Federal criminal laws.
In recent years, we have seen the growth of complex Federal prosecutors
to combat the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist
groups and other sophisticated criminals. The prosecution of such
difficult cases is best handled by experienced prosecutors. It is
therefore in the public interest to provide reasonable financial
incentives for talented, experienced prosecutors to remain in
government service.
This bill would make Assistant United States Attorneys and other
Federal prosecutors designated by the Attorney General eligible for
immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of
service. For example, prosecutors who are covered by the Civil Service
Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their
three highest years' salary. At the same time, it would exempt
prosecutors from the mandatory retirement provisions that require other
law enforcement officers to retire at age 57. Because the loss of
physical strength and agility does not adversely affect a person's
ability to function as a prosecutor, there is no reason to mandate
early retirement.
Two important features of this bill will contain its costs. First,
the bill provides that incumbent Federal prosecutors are themselves
responsible for making up the difference in individual contributions
owed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund for their
prior service. An incumbent has the choice of making up this difference
either by making a payment up front or by accepting a reduction in
retirement benefits. Second, government contributions for the prior
service of incumbents are made ratably over a ten-year period under
this bill. Thus, payments for prior government contributions are spread
out to lessen the financial impact. These two provisions will insure
that the cost of the bill is kept well within reasons.
This bill enjoys broad, grass root support. In the last month alone,
I have received literally hundreds of letters supporting this bill,
sent from over 40 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The
bill also enjoys support in the law enforcement community. The National
Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Federal Criminal
Investigators Association, and the Southern States Police Benevolent
Association have all written me to voice support for the inclusion of
AUSAs in the definition of an LEO.
In addition, I know that other Senators, including Senator Mikulski,
are considering additional measures to expand these same retirement
benefits to other Federal employees who perform law enforcement
functions, including IRS employees whose primary duty is to collect
delinquent taxes. I support and commend their leadership in bringing
these matters to the forefront.
For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation
with Senator Hatch, and I urge its swift enactment into law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record along with a sectional analysis.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1828

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Prosecutors
Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN THE DEFINITION OF
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (20) of section 8331 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``position.'' and
inserting ``position and a Federal prosecutor.''.
(2) Federal prosecutor defined.--Section 8331 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (28), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(29) `Federal prosecutor' means--
``(A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542
of title 28; or
``(B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and
designated by the Attorney General of the United States.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (17) of section 8401 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) a Federal prosecutor;''.
(2) Federal prosecutor defined.--Section 8401 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (33), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (34), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(35) `Federal prosecutor' means--
``(A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542
of title 28; or
``(B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and
designated by the Attorney General of the United States.''.
(c) Treatment Under Certain Provisions of Law (Unrelated to
Retirement) To Remain Unchanged.--
(1) Original appointments.--Subsections (d) and (e) of
section 3307 of title 5, United States Code, are amended by
adding at the end of each the following: ``The preceding
sentence shall not apply in the case of an original
appointment of a Federal prosecutor as defined under section
8331(29) or 8401(35).''.
(2) Mandatory separation.--Sections 8335(b) and 8425(b) of
title 5, United States Code, are amended by adding at the end
of each the following: ``The preceding provisions of this
subsection shall not apply in the case of a Federal
prosecutor as defined under section 8331(29) or 8401(35).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCUMBENTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
(1) ``Federal prosecutor'' means--
(A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542
of title 28, United States Code; or
(B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and
designated by the Attorney General of the United States; and
(2) ``incumbent'' means an individual who is serving as a
Federal prosecutor on the effective date of this section.
(b) Designated Attorneys.--If the Attorney General of the
United States makes any designation of an attorney to meet
the definition under subsection (a)(1)(B) for purposes of
being an incumbent under this section,--
(1) such designation shall be made before the effective
date of this section; and
(2) the Attorney General shall submit to the Office of
Personnel Management before that effective date--
(A) the name of the individual designated; and
(B) the period of service performed by that individual as a
Federal prosecutor before that effective date.
(c) Notice Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice
shall take measures reasonably designed to provide notice to
incumbents on--
(1) their election rights under this Act; and
(2) the effects of making or not making a timely election
under this Act.
(d) Election Available to Incumbents.--
(1) In general.--An incumbent may elect, for all purposes,
to be treated--
(A) in accordance with the amendments made by this Act; or
(B) as if this Act had never been enacted.
(2) Failure to elect.--Failure to make a timely election
under this subsection shall be treated in the same way as an
election under paragraph (1)(A), made on the last day
allowable under paragraph (3).
(3) Time limitation.--An election under this subsection
shall not be effective unless the election is made not later
than the earlier of--
(A) 120 days after the date on which the notice under
subsection (c) is provided; or
(B) the date on which the incumbent involved separates from
service.
(e) Limited Retroactive Effect.--
(1) Effect on retirement.--In the case of an incumbent who
elects (or is deemed to have elected) the option under
subsection (d)(1)(A), all service performed by that
individual as a Federal prosecutor shall--

[[Page S13155]]

(A) to the extent performed on or after the effective date
of that election, be treated in accordance with applicable
provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, as amended by this Act; and
(B) to the extent performed before the effective date of
that election, be treated in accordance with applicable
provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of
such title, as if the amendments made by this Act had then
been in effect.
(2) No other retroactive effect.--Nothing in this Act
(including the amendments made by this Act) shall affect any
of the terms or conditions of an individual's employment
(apart from those governed by subchapter III of chapter 83 or
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code) with respect to
any period of service preceding the date on which such
individual's election under subsection (d) is made (or is
deemed to have been made).
(f) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
(1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under
subsection (d)(1)(A) may, with respect to prior service
performed by such individual, contribute to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund the difference between the
individual contributions that were actually made for such
service and the individual contributions that should have
been made for such service if the amendments made by section
2 had then been in effect.
(2) Effect of not contributing.--If no part of or less than
the full amount required under paragraph (1) is paid, all
prior service of the incumbent shall remain fully creditable
as law enforcement officer service, but the resulting annuity
shall be reduced in a manner similar to that described in
section 8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, to the
extent necessary to make up the amount unpaid.
(3) Prior service defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``prior service'' means, with respect to any
individual who makes an election under subsection (d)(1)(A),
service performed by such individual before the date as of
which appropriate retirement deductions begin to be made in
accordance with such election.
(g) Government Contributions for Prior Service.--
(1) In general.--If an incumbent makes an election under
subsection (d)(1)(A), the Department of Justice shall remit
to the Office of Personnel Management, for deposit in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the amount required
under paragraph (2) with respect to such service.
(2) Amount required.--The amount the Department of Justice
is required to remit is, with respect to any prior service,
the total amount of additional Government contributions to
the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (over and
above those actually paid) that would have been required if
the amendments made by section 2 had then been in effect.
(3) Contributions to be made ratably.--Government
contributions under this subsection on behalf of an incumbent
shall be made by the Department of Justice ratably (on at
least an annual basis) over the 10-year period beginning on
the date referred to in subsection (f)(3).
(h) Regulations.--Except as provided under section 4, the
Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations
necessary to carry out this Act, including provisions under
which any interest due on the amount described under
subsection (f) shall be determined.
(i) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

(a) Definition.--In this section the term ``Federal
prosecutor'' has the meaning given under section 3(a)(1).
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall--
(A) consult with the Office of Personnel Management on this
Act (including the amendments made by this Act); and
(B) promulgate regulations for making designations of
Federal prosecutors who are not assistant United States
attorneys.
(2) Contents.--Any regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1) shall ensure that attorneys designated as Federal
prosecutors who are not assistant United States attorneys
have routine employee responsibilities that are substantially
similar to those of assistant United States attorneys
assigned to the litigation of criminal cases, such as the
representation of the United States before grand juries and
in trials, appeals, and related court proceedings.
(c) Designations.--The designation of any Federal
prosecutor who is not an assistant United States attorney for
purposes of this Act (including the amendments made by this
Act) shall be at the discretion of the Attorney General of
the United States.
____

Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2001--Section-by-
Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short title. Contains the short title, the
``Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of
2001.''
Sec. 2. Inclusion of Federal prosecutors in the definition
of a law enforcement officer. Amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331
and 8401 to extend the enhanced law enforcement officer
(``LEO'') retirement benefits to Federal prosecutors, defined
to include assistant United States attorneys (``AUSAs'') and
such other attorneys in the Department of Justice as are
designated by the Attorney General of the United States. This
section also exempts Federal prosecutors from mandatory
retirement provisions for LEO's under the civil service laws.
Sec. 3. Provisions relating to incumbents. Governs the
treatment of incumbent federal prosecutors who would be
eligible for LEO retirement benefits under this Act. This
section requires the Office of Personnel Management to
provide notice to incumbents of their rights under this
subtitle; allows incumbents to opt out of the LEO retirement
program; governs the crediting of prior service by
incumbents; and provides for make-up contributions for prior
service of incumbents to the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund. The section gives incumbents the option of
either contributing their own share of any make-up
contributions or receiving a proportionally lesser retirement
benefit. The section allows the government to contribute its
share of any make-up contribution ratably over a ten year
period.
Sec. 4. Department of Justice administrative actions.
Allows the Attorney General to designate additional
Department of Justice attorneys with substantially similar
responsibilities, in addition to assistant United States
attorneys, as Federal prosecutors for purposes of this Act
and thus be eligible for the LEO retirement benefits.

____________________