[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13945-S13981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 1861. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Russia; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at the request of the Administration, I 
rise today to offer legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment 
to Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act and to authorize the extension of 
normal trade relations to the products of the Russian Federation.
  Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment as a means to deny 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to communist countries that restricted 
emigration rights and were not market economies. Jackson-Vanik 
continues to apply to the Russian Federation today despite the findings 
of successive Administrations that Russia had come into full compliance 
with requirements of freedom of emigration, including the absence of 
any tax on emigration. Furthermore, although Russia's transformation 
has been imperfect, substantial progress has been made toward the 
creation of a free-market economy.
  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been dramatic changes 
in all aspects of life in Russia. It is clear that the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment played a role in bringing about these changes and in 
promoting freedom of emigration in many countries in the former Soviet 
Union.
  But, the time has come to move beyond the Cold War era.
  Since 1991, Congress has authorized the removal of Jackson-Vanik 
restrictions from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the 
Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyszstan, Albania, and 
Georgia. Because Russia continues to be subject to Jackson-Vanik 
conditions, the Administration must submit a semi-annual report to the 
Congress on that government's continued compliance with freedom of 
emigration requirements. The Administration reports that this 
requirement continues to be a major irritant is U.S. relations with 
Russia. The changed circumstances that have permitted the removal of 
other communist countries from Title IV reporting now apply equally to 
Russia.
  I understand there remain those with concerns about extending 
nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the Russian Federation. 
But I would simply point out that the U.S. and Russia concluded a 
bilateral trade agreement on June 17, 1992 and that Russia is currently 
in the process of acceding to the World Trade Organization. In other 
words, the time has come to take the next step in the U.S.-Russian 
bilateral relationship, namely, Permanent Normal Trade Relations. It is 
for that purpose that I introduce this legislation today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 1863. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
treatment for foreign tax credit limitation purposes of certain 
transfers of intangible property; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will clarify the proper tax treatment of intangible assets transferred 
to foreign corporations. This bill is necessary to avoid trapping 
unwary taxpayers who relied on Congressional intent when it made 
changes to this area of the tax code in 1997.
  Transfers of intangible property from a U.S. person to a foreign 
corporation

[[Page S13946]]

in a transaction that would be tax-free under Code section 351 or 361 
are subject to special rules. Pursuant to section 367(d), the U.S. 
person making such a transfer is treated as 1. having sold the 
intangible property in exchange for payments that are contingent on the 
productivity, use, or disposition of such property and 2. receiving 
amounts that reasonably reflect the amounts that would have been 
received annually over the useful life of such property. The deemed 
royalty amounts included in the gross income of the U.S. person by 
reason of this rule are treated as ordinary income and the earnings and 
profits of the foreign corporation to which the intangible property was 
distributed are reduced by such amounts.
  Prior to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (the ``1997 Act''), the 
deemed royalties under section 367(d) were treated as U.S.-source 
income and therefore were not eligible for foreign tax credits. The 
1997 Act eliminated this special ``deemed U.S. source rule'' and 
provided that deemed royalties under section 367(d) are treated as 
foreign-source income to the same extent that an actual royalty payment 
would be so treated. The 1997 Act reflected a recognition that the 
previous rule was intended to discourage transfers of intangible 
property to foreign corporations, relative to licenses of such 
intangible property, but that the enhanced information reporting 
included in the 1997 Act made it unnecessary to continue to so 
discourage transfers relative to licenses.
  The 1997 Act intended to eliminate the penalty provided by the prior-
law deemed U.S. source rule under section 367(d) and that had operated 
to discourage taxpayers from transferring intangible property in a 
transaction that would be covered by section 367(d). Prior to the 1997 
Act, in order to avoid this penalty, taxpayers licensed intangible 
property to foreign corporations instead of transferring such property 
in a transaction that would be subject to section 367(d). With the 1997 
Act's elimination of the penalty source rule of section 367(d), it was 
intended that taxpayers could transfer intangible property to a foreign 
corporation in a transaction that gives rise to deemed royalty payments 
under section 367(d) instead of having to structure the transaction 
with the foreign corporation as a license in exchange for actual 
royalty payments.
  The 1997 Act's goal of eliminating the penalty treatment of transfers 
of intangible property under section 367(d) is achieved only if the 
deemed royalty payments under section 367(d) not only are sourced for 
foreign tax credit purposes in the same manner as actual royalty 
payments, but also are characterized for foreign tax credit limitation 
purposes in the same manner as actual royalty payments. Without a 
clarification that the deemed royalty payments under section 367(d) are 
characterized for foreign tax credit limitation purposes in the same 
manner as an actual royalty, there is a risk in many cases that such 
deemed royalties would be characterized in a manner that leads to a 
foreign tax credit result that is equally as disadvantageous as the 
result that arose under the penalty source rule that was intended to be 
eliminated by the 1997 Act. The bill I am introducing today provides 
the needed clarification of the foreign tax credit limitation treatment 
of a deemed royalty under section 367(d), ensuring that the penalty 
that was intended to be eliminated with the 1997 Act is in fact 
eliminated.
  The bill clarifies that the deemed income inclusions under section 
367(d) upon a transfer of intangible property to a foreign corporation 
are characterized for purposes of the foreign tax credit limitation 
rules in the same manner as an actual royalty is characterized. The tax 
treatment of such a transfer of intangible property to a foreign 
corporation thus would be the same as the tax treatment that applies if 
the intangible property is made available to the foreign corporation 
through a license arrangement.
  The bill's provision would be effective for income inclusions under 
section 367(d) on or after August 5, 1997, which is the effective date 
of the 1997 Act provision eliminating the special deemed U.S. source 
rule under section 367(d). Like the 1997 Act provision, the bill's 
provision would be effective for transfers made, and for royalties 
deemed received, on or after August 5, 1997.
  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. 1863

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF 
                   INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 367(d)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transfer of 
     intangibles treated as transfer pursuant to sale of 
     contingent payments) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``For purposes of applying the 
     various categories of income described in section 904(d)(1), 
     any such amount shall be treated in the same manner as if 
     such amount were a royalty.''.
       (b) Effective Date; Waiver of Limitations.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 1131(b) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
       (2) Waiver of limitations.--If refund or credit of any 
     overpayment of tax resulting from the application of the 
     amendment made by this section is prevented at any time 
     before the close of the 1-year period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act by the operation of any law or 
     rule of law (including res judicata), such refund or credit 
     may nevertheless be made or allowed if claimed therefor is 
     filed before the close of such period.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Lugar, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Carnahan, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Miller, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Reed, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1864. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
Nurse Corps and recruitment and retention strategies to address the 
nursing shortage, and for other purposes; considered and passed.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act. This bill is a down payment to help address the 
nursing shortage in this country by bringing more people into the 
nursing profession and by retaining nurses. This bill combines the 
Nursing Employment and Education Development Act, S. 721, introduced by 
Senator Tim Hutchinson and myself and the Nurse Reinvestment Act, (S. 
1597), introduced by Senators Kerry and Jeffords. We have all worked 
together to bring this important legislation before the Senate today.
  This bill is sorely needed, because we have a nursing shortage. In 
Maryland, 15 percent of the nursing jobs are vacant. Last year, it took 
an average of 68 days to fill a nurse vacancy, and we need about 1,600 
more full-time nurses to fill those vacancies. There were 2,000 fewer 
nurses in Maryland in 1999 than there were in 1998. The shortage exists 
across the United States, and will get worse in the future. Nationwide, 
we need 1.7 million nurses by the year 2020, but only about 600,000 
will be available. The need for this bill was clear at the Subcommittee 
on Aging's hearing on the nursing shortgage earlier this year.
  We depend on nurses every day to care for millions of Americans, 
whether in a hospital, nursing home, community health center, hospice, 
or through home health. They are the backbone of our health care 
system. If we don't effectively address the crisis in nursing, those 
hospitals, nursing homes and clinics will soon be on life support.
  This bill is a down payment. It doesn't address the fact that nurses 
are underpaid, overworked, and undervalued, but it does focus on 
education and other important areas. This bill seeks to help bring men 
and women into the nursing profession, and help them to advance within 
it. The bill does this under five major approaches:

[[Page S13947]]

  Creates a National Nurse Service Corps Scholarship Program, which 
provides scholarships in exchange for at least two years of service in 
a critical nursing shortage area or facility
  Provides grants for outreach at primary and secondary schools; 
scholarships or stipends to nursing students from disadvantaged 
backgrounds, education programs for students who need assistance with 
math, science, or other areas; dependent care and transportation 
assistance; establishment of partnerships between schools of nursing 
and health care facilities to improve access to care in underserved 
areas
  Creates state and national public awareness and education campaigns 
to enhance the image of nursing, promote diversity in the nursing 
workforce, and encourage people to enter the nursing profession
  Creates ``career ladder'' programs with schools of nursing and health 
care facilities to encourage individuals to pursue additional education 
and training to enter and advance within the nursing profession
  Enables Area Health Education Centers, AHECs, to expand their junior 
and senior high school mentoring programs for nurses and develop 
``models of excellence'' for community-based nurses
  Trains individuals to provide long-term care to the elderly and 
expands educational opportunities in gerontological nursing
  Creates internship and residency programs that encourage mentoring 
and the development of specialties
  Provides grants to improve workplace conditions, reduce workplace 
injuries, promote continuing nursing education and career development, 
and establish nurse retention programs
  Provides scholarships, loans, and stipends for graduate-
level education in nursing in exchange for teaching at an accredited 
school of nursing, to help ensure that we have enough teachers at our 
nursing schools.

  Creates a National Commission on the Recruitment and Retention of 
Nurses to study and make recommendations to the health care community 
and Congress on how to address: the nursing shortage in the long-term, 
nursing recruitment and retention, career advancement within the 
profession and attracting individuals into the profession.
  This bill is about nursing education, but it's also about 
empowerment. We can empower people to have a better life and go into a 
career to save lives.
  The bill will empower the single mom who has been working in a 
minimum wage job to forge a better life for herself and her family. It 
will help her get a scholarship to help pay for tuition, books, and lab 
fees, and by funding child care programs to help her balance work and 
family.
  The bill will empower the nurse who has a baccalaureate degree, but 
wants to get a Master's degree so she can teach nursing at a community 
college. It will help her get loans or scholarships and living stipends 
to pursue that degree.
  This bill will also fund partnerships between schools of nursing and 
health care facilities to train individuals who will provide long-term 
care for the elderly. Our population is aging, more than 70 million 
Americans will be over age 65 by 2030. This means more people will need 
care provided by nurses and other individuals specifically trained to 
care for the unique health needs of older Americans.
  I look forward to the Senate's speedy passage of this important 
legislation and to working with our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives to enact a strong bill that gets behind our Nation's 
nurses. I also want to thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Frist for 
their hard work in moving this legislation forward, as well as Senators 
Lieberman and Clinton for their important contributions to this bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of 
the legislation we are introducing today to address the critical 
shortage of nurses in our country. After holding two hearings earlier 
this year to examine the nurse shortage and its impact on our health 
care delivery system. I introduced S. 721, the Nurse Employment and 
Education Development Act, NEED Act. This bipartisan legislation seeks 
to encourage individuals to enter the nursing profession, provide 
continued education and opportunities for advancement within the 
profession, and to bolster the number of nurse faculty to teach at our 
nursing schools. Most importantly, its legislation would establish a 
Nurse Service Corps, which would provide financial assistance to 
individuals for nurse education in exchange for 2 years of service in a 
nurse shortage area.
  The NEED Act won unanimous approval by the Senate Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee on November 1, and I am pleased that it 
has served as the basis for the legislation we are introducing today.
  The nursing profession is suffering from a serious decline in 
practicing nurses due to a shrinking pipeline. The nursing profession 
as a whole is aging, the average age of Registered Nurses is 43.3 
years, while nurses under age 30 comprise less than 10 percent of 
today's nurse workforce. Large numbers of nurses are retiring or 
leaving the profession, and only a small number of nurses and nurse 
educators are taking their place. By the year 2020, when millions of 
Baby Boomers will retire, it is projected that nursing needs will be 
unmet by at least 20 percent. For this reason, we need to employ 
innovative recruitment techniques, including a Nurse Service Corps, 
public service announcements, and outreach efforts at elementary and 
secondary schools to promote nursing as a viable, fulfilling career 
option. To address the needs of the elderly, the bill will provide 
grants for gerontological education and training.
  Hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers and other health 
care facilities are desperately seeking nurses to fill vacant positions 
so they can continue to provide safe, quality health care. In Arkansas, 
hospitals have reported over 750 nursing vacancies. To encourage nurses 
to stay and advance within the profession, the nursing bill provides 
for a career ladder program and encourages hospitals and other 
employers to develop innovative retention strategies. The bill also 
encourages speciality training and mentors through an internship and 
residency program, in order to fill the void created by experienced 
nurses leaving the profession.
  Finally, the bill addresses the critical need for nurse educators. 
The number of nursing school graduates in Arkansas is at its lowest in 
a decade, and nursing students have been turned away because of the 
lack of faculty to teach them. There are approximately four hundred 
nurse faculty vacancies in nursing schools nationwide. Therefore we 
include two provisions, a nurse faculty fast-track loan repayment 
program and a stipend and scholarship program, both of which provide 
financial assistance to masters and doctoral students who will teach at 
an accredited school of nursing for each year of assistance.
  This has been a team effort. I want to thank Senators Mikulski, 
Kerry, and Jeffords for their contributions to this important 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators 
Jeffords, Hutchinson and Mikulski in re-introducing the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act. This legislation will increase the number of nurses 
in our country, and also ensure that every nurse in the field has the 
skills he or she needs to provide the quality care patients deserve.
  We are in the midst of a serious nursing workforce shortage. Every 
type of community, urban, suburban and rural, is touched by it. No 
sector of our health care system is immune to it. Across the country, 
hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and hospices are 
struggling to find nurses to care for their patients. Patients in 
search of care have been denied admission to facilities and told that 
there were ``no beds'' for them. Often there are beds, just not the 
nurses to care for the patients who would occupy them.
  Our Naiton has suffered from nursing shortages in the past. However, 
this shortage is particularly severe because we are losing nurses at 
both ends of the pipeline. Over the past five years, enrollment in 
entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Lured to the 
lucartive jobs of the new economy, high school graduates are not 
pursuing careers in nursing in the numbers they once had. Consequently, 
nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current 
workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing

[[Page S13948]]

workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. If these 
trends are not reversed, we stand to lose vast numbers of nurses at the 
same time that they will be needed to care for the millions of baby 
boomers enrolling in Medicare.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support the recruitment of new 
students into our Nation's nursing programs. The bill will fund 
national and local public service announcements to enhance the profile 
of the nursing profession and encourage students to commit to a career 
in nursing. Our legislation will also expand school-to-career 
partnerships between health care facilities, nursing colleges, middle 
schools and high schools to show our youth the value of a nursing 
degree.
  Our legislation will ensure that barriers to higher education do not 
dissuade Americans who are interested in nursing from pursuing a degree 
in the field. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support education for 
students who need help getting-up to speed on math, science and medical 
English. Our legislation will also ensure that there is support for 
single moms and dads with children who need a hand in daycare or a lift 
in getting to their classroom because they are without transportation.
  Still, is it not enough to simply encourage more individuals to enter 
the nursing profession, we must also ensure that our schools of nursing 
have enough professors to teach them. The Nurse Reinvestment Act 
provides for a fast-track facility development program, which 
encourages master's and doctoral students to rapidly complete their 
studies through loans and scholarships. Individuals receiving financial 
assistance through the fast-track faculty program must agree to teach 
at an ascredited school of nursing in exchange for this assistance.
  In addition to recruiting new nurses, our legislation will reinvest 
in nurses who are already practicing by providing them with education 
and training at every step of the career ladder and at every health 
care facility in which they work. It will ensure that nurses can obtain 
advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a PhD in Nursing. It will 
enable nurses to access the specialty training they require to learn 
how to treat a specific disease or utilize a new piece of technology. 
Our bill will also help colleges and universities develop curriculum in 
gerontology and long-term care so that nursing students can pursue 
concentrations, minors and majors in this growing field of health care 
and be ready to apply their knowledge to the current and future senior 
population.
  To assist institutions in providing advanced education and training 
for nurses across the career ladder, our bill will strengthen the 
partnerships between colleges of nursing and health care facilities. 
Grants will be available to support such initiatives as the teaching of 
a course in gerontology in the conference rooms of a hospital or 
nurusing home. Grants will also support the use of distance learning 
technology to extend education and training to rural areas, and 
specialty education and training to all areas.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act will authorize, for the first time in 
history, a National Nurse Service Corps. Separate from, though modeled 
after, the National Health Service Corps, the NNSC will administer 
scholarships to students who commit to working in a health care 
facility that is experiencing a shortage of nurses. In urban, suburban 
and rural communities across the country, where facilities turn away 
patients due to staff shortages, the NNSC will send qualified nurses to 
serve and provide the care that patients deserve.
  Our country boasts the best health care system in the world. But, 
that health care system is being jeopardized by the shortage plaguing 
our nursing workforce. Indeed, state-of-the-art medical facilities are 
of no use if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty 
because the nurses needed to staff them are not available. The Nurse 
Reinvestment Act not only seeks to increase the numbers of new nurses 
in our country, but also ensures that all nurses have the skills they 
need to provide the high quality care that makes our health care system 
the best in the world.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the Senate 
is scheduled to consider and vote on the Nurse Reinvestment Act. When 
we pass this measure, it will represent a good day for the future of 
nursing in America and a good day for the future for patient-care. I 
want to take this opportunity to tell our colleagues a little about 
this legislation and to congratulate and complement my fellow Senators 
who worked so hard to see this effort through. My good friend from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, was the original sponsor of the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act and with me crafted an innovative set of solutions to 
the nursing shortage problem. Since then, this bill has been 
strengthened significantly by the inclusion of a complimentary measure 
authored by my colleagues on the HELP Committee, Senator Hutchinson and 
Senator Mikulski. The measure we are considering today has been 
benefited by this collaboration.
  As I have stated before, we are facing a looming crisis in this 
country. The size of our nursing workforce remains stagnant, while the 
average age of the American nurse is on the rise. Over the past five 
years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 
percent. Nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the 
current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be 
over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. In Vermont we are facing an 
even greater crisis because these numbers are worse. Only 28 percent of 
nurses are under the age of 40 and Vermont schools and colleges are 
producing 31 percent fewer nurses today than they did just five years 
ago.
  We have a compelling need to encourage more Americans to enter the 
nursing profession and to strengthen it so that more nurses choose to 
stay in the profession. All facets of the health care system will have 
a role to play in ensuring a strong nursing workforce. Nurses, 
physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, academia, community organizations 
and state and federal governments all must accept responsibility and 
work towards a solution. Part of the responsibility to launch that 
effort begins with us today as we make a decision on the vote for the 
Nurse Reinvestment Act.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act expands and improves the federal 
government's support of ``pipeline'' programs, which will maintain a 
strong talent pool and develop a nursing workforce that can address the 
increasingly diverse needs of America's population. The Nurse 
Reinvestment Act provides for a comprehensive public awareness and 
education campaign on a national, state and local level that will 
bolster the image of the profession, encourage diversity, attract more 
nurses to the workforce, and lead current nurses to take advantage of 
career development opportunities.
  The legislation creates a National Nursing Service Corps Scholarship 
Program authorized at $40 million that will provide scholarships to 
individuals to attend nursing schools in exchange for a commitment to 
serve two years in a health facility determined to have a critical 
shortage of nurses. This scholarship program is designed to greatly 
help the recruitment of nursing students by providing them tuition, 
other reasonable and necessary educational fees and a monthly stipend 
paid to the student.
  The Act also authorizes the ``Nurse Recruitment Grant Program'' to 
support outreach efforts by nursing schools and other eligible 
healthcare facilities to inform students in primary, junior and 
secondary schools of nursing educational opportunities and to attract 
them to the nursing profession. The grant program provides appropriate 
student support services to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds 
and creates community-based partnerships to recruit nurses in medically 
underserved rural and urban areas. Further, the ``Area Health Education 
Centers Program'' will award grants to nursing schools that work in 
partnership in the community to develop models of excellence.
  The ``Career Ladder Programs'' will assist schools of nursing, health 
care facilities or partnerships of the two to develop programs that 
will encourage current nursing students in active nurses alike, to 
pursue further education and training. This will be achieved through 
scholarships, stipends, career counseling, direct training and distance 
learning programs.

[[Page S13949]]

And, in light of our aging baby-boomer generation, specific grants are 
offered to schools and health care facilities so that they might place 
a further emphasis upon encouraging students to study long-term care 
for the elderly.
  In addition to the provisions that were included in the original bill 
I co-sponsored with my colleague Senator Kerry, there are provisions 
added by our colleagues which, I am happy to have included in this 
final piece of legislation. Those provisions will provide for the 
development of internship and residency programs to encourage the 
development of specialties and student, loan, stipend and scholarship 
programs for those who would like to seek a masters or doctorate degree 
at a school of nursing. The final bill was also strengthened by 
provisions added through the efforts of Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Clinton.
  Once again, I want to applaud my colleagues Senator Kerry, Senator 
Mikulski and Senator Hutchinson for their tireless work on the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act and for the work of their staffs. In particular, I 
want to recognize the efforts of Kelly Bovio in Senator Kerry,'s 
office, Kate Hull in Senator Hutchinson's office and Rhonda Richards 
with Senator Mikulski. This effort was also advanced with the help of 
Sarah Bianchi and Jackie Gran who are members of Senator Kennedy's 
staff, Steve Irizarry with Senator Gregg and Shana Christrup with 
Senator Frist. Finally, in my own office, I want to note the efforts of 
Philo Hall, Angela Mattie, Eric Silva and Sean Donohue.
  Adequate health care services cannot survive any further diminishing 
of the nursing workforce. All patients depend on the professional care 
of nurses, and we must make sure it will be there for them. I urged my 
colleagues to join me and the bill's cosponsors in support of this 
measure.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the introduction of 
a very important bill to address the nursing workforce shortage. At the 
beginning of November, we reported two different bills from the Senate 
HELP Committee designed to address the nursing shortage in this 
country, the Hutchinson-Mikulski ``Nursing Employment and Education 
Development Act'' and the Kerry-Jeffords ``Nursing Reinvestment Act.'' 
I was an original cosponsor of the Hutchinson legislation and a strong 
supporter of that bill. At that time, I voiced my concern that we are 
marking up two rather similar proposals to deal with the nursing 
shortage, and I requested that the differences be worked out before the 
bill was discussed on the Senate floor. I am happy today to report the 
the final reconciliation is complete, and we have a consensus bill that 
firmly addresses the nursing workforce shortage issue. I thank Senator 
Hutchinson for his hard work in ensuring that we could reach this 
point.
  We are in the midst of a direct care workforce shortage. Not only are 
fewer people entering and staying in the nursing profession, but we are 
losing experienced nurses at a time of growing need. Today, nurses are 
needed in a greater number of settings, such as nursing homes, extended 
care facilities, community and public health centers, professional 
education, and ambulatory care facilities. Nationwide, health care 
providers, ranging from hospitals and nursing homes to home health 
agencies and public health departments, are struggling to find 
qualified nurses to provide safe, efficient, quality care for their 
patients. That's why it is important to have a new Nursing Corps, which 
will provide scholarships to qualified individuals in exchange for 
direct care service in a variety of settings as well as to allow others 
to know about the numerous possibilities within the profession by 
authorizing public service announcements.
  Though we have faced nursing shortages in the past, this looming 
shortage is particularly troublesome because it reflects two trends 
that are occurring simultaneously: 1. A shortage of people entering the 
profession; and 2. The retirement of nurses who have been working in 
the profession for many years. Over the past five years, enrollment in 
entry-level nursing programs has declined by twenty percent, mirroring 
the declining awareness of the nursing profession among high school 
graduates. Consequently, nurses under the age of thirty represent only 
ten percent of the current workforce. By 2010, forty percent of the 
nursing workforce will be older than fifty years old and nearing 
retirement. If these trends continue, we stand to lost vast numbers of 
nurses at the very time that they will be needed to care for the 
millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age. To deal with the 
increased need for nurses to care for the elderly, this bill has a 
provision to assist with both the necessary training and educational 
development of gerontological nurses as well as to strengthen the 
ability of nurses to obtain additional training and certification 
through the career ladders program.
  Further, greater efforts must be made to recruit more men and 
minorities to this noble profession. Currently, only ten percent of the 
registered nurses in the United States are from racial or ethnic 
minority backgrounds, even though these individuals comprise twenty-
eight percent of the total United States population. In 2000, less than 
six percent of the registered nurses were men. We must work to promote 
diversity in the workforce, not only to increase the number of 
individuals within the profession, but also to promote culturally 
competent and relevant care. Within the combined nursing shortage bill, 
one grant program directly addresses the need to increase funding for 
the training of minority and disadvantaged students to make it easier 
for individuals to enter the nursing profession.
  Even if nursing schools could recruit more students to deal with the 
shortage, many schools could not accommodate higher enrollments because 
of faculty shortages. There are nearly four hundred faculty vacancies 
at nursing schools in this country. And, an even greater faculty 
shortage looms in the next ten to fifteen years as many current nursing 
faculty approach retirement and fewer nursing students pursue academic 
careers. Therefore, I strongly support the two provisions to assist 
with faculty development and training, the fast track nursing faculty 
loan program and the stipend and scholarship program.
  In addressing these direct care staffing shortages, we must work 
together to develop innovative solutions to address this growing issue. 
As reported in the Memphis Commercial Appeal on May 10, there are steps 
that Congress can take to increase funding for specific programs and 
reduce regulatory requirements. However, a comprehensive strategy must 
also include other sectors of the health care system, hospitals, health 
care professionals, educators, and the general public, to successfully 
deal with this looming shortage. That's why it is important to also 
include a provision to deal with developing retention strategies and 
best practices in nursing staff management.
  I am extremely supportive of this legislation, and I want to thank 
Senator Hutchinson again for his hard work in addressing this critical 
issue. I also want to commend my other colleagues, including Senator 
Mikulski, for her efforts. Senator Hutchinson clearly has shown 
tremendous leadership in this area. He understands the need to address 
the nursing shortage issue, and he is largely responsible for getting 
us to this point today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Our goal in this bipartisan 
legislation is to do as much as we can to alleviate the nursing 
shortage experienced by health care facilities across the United 
States. Increasing the number of nurses is an essential part of the 
ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and 
encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses.
  The Nation's nurses provide care for Americans at the most vulnerable 
times in the lives. We must act now to halt the decline in the number 
of nurses. Enrollment in schools of nursing is falling, and the average 
age of the nursing workforce is rising. Across the country, communities 
are losing vast numbers of nurses, just as we need more to care for the 
millions of aging baby boomers and deal with the many medical 
challenges facing our hospitals.
  The current shortage means that too many nurses now have to care for 
too many patients at once, undermining the high quality of care that 
nurses want to give, and patients deserve. A

[[Page S13950]]

recent survey by the American Nurses Association showed that 75 percent 
of nurses believe that the quality of nursing care at their facility 
has declined. More than half of those surveyed said that the time they 
can spend with patients has decreased. A nurse in Massachusetts said 
that she would not go the hospital where she worked, if she needed 
care.
  Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in the 
coming years. Yet nurses themselves are already seriously questioning 
the quality of bedside treatments now being provided on intensive care 
units, in emergency rooms, and at the bedsides of patients where they 
work.
  Their questions are call for help. This legislation can be 
significant in strengthening the nursing profession, and responding to 
the urgent need.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act will recruit new students into schools of 
nursing through outreach programs, public awareness and education 
campaigns, and area health education centers. It establishes a national 
nurse service corps, which will offer scholarships to bring individuals 
into the profession and place them in medically under-served areas and 
facilities. The Act expands school-to-career partnerships to show 
youths the high value and importance of a nursing degree. It invests in 
today's nurses by providing education and training at every step of the 
career ladder, and by helping them obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. 
in Nursing to a Ph.D. in Nursing. It includes provisions developed by 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Clinton to help health care facilities 
retain nurses.
  Our country has the best health care system in the world. But that 
system is being jeopardized today by the shortages plaguing the nursing 
workforce. Even our best medical facilities are in deep trouble if 
their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because there are 
no nurses to staff them.
  I commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Kerry, Senator Hutchinson, and 
Senator Jeffords for their leadership in this initiative. Bringing more 
nurses into the profession will help to ensure that nurses are ready 
and able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. The 
Nurse Reinvestment Act is a significant step that Congress can take to 
support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of the Nurse Reinvestment Act of 2001. I want to congratulate my 
colleagues, particularly Senators Mikulski, Hutchinson, Kerry and 
Jeffords, for their extraordinary efforts to put together this 
excellent bill. I also want to thank the Committee for including the 
provisions of the Lieberman-Ensign ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative 
Act of 2001'' in the bill.
  By now, everyone knows that the nation faces a critical shortage of 
nurses. The shortage has already severely impacted states in many areas 
of the country, including Connecticut, and I fear it will jeopardize 
our ability to provide quality health care to patients. A recent report 
by the Government Accounting Office projected that the growing national 
nursing shortage will hit a peak in ten years.
  While pay is a major factor cited in the report, it is not the 
primary reason nurses are leaving the profession. The study also cites 
poor or unsafe working conditions, lack of respect from physicians and 
patients, barriers to participation in the hospital administration 
decision-making process, lack of opportunity to continue their 
education, and lack of recognition for accomplishments. We must do more 
to attract new people to the nursing profession and retain the quality 
nurses who currently provide us care. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will 
do just that.
  I want to take just a minute to talk about the specific provisions 
that were part of the ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative Act.'' This 
legislation contained two proposals to help retain nurses in the 
hospital setting: a competitive grant program that would provide 
funding to hospitals that actively work to retain their nurses and a 
scholarship program for registered nurses who hold an associates or 
diploma degree who wish to obtain a bachelor's degree in nursing.
  As part of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, these incentives have been 
broadened to apply to the nursing workforce in all health care 
facilities, providing a critical stimulus for these facilities to 
retain their nurses.
  While the ominous projections about the growing nursing shortage 
looms over the health care industry, it is clear that now is the time 
to act. I am encouraged that Congress is acting quickly and decisively 
to actively add to the nurse workforce and to provide critical 
incentives to keep nurses on the job.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1865. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 
the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Lower Los Angeles 
River and San Gabriel River watersheds in the State of California as a 
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today a 
bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San 
Gabriel River and Lower LA River, which run through Los Angeles, CA. 
These two rivers have suffered from years of abuse and neglect. For far 
too long, we have channeled, redirected, constricted, polluted, and 
simply ignored these two rivers. The result is that substantial 
portions of these rivers look nothing like their natural form. Instead 
of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks lined with 
trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers have 
cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife.
  Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide 
for these two urban waterways. This bill directs the Secretary of 
Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of 
protecting and restoring these two rivers by making them a part of our 
national park system. The long term vision I have is to see these 
rivers restored to a more natural state so that they can be a home to 
southern California's unique fish and wildlife.
  Just as important to me is that these rivers be restored so they can 
serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's most 
congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are desperate 
for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can play, adults 
can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the daily hustle 
and bustle of some of our most economically and socially stressed 
neighborhoods.
  What I am proposing would be an unprecedented urban restoration 
effort. But that does not mean it is impossible. Far from it. This 
vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first introduced 
this bill in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working 
hand in hand with her to ensure that this dream becomes a reality.
  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. 1865

       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 Los Angeles River and 
     San Gabriel River Watersheds Study Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Watershed.--The term ``watershed'' means--
       (A) the Lower Los Angeles River and its tributaries below 
     the confluence of the Arroyo Seco;
       (B) the San Gabriel River and its tributaries in Los 
     Angeles County and Orange County, California; and
       (C) the San Gabriel Mountains located within the territory 
     of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
     Conservancy (as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the 
     State of California Public Resource Code).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a study on 
     the suitability and feasibility of establishing the watershed 
     as a unit of the National Park System.
       (b) Applicable Law.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 
     U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
     the study required by subsection (a).
       (c) Consultation With State and Local Governments.--In 
     carrying out the study authorized by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and 
     Mountains Conservancy; and

[[Page S13951]]

       (2) any other appropriate State or local governmental 
     entity.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the study required by 
     section 3(a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1867. A bill to establish the National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague 
Senator McCain legislation to establish the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. This Commission will have a 
broad mandate to examine and report upon the facts and causes relating 
to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurring at the World 
Trade Center and at the Pentagon, and it will be charged with making a 
``full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the 
attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and 
response to, the attacks.'' It will ``investigate and report to the 
President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent 
acts of terrorism.''
  Certain events stand out in our history for having left an indelible 
mark of pain and sorrow on America. The infamous attack on Pearl Harbor 
not only roused a slumbering giant, but also raised difficult questions 
about why our great Navy had been caught unawares. The tragic 
assassination of President John F. Kennedy evoked powerful feelings of 
sorrow and loss, but also searching questions about the identity and 
motives of the assassin. And on this past September 11, the United 
States suffered assaults on its territory unparalleled in their 
cruelty, destruction and loss of life. Americans were stunned both by 
the magnitude of the loss and the maliciously simple plan that had 
caused the carnage. Here too, alongside their grief and rage, the 
American people have been asking questions: Why was this plan so 
successful in achieving its evil goals? Were opportunities missed to 
prevent the destruction? What additional steps should be taken now to 
prevent any future attacks?
  In the immediate aftermath of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy 
assassination, special commissions were formed to conduct 
investigations and answer similar questions. These precedents provide 
us with important models as we seek answers to such questions, and then 
use the findings to move forward with strategies to respond to the 
scourge of terrorism. Like many of my constituents, I too want to know 
how September 11 happened, why it happened, and what corrective 
measures can be taken to prevent it from ever occurring again. The 
American people deserve answers to these very legitimate questions 
about how the terrorists succeeded in achieving their brutal 
objectives, and in so doing, forever changing the way in which we 
Americans lead our lives.
  To be successful, this Commission must have a number of resources, 
including enough time, a top level staff, ample investigatory powers, 
and adequate funding, all of which we have provided for in this 
legislation. But most critically, it must have broad bipartisan 
support. This Commission must not become a witch-hunt. The events of 
September 11 were so cataclysmic that there is enough responsibility to 
be shouldered by multiple parties. The overriding purpose of the 
inquiry must be a learning exercise, to understand what happened 
without preconceptions about its ultimate findings.
  Just as Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson turned to national leaders 
of their day, Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Warren, to spearhead 
the Pearl Harbor and Kennedy assassination inquiries, respectively, 
this Commission must also draw upon the great reservoir of bipartisan 
talent that our nation possesses to answer crucial and fundamental 
questions. We expect that members appointed to this blue-ribbon 
Commission will be prominent U.S. citizens, though not currently 
serving in public office, with ``national recognition and significant 
depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law 
enforcement, the armed services, legal practice, public administration, 
intelligence gathering, commerce, including aviation matters, and 
foreign affairs.''

  To help ensure that members of the Commission will possess some of 
these substantive areas of expertise, which are so critical to 
understanding and analyzing the events of September 11, 10 of its 14 
members will be appointed by the Senate and House chairmen, in 
consultation with their ranking minority members, of the Congressional 
committees that oversee Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, 
Judiciary, and Commerce. President Bush will appoint the four remaining 
members of the Commission, including the Chairman, who in turn will 
appoint the staff. In an effort to mandate bipartisanship, or perhaps 
more accurately, non-partisanship, no more than 7 of the Commission's 
14 members may be from one political party.
  Though some of the Commission's recommendations may include 
``proposing organization, coordination, planning, management 
arrangements, procedures, rules, and regulations,'' we cannot wait for 
the findings of this report to begin the process of strengthening our 
Nation's homeland defense. That process, of course, is already 
underway, and must continue to occur at a rapid pace to ensure the 
continued protection of American lives and property. This Commission 
will not issue its first report until six months after its first 
meeting, and its final report will be issued another year after that. 
Rather than wait for these reports to be researched and submitted, we 
must continue the process we have already started to pro-actively 
address vulnerabilities that undermine our daily safety. We have 
already received the valuable input of numerous other experts and 
Commissions, some of which even issued their prescient warnings before 
the events of September, such as the Hart-Rudman Commission. When this 
proposed Commission completes its investigation and makes its final 
recommendations, those suggestions and conclusions will augment the 
record we have already developed on ways we can continue to safeguard 
our nation.
  The Commission is not only the right thing to do, but this is the 
right time to do it. Understandably, the initial months after September 
11 were preoccupied first with mourning, and then with prosecution of 
the war. There were legitimate concerns that a robust investigation 
into the causes of September 11 would siphon resources from the ongoing 
war effort. But with the first stage of the war against terrorism now 
drawing to a close, and with many perplexing questions still before us, 
we must now begin in earnest the process of finding answers to how it 
happened. This Commission should not be at odds with the war effort of 
any federal agency; rather, its efforts will complement the internal 
review processes some agencies are undergoing.
  Determining the causes and circumstances of the terrorist attacks 
will ensure that those who lost their lives on this second American 
``day of infamy'' did not die in vain. In so doing, this Commission 
will not only pay tribute to those who perished, but it will ensure 
that their survivors, and all the citizens of this great nation, 
continue to live life secure in the knowledge that the U.S. government 
is doing all within its powers to preserve their lives, liberties, and 
pursuits of happiness.
  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. 1867

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States (in this Act referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of the Commission are to--
       (1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating 
     to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at 
     the World Trade Center in New York, New York and at the 
     Pentagon in Virginia;

[[Page S13952]]

       (2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence 
     developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the 
     facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
       (3) make a full and complete accounting of the 
     circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the 
     United States' preparedness for, and response to, the 
     attacks; and
       (4) investigate and report to the President and Congress on 
     its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective 
     measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

     SEC. 3. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 14 
     members, of whom--
       (1) 4 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (2) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate ;
       (3) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate;
       (4) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate;
       (5) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the Senate;
       (6) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (7) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives;
       (8) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives;
       (9) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives;
       (10) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       (11) 1 member shall be appointed by the chairperson, in 
     consultation with the ranking member, of the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Chairperson.--The President shall select the 
     chairperson of the Commission.
       (c) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
       (1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 7 members 
     of the Commission shall be from the same political party.
       (2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to 
     the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government or any State or local government.
       (3) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent 
     United States citizens, with national recognition and 
     significant depth of experience in such professions as 
     governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, 
     legal practice, public administration, intelligence 
     gathering, commerce, including aviation matters, and foreign 
     affairs.
       (4) Initial meeting.--If 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, 8 or more members of the Commission 
     have been appointed, those members who have been appointed 
     may meet and, if necessary, select a temporary chairperson, 
     who may begin the operations of the Commission, including the 
     hiring of staff.
       (d) Quorum; Vacancies.--After its initial meeting, the 
     Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairperson or a 
     majority of its members. Eight members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.

     SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

       The functions of the Commission are to--
       (1) conduct an investigation into relevant facts and 
     circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 
     11, 2001, including any relevant legislation, Executive 
     order, regulation, plan, practice, or procedure;
       (2) review and evaluate the lessons learned from the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 regarding the 
     structure, coordination, and management arrangements of the 
     Federal Government relative to detecting, preventing, and 
     responding to such terrorist attacks; and
       (3) submit to the President and Congress such reports as 
     are required by this Act containing such findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations as the Commission shall 
     determine, including proposing organization, coordination, 
     planning, management arrangements, procedures, rules, and 
     regulations.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the 
     authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act--
       (A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths; and
       (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as 
     the Commission or such designated subcommittee or designated 
     member may determine advisable.
       (2) Subpoenas.--Subpoenas issued under paragraph (1)(B) may 
     be issued under the signature of the chairperson of the 
     Commission, the chairperson of any subcommittee created by a 
     majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a 
     majority of the Commission, and may be served by any person 
     designated by the chairperson, subcommittee chairperson, or 
     member. Sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of 
     the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194) shall apply in 
     the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any 
     subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this 
     section.
       (b) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this Act.
       (c) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission is 
     authorized to secure directly from any executive department, 
     bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 
     establishment, or instrumentality of the Government 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the 
     purposes of this Act. Each department, bureau, agency, board, 
     commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, 
     furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and 
     statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by 
     the chairperson, the chairperson of any subcommittee created 
     by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by 
     a majority of the Commission.
       (d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis administrative support and other services 
     for the performance of the Commission's functions.
       (2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the 
     assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and 
     agencies of the United States are authorized to provide to 
     the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as they may determine advisable and as 
     may be authorized by law.
       (e) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (f) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.

     SEC. 6. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairperson, in 
     accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may 
     appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such 
     other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission 
     to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions 
     of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may 
     exceed the equivalent of that payable for a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
       (B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be 
     detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the 
     Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, 
     status, and privileges of his or her regular employment 
     without interruption.
       (c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 7. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be 
     compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for each day during which that member is 
     engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.

[[Page S13953]]

     SEC. 8. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF.

       The appropriate executive departments and agencies shall 
     cooperate with the Commission in expeditiously providing to 
     the Commission members and staff appropriate security 
     clearances in a manner consistent with existing procedures 
     and requirements, except that no person shall be provided 
     with access to classified information under this section who 
     would not otherwise qualify for such security clearance.

     SEC. 9. REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

       (a) Initial Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     submit to the President and Congress an initial report 
     containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
     for corrective measures as have been agreed to by a majority 
     of Commission members.
       (b) Additional Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     submission of the initial report of the Commission, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a 
     second report containing such findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations for corrective measures as have been agreed 
     to by a majority of Commission members.
       (c) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this Act, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the 
     second report is submitted under subsection (b).
       (2) Administrative activities before termination.--The 
     Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including 
     providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its 
     reports and disseminating the second report.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     to carry out this Act $3,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend Joe 
Lieberman in introducing legislation calling for a blue-ribbon 
commission to examine the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks, 
and to propose reforms to better defend our country in the future.
  After Pearl Harbor and President Kennedy's assassination, the 
President and Congress established boards of inquiry to investigate 
these tragedies and recommend measures to prevent their recurrence.
  The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington represent a 
watershed in American history--the end of an era of general peace and 
prosperity, and a terrible awakening to the threats against our people 
that lurk within, and beyond, our shores.
  To prevent future tragedies, we need to know how September 11th could 
have happened, and explore what we can do to be sure America never 
again suffers such an attack on her soil.
  I believe President Bush and his team have responded forcefully, 
admirably, and with a sense of purpose in this time of trial. But 
neither the Administration nor Congress is capable of conducting a 
thorough, nonpartisan, independent inquiry into what happened on 
September 11th, or to propose far-reaching reforms needed to protect 
our people and our institutions against the enemies of freedom.
  As we did after Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, we need a 
blue-ribbon team of distinguished Americans from all walks of life to 
thoroughly investigate all evidence surrounding the attacks, including 
how prepared we were and how well we responded to this unprecedented 
assault.
  It will require digging deep into the resources of the full range of 
government agencies. It will demand objective judgment into what went 
wrong, what we did right, and what else we need to do to deter and 
defeat depraved assaults against innocent lives in the future.
  This is no witch hunt. Our enemies would be strengthened if their 
attacks caused us to turn on ourselves, consumed not with the 
malevolence of our foes but with our own failings.
  We are a proud nation, a strong nation. However horrible, September 
11th reminded us of our love of country, our fierce patriotic pride. It 
highlighted the distinctive accomplishments of our civilization, and 
the sacrifices we will endure to defend it against evil. It made us 
stronger.
  That said, if there were serious failures on the part of individuals 
or institutions within the government or the private sector, we have a 
right to know, indeed a need to know. But to work, this must be a 
learning exercise, without preconceptions about the inquiry's ultimate 
findings.
  The commission's members should include leading citizens not now 
holding public office, but with broad experience in national affairs. 
The commission should have an adequate budget, a top-level staff, and 
ample investigatory resources--including subpoena power, if it is 
needed to uncover the truth.
  To be effective and legitimate, the commission should be given a 
broad mandate to discover facts and recommend corrective actions. It 
should be given time to proceed with care and deliberation. It should 
have the stature and significance afforded by its grave mission of 
telling the whole truth about September 11th, and telling us what we 
need to know to protect against future tragedy.
  To be credible, this inquiry must be independent from ongoing 
government operations, but it must of necessity draw on the resources 
of government. The commission's conclusions and recommendations will 
have enduring meaning only if they are valued by those of us who can 
set them in motion--the President, the Congress, and all concerned 
Americans.
  Our best defense now lies in pursuing our enemy overseas, and working 
here at home to adapt to the challenges of this new day. We can rid the 
world of terrorism's scourge. But it will take time, and our campaign 
will likely inspire further, desperate tests of our resolve.
  More Americans may die before we are through. In this moment when we 
enjoy peace at home, even as brave Americans risk their lives for us 
overseas, let us marshal our resolve to defend our homeland, not merely 
through force of arms, but through reasoned introspection into how 
September 11th happened, what we've learned, and how we can apply those 
lessons to the defense of the American people.
  More than 2 years ago, the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on 
National Security envisioned a time when terrorists and rogue nations 
would acquire weapons of mass destruction and ``mass disruption.''
  ``Americans will likely die on American soil,'' the commission 
warned, ``possibly in large numbers.''
  That time has come. The worst has happened. But it must not happen 
again. We hope history will judge America well for her response to 
September 11th--the incredible bravery of so many Americans, and the 
measures we have already put in place to prevent future acts of 
catastrophic terrorism.
  The commission is an integral part of our response to the attacks of 
September 11. Its mission is urgent. The American people clearly share 
our sense of urgency about protecting our country. I hope our proposed 
commission can channel that sense of urgency into a mandate for reform 
of the way we defend America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1868. A bill to establish a national center on volunteer and 
provider screening to reduce sexual and other abuse of children, the 
elderly, and individuals with disabilities; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001.
  Today, 87 million of our children are involved in provided by child 
and youth organizations which depend heavily on volunteers to deliver 
their services. Millions more adults are also served by public and 
private voluntary organizations. Organizations across the country, like 
the Boys and Girls Clubs, often rely solely on volunteers to make these 
safe havens for kids a place where they can learn. The Boys and Girls 
Clubs and others don't just provide services to kids, their work 
reverberates throughout our communities, as the after-school programs 
they provide help keep kids out of trouble. This is juvenile crime 
prevention at its best, and I salute the volunteers who help make these 
programs work.
  Unfortunately, some of these volunteers come to their jobs with less 
than the best of intentions. According to the National Mentoring 
Partnership, incidents of child sexual abuse in child care settings, 
foster homes and schools ranges from 1 to 7 percent. Volunteer 
organizations have tried to weed out bad apples, and today most conduct 
background checks on applicants who seek to work with children. 
Unfortunately, these checks can often take months to complete, can be 
expensive, and many organizations do not have access to the FBI's 
national fingerprint

[[Page S13954]]

database. These time delays and scope limitations are dangerous: a 
prospective volunteer could pass a name-based background check in one 
state, only to have a past felony committed in another jurisdiction go 
undetected.
  Today I am introducing a bill designed to solve some of these 
problems. The National Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001 creates 
a new, FBI national center to conduct criminal history fingerprint 
checks at the request of volunteer organizations. Funds are authorized 
so that volunteer organizations could have the national checks 
performed at no cost to them, the Federal government ought to be 
supporting those groups who seek to safeguard our kids, and this is a 
modest investment that deserves to be made. Other child-serving 
organizations who sought the services of the new national center would 
have checks conducted at a minimal cost. My bill envisions as many as 
10 million background checks conducted per year at this center, enough 
to prevent felons and other dangerous members of society from getting 
anywhere near our kids. States perform many of these checks today, so 
to help them do their jobs better my bill authorizes $5 million per 
year to hire personnel and improve fingerprint technology so that they 
can update information in national databases.
  All of us understand the positive impact that volunteer organizations 
are making. Now we need to give these groups the tools and resources 
they need to ensure absolute safety for the children they serve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1868

       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 ``National Child Protection 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL CENTER ON VOLUNTEER AND 
                   PROVIDER SCREENING.

       The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

    ``TITLE VI--NATIONAL CENTER ON VOLUNTEER AND PROVIDER SCREENING

     ``SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `National Child Protection 
     Improvement Act'.

     ``SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) More than 87,000,000 children are involved each year 
     in activities provided by child and youth organizations which 
     depend heavily on volunteers to deliver their services.
       ``(2) Millions more adults, both the elderly and 
     individuals with disabilities, are served by public and 
     private voluntary organizations.
       ``(3) The vast majority of activities provided to children, 
     the elderly, and individuals with disabilities by public and 
     private nonprofit agencies and organizations result in the 
     delivery of much needed services in safe environments that 
     could not be provided without the assistance of virtually 
     millions of volunteers, but abuses do occur.
       ``(4) Estimates of the incidence of child sexual abuse in 
     child care settings, foster care homes, and schools, range 
     from 1 to 7 percent.
       ``(5) Abuse traumatizes the victims and shakes public trust 
     in care providers and organizations serving vulnerable 
     populations.
       ``(6) Congress has acted to address concerns about this 
     type of abuse through the National Child Protection Act of 
     1993 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 to set forth a 
     framework for screening through criminal record checks of 
     care providers, including volunteers who work with children, 
     the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. 
     Unfortunately, problems regarding the safety of these 
     vulnerable groups still remain.
       ``(7) While State screening is sometimes adequate to 
     conduct volunteer background checks, more extensive national 
     criminal history checks using fingerprints or other means of 
     positive identification are often advisable, as a prospective 
     volunteer or nonvolunteer provider may have lived in more 
     than one State.
       ``(8) The high cost of fingerprint background checks is 
     unaffordable for organizations that use a large number of 
     volunteers and, if passed on to volunteers, often discourages 
     their participation.
       ``(9) The current system of retrieving national criminal 
     background information on volunteers through an authorized 
     agency of the State is cumbersome and often requires months 
     before vital results are returned.
       ``(10) In order to protect children, volunteer agencies 
     must currently depend on a convoluted, disconnected, and 
     sometimes duplicative series of checks that leave children at 
     risk.
       ``(11) A national volunteer and provider screening center 
     is needed to protect vulnerable groups by providing 
     effective, efficient national criminal history background 
     checks of volunteer providers at no-cost, and at minimal-cost 
     for employed care providers.

     ``SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act--
       ``(1) the term `qualified entity' means a business or 
     organization, whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-
     profit, or voluntary, that provides care or care placement 
     services, including a business or organization that licenses 
     or certifies others to provide care or care placement 
     services designated by the National Task Force;
       ``(2) the term `volunteer provider' means a person who 
     volunteers or seeks to volunteer with a qualified entity;
       ``(3) the term `provider' means a person who is employed by 
     or volunteers or who seeks to be employed by or volunteer 
     with a qualified entity, who owns or operates a qualified 
     entity, or who has or may have unsupervised access to a child 
     to whom the qualified entity provides care;
       ``(4) the term `national criminal background check system' 
     means the criminal history record system maintained by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation based on fingerprint 
     identification or any other method of positive 
     identification;
       ``(5) the term `child' means a person who is under the age 
     of 18;
       ``(6) the term `individuals with disabilities' has the same 
     meaning as that provided in section 5(7) of the National 
     Child Protection Act of 1993;
       ``(7) the term `State' has the same meaning as that 
     provided in section 5(11) of the National Child Protection 
     Act of 1993; and
       ``(8) the term `care' means the provision of care, 
     treatment, education, training, instruction, supervision, or 
     recreation to children, the elderly, or individuals with 
     disabilities.

     ``SEC. 604. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL CENTER FOR VOLUNTEER 
                   AND PROVIDER SCREENING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General, by agreement with 
     a national nonprofit organization or by designating an agency 
     within the Department of Justice, shall--
       ``(1) establish a national center for volunteer and 
     provider screening designed--
       ``(A) to serve as a point of contact for qualified entities 
     to request a nationwide background check for the purpose of 
     determining whether a volunteer provider or provider has been 
     arrested for or convicted of a crime that renders the 
     provider unfit to have responsibilities for the safety and 
     well-being of children, the elderly, or individuals with 
     disabilities;
       ``(B) to promptly access and review Federal and State 
     criminal history records and registries through the national 
     criminal history background check system--
       ``(i) at no cost to a qualified entity for checks on 
     volunteer providers; and
       ``(ii) at minimal cost to qualified entities for checks on 
     non-volunteer providers;

     with cost for screening non-volunteer providers will be 
     determined by the National Task Force;
       ``(C) to provide the determination of the criminal 
     background check to the qualified entity requesting a 
     nationwide background check after not more than 15 business 
     days after the request;
       ``(D) to serve as a national resource center and 
     clearinghouse to provide State and local governments, public 
     and private nonprofit agencies and individuals with 
     information regarding volunteer screening; and
       ``(2) establish a National Volunteer Screening Task Force 
     (referred to in this title as the `Task Force') to be chaired 
     by the Attorney General which shall--
       ``(A) include--
       ``(i) 2 members each of--

       ``(I) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       ``(II) the Department of Justice;
       ``(III) the Department of Health and Human Services;
       ``(IV) representatives of State Law Enforcement 
     organizations;
       ``(V) national organizations representing private nonprofit 
     qualified entities using volunteers to serve the elderly; and
       ``(VI) national organizations representing private 
     nonprofit qualified entities using volunteers to serve 
     individuals with disabilities; and

       ``(ii) 4 members of national organizations representing 
     private nonprofit qualified entities using volunteers to 
     serve children;

     to be appointed by the Attorney General; and
       ``(B) oversee the work of the Center and report at least 
     annually to the President and Congress with regard to the 
     work of the Center and the progress of the States in 
     complying with the provisions of the National Child 
     Protection Act of 1993.

     ``SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To carry out the provisions of this 
     title, there are authorized to be appropriated $80,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003 and $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, sufficient to provide no-
     cost background checks of volunteers working with children, 
     the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.
       ``(b) Availability.--Sums appropriated under this section 
     shall remain available until expended.''.

[[Page S13955]]

     SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING AND ENFORCING THE NATIONAL CHILD 
                   PROTECTION ACT OF 1993.

       Section 3 of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 
     U.S.C. 5119 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       ``(a) In General.--Requests for national background checks 
     under this section shall be submitted to the National Center 
     for Volunteer Screening which shall conduct a search using 
     the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, 
     or other criminal record checks using reliable means of 
     positive identification subject to the following conditions:
       ``(1) A qualified entity requesting a national criminal 
     history background check under this section shall forward to 
     the National Center the provider's fingerprints or other 
     identifying information, and shall obtain a statement 
     completed and signed by the provider that--
       ``(A) sets out the provider or volunteer's name, address, 
     date of birth appearing on a valid identification document as 
     defined in section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, and 
     a photocopy of the valid identifying document;
       ``(B) states whether the provider or volunteer has a 
     criminal record, and, if so, sets out the particulars of such 
     record;
       ``(C) notifies the provider or volunteer that the National 
     Center for Volunteer Screening may perform a criminal history 
     background check and that the provider's signature to the 
     statement constitutes an acknowledgement that such a check 
     may be conducted;
       ``(D) notifies the provider or volunteer that prior to and 
     after the completion of the background check, the qualified 
     entity may choose to deny the provider access to children or 
     elderly or persons with disabilities; and
       ``(E) notifies the provider or volunteer of his right to 
     correct an erroneous record held by the FBI or the National 
     Center.
       ``(2) Statements obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) and 
     forwarded to the National Center shall be retained by the 
     qualified entity or the National Center for at least 2 years.
       ``(3) Each provider or volunteer who is the subject of a 
     criminal history background check under this section is 
     entitled to contact the National Center to initiate 
     procedures to--
       ``(A) obtain a copy of their criminal history record 
     report; and
       ``(B) challenge the accuracy and completeness of the 
     criminal history record information in the report.
       ``(4) The National Center receiving a criminal history 
     record information that lacks disposition information shall, 
     to the extent possible, contact State and local recordkeeping 
     systems to obtain complete information.
       ``(5) The National Center shall make a determination 
     whether the criminal history record information received in 
     response to the national background check indicates that the 
     provider has a criminal history record that renders the 
     provider unfit to provide care to children, the elderly, or 
     individuals with disabilities based upon criteria established 
     by the National Task Force on Volunteer Screening, and will 
     convey that determination to the qualified entity.
       ``(b) Guidance by the National Task Force.--The National 
     Task Force, chaired by the Attorney General shall--
       ``(1) encourage the use, to the maximum extent possible, of 
     the best technology available in conducting criminal 
     background checks; and
       ``(2) provide guidelines concerning standards to guide the 
     National Center in making fitness determinations concerning 
     care providers based upon criminal history record 
     information.
       ``(c) Limitations of Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A qualified entity shall not be liable 
     in an action for damages solely for failure to request a 
     criminal history background check on a provider, nor shall a 
     State or political subdivision thereof nor any agency, 
     officer or employee thereof, be liable in an action for 
     damages for the failure of a qualified entity (other than 
     itself) to take action adverse to a provider who was the 
     subject of a criminal background check.
       ``(2) Reliance.--The National Center or a qualified entity 
     that reasonably relies on criminal history record information 
     received in response to a background check pursuant to this 
     section shall not be liable in an action for damages based 
     upon the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the information.
       ``(d) Fees.--In the case of a background check pursuant to 
     a State requirement adopted after December 20, 1993, 
     conducted through the National Center using the fingerprints 
     or other identifying information of a person who volunteers 
     with a qualified entity shall be free of charge. This 
     subsection shall not affect the authority of the FBI, the 
     National Center, or the States to collect reasonable fees for 
     conducting criminal history background checks of providers 
     who are employed as or apply for positions as paid 
     employees.''.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A MODEL PROGRAM IN EACH STATE TO 
                   STRENGTHEN CRIMINAL DATA REPOSITORIES AND 
                   FINGERPRINT TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Establishment.--A model program shall be established in 
     each State and the District of Columbia for the purpose of 
     improving fingerprinting technology which shall grant to each 
     State $50,000 to either--
       (1) purchase Live-Scan fingerprint technology and a State-
     vehicle to make such technology mobile and these mobile units 
     shall be used to travel within the State to assist in the 
     processing of fingerprint background checks; or
       (2) purchase electric fingerprint imaging machines for use 
     throughout the State to send fingerprint images to the 
     National Center to conduct background checks.
       (b) Additional Funds.--In addition to funds provided in 
     subsection (a), $50,000 shall be provided to each State and 
     the District of Columbia to hire personnel to--
       (1) provide information and training to each county law 
     enforcement agency within the State regarding all National 
     Child Protection Act requirements for input of criminal and 
     disposition data into the national criminal history 
     background check system; and
       (2) provide an annual summary to the National Task Force of 
     the State's progress in complying with the criminal data 
     entry provisions of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 
     which shall include information about the input of criminal 
     data, child abuse crime information, domestic violence 
     arrests and stay-away orders of protection.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out the provisions of this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated a total of 
     $5,100,000 for fiscal year 2003 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 
     2007, sufficient to improve fingerprint technology units and 
     hire data entry improvement personnel in each of the 50 
     States and the District of Columbia.
       (2) Availability.--Sums appropriated under this section 
     shall remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 1870. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish an inventory, 
registry, and information system of United States greenhouse gas 
emissions to inform the public and private sector concerning, and 
encourage voluntary reductions in, greenhouse emissions; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats 
posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill 
by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They are recognized 
environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken 
advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate 
their help in introducing this legislation today.
  Climate change is an enormously complex issue in every aspect. 
Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse 
for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the 
global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. The time to 
act is now.
  Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
recently released its Third Assessment Report, and the science is 
increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, 
primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric 
concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 
420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance 
of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can 
be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know 
that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, 
greenhouse gases will continue to increase.
  Finally, we know that climate models have improved, and that these 
models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. 
Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees 
Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of 
increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years.
  If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in 
my home State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. Like all 
coastal areas, the Jersey Shore is threatened by projected changes in 
sea levels due to climate change. I am concerned about this impact. And 
I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, 
the country and the globe.
  I believe we need to take reasonable steps today start dealing with 
this issue. And I think this bill will make an important incremental 
step.
  The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require 
companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, 
as well

[[Page S13956]]

as a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions 
reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on 
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these 
components in more detail.
  First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, 
Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non-
governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission 
information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are 
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish 
threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities 
will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and 
are included to enable exclusion of most small businesses from the 
reporting requirements. Companies that emit more than a threshold 
quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an 
annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with 
stationary source emissions in 2003. The following year, in 2004, 
companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to 
EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas emissions, such as 
process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest 
product-sector emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam.
  Just as important as the reporting system is the greenhouse gas 
registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA to work with 
the same set of actors to establish this greenhouse gas registry, which 
will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many 
companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or 
sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to 
be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and 
reliable way.
  Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several 
important goals. First, they will create a reliable record of the 
sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. This will 
provide the public and private sector with important information that, 
if necessary, can be used to identify the most cost-effective ways to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Perhaps more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful 
incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas 
reductions. By requiring emissions reporting, and making that 
information available to the public, companies may face increased 
scrutiny with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions. But they will 
also have a place where they can register their greenhouse gas 
reductions project in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable 
companies to demonstrate the actions that they are taking to reduce 
their emissions, and will assist them in making the case for credits if 
a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is ever enacted.
  Finally, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a greenhouse gas 
emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas 
emissions for our Nation, and will incorporate the information 
submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA 
has issued such a report for several years now, and this provision is 
intended to explicitly authorize and expand the scope of this report.
  I know that there are technical challenges associated with measuring 
greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. But many advances have been 
made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, 
environmental groups and governments at the table. It's my intent that 
the systems and protocols developed under this bill conform to the best 
practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in this legislation. Let's start 
taking reasonable steps to address the threat of climate change. 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. 1870

       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 ``National Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions Inventory and Registry Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) human activities have caused rapid increases in 
     atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other 
     greenhouse gases in the last century;
       (2) according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change and the National Research Council--
       (A) the Earth has warmed in the last century; and
       (B) the majority of the observed warming is attributable to 
     human activities;
       (3) despite the fact that many uncertainties in climate 
     science remain, the potential impacts from human-induced 
     climate change pose a substantial risk that should be managed 
     in a responsible manner; and
       (4) to begin to manage climate change risks, public and 
     private entities will need a comprehensive, accurate 
     inventory, registry, and information system of the sources 
     and quantities of United States greenhouse gas emissions.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a 
     mandatory greenhouse gas inventory, registry, and information 
     system that--
       (1) is complete, consistent, transparent, and accurate;
       (2) will create accurate data that can be used by public 
     and private entities to design efficient and effective 
     greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies; and
       (3) will encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions.

     SEC. 3. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

       The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                 ``TITLE VII--GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

     ``SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means an 
     entity that emits more than a threshold quantity of 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       ``(2) Direct emissions.--The term `direct emissions' means 
     greenhouse gas emissions from a source that is owned or 
     controlled by an entity.
       ``(3) Entity.--The term `entity' includes a firm, a 
     corporation, an association, a partnership, and a Federal 
     agency.
       ``(4) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means--
       ``(A) carbon dioxide;
       ``(B) methane;
       ``(C) nitrous oxide;
       ``(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
       ``(E) perfluorocarbons; and
       ``(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(5) Greenhouse gas emissions.--The term `greenhouse gas 
     emissions' means emissions of a greenhouse gas, including--
       ``(A) stationary combustion source emissions, which are 
     emitted as a result of combustion of fuels in stationary 
     equipment such as boilers, furnaces, burners, turbines, 
     heaters, incinerators, engines, flares, and other similar 
     sources;
       ``(B) process emissions, which consist of emissions from 
     chemical or physical processes other than combustion;
       ``(C) fugitive emissions, which consist of intentional and 
     unintentional emissions from--
       ``(i) equipment leaks such as joints, seals, packing, and 
     gaskets; and
       ``(ii) piles, pits, cooling towers, and other similar 
     sources; and
       ``(D) mobile source emissions, which are emitted as a 
     result of combustion of fuels in transportation equipment 
     such as automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, and vessels.
       ``(6) Greenhouse gas emissions record.--The term 
     `greenhouse gas emissions record' means all of the historical 
     greenhouse gas emissions and project reduction data submitted 
     by an entity under this title, including any adjustments to 
     such data under section 704(c).
       ``(7) Greenhouse gas report.--The term `greenhouse gas 
     report' means an annual list of the greenhouse gas emissions 
     of an entity and the sources of those emissions.
       ``(8) Indirect emissions.--The term `indirect emissions' 
     means greenhouse gas emissions that are a consequence of the 
     activities of an entity but that are emitted from sources 
     owned or controlled by another entity.
       ``(9) National greenhouse gas emissions information 
     system.--The term `national greenhouse gas emissions 
     information system' means the information system established 
     under section 702(a).
       ``(10) National greenhouse gas emissions inventory.--The 
     term `national greenhouse gas emissions inventory' means the 
     national inventory of greenhouse gas emissions established 
     under section 705.
       ``(11) National greenhouse gas registry.--The term 
     `national greenhouse gas registry' means the national 
     greenhouse gas registry established under section 703(a).
       ``(12) Project reduction.--The term `project reduction' 
     means--
       ``(A) a greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by 
     carrying out a greenhouse gas emission reduction project; and
       ``(B) sequestration achieved by carrying out a 
     sequestration project.
       ``(13) Reporting entity.--The term `reporting entity' means 
     an entity that reports to the Administrator under subsection 
     (a) or (b) of section 704.

[[Page S13957]]

       ``(14) Sequestration.--The term `sequestration' means the 
     long-term separation, isolation, or removal of greenhouse 
     gases from the atmosphere, including through a biological or 
     geologic method such as reforestation or an underground 
     reservoir.
       ``(15) Threshold quantity.--The term `threshold quantity' 
     means a threshold quantity for mandatory greenhouse gas 
     reporting established by the Administrator under section 
     704(a)(3).
       ``(16) Verification.--The term `verification' means the 
     objective and independent assessment of whether a greenhouse 
     gas report submitted by a reporting entity accurately 
     reflects the greenhouse gas impact of the reporting entity.

     ``SEC. 702. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INFORMATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
     Energy, States, the private sector, and nongovernmental 
     organizations concerned with establishing standards for 
     reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, the Administrator 
     shall establish and administer a national greenhouse gas 
     emissions information system to collect information reported 
     under section 704(a).
       ``(b) Submission to Congress of Draft Design.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a draft design of the 
     national greenhouse gas emissions information system.
       ``(c) Availability of Data to the Public.--The 
     Administrator shall publish all information in the national 
     greenhouse gas emissions information system through the 
     website of the Environmental Protection Agency, except in any 
     case in which publishing the information would reveal a trade 
     secret or disclose information vital to national security.
       ``(d) Relationship to Other Greenhouse Gas Registries.--To 
     the extent practicable, the Administrator shall ensure 
     coordination between the national greenhouse gas emissions 
     information system and existing and developing Federal, 
     regional, and State greenhouse gas registries.
       ``(e) Integration With Other Environmental Information.--To 
     the extent practicable, the Administrator shall integrate 
     information in the national greenhouse gas emissions 
     information system with other environmental information 
     managed by the Administrator.

     ``SEC. 703. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
     Energy, States, the private sector, and nongovernmental 
     organizations concerned with establishing standards for 
     reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, the Administrator 
     shall establish and administer a national greenhouse gas 
     registry to collect information reported under section 
     704(b).
       ``(b) Availability of Data to the Public.--The 
     Administrator shall publish all information in the national 
     greenhouse gas registry through the website of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, except in any case in which 
     publishing the information would reveal a trade secret or 
     disclose information vital to national security.
       ``(c) Relationship to Other Greenhouse Gas Registries.--To 
     the maximum extent feasible and practicable, the 
     Administrator shall ensure coordination between the national 
     greenhouse gas registry and existing and developing Federal, 
     regional, and State greenhouse gas registries.
       ``(d) Integration With Other Environmental Information.--To 
     the maximum extent practicable, the Administrator shall 
     integrate all information in the national greenhouse gas 
     registry with other environmental information collected by 
     the Administrator.

     ``SEC. 704. REPORTING.

       ``(a) Mandatory Reporting to National Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions Information System.--
       ``(1) Initial reporting requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than April 30, 2003, in 
     accordance with this paragraph and the regulations 
     promulgated under section 706(e)(1), each covered entity 
     shall submit to the Administrator, for inclusion in the 
     national greenhouse gas emissions information system, the 
     greenhouse gas report of the covered entity with respect to--
       ``(i) calendar year 2002; and
       ``(ii) each greenhouse gas emitted by the covered entity in 
     an amount that exceeds the applicable threshold quantity.
       ``(B) Required elements.--Each greenhouse gas report 
     submitted under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall include estimates of direct stationary 
     combustion source emissions;
       ``(ii) shall express greenhouse gas emissions in metric 
     tons of the carbon dioxide equivalent of each greenhouse gas 
     emitted;
       ``(iii) shall specify the sources of greenhouse gas 
     emissions that are included in the greenhouse gas report;
       ``(iv) shall be reported on an entity-wide basis and on a 
     facility-wide basis; and
       ``(v) to the maximum extent practicable, shall be reported 
     electronically to the Administrator in such form as the 
     Administrator may require.
       ``(C) Method of reporting of entity-wide emissions.--Under 
     subparagraph (B)(iv), entity-wide emissions shall be reported 
     on the bases of financial control and equity share in a 
     manner consistent with the financial reporting practices of 
     the covered entity.
       ``(2) Final reporting requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than April 30, 2004, and each 
     April 30 thereafter (except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B)(vii)), in accordance with this paragraph and the 
     regulations promulgated under section 706(e)(2), each covered 
     entity shall submit to the Administrator the greenhouse gas 
     report of the covered entity with respect to--
       ``(i) the preceding calendar year; and
       ``(ii) each greenhouse gas emitted by the covered entity in 
     an amount that exceeds the applicable threshold quantity.
       ``(B) Required elements.--Each greenhouse gas report 
     submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include--
       ``(i) the required elements specified in paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) estimates of indirect emissions from imported 
     electricity, heat, and steam;
       ``(iii) estimates of process emissions described in section 
     701(5)(B);
       ``(iv) estimates of fugitive emissions described in section 
     701(5)(C);
       ``(v) estimates of mobile source emissions described in 
     section 701(5)(D), in such form as the Administrator may 
     require;
       ``(vi) in the case of a covered entity that is a forest 
     product entity, estimates of direct stationary source 
     emissions, including emissions resulting from combustion of 
     biomass;
       ``(vii) in the case of a covered entity that owns more than 
     250,000 acres of timberland, estimates, by State, of the 
     timber and carbon stocks of the covered entity, which 
     estimates shall be updated every 5 years; and
       ``(viii) a description of any adjustments to the greenhouse 
     gas emissions record of the covered entity under subsection 
     (c).
       ``(3) Establishment of threshold quantities.--For the 
     purpose of reporting under this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall establish threshold quantities of emissions for each 
     combination of a source and a greenhouse gas that is subject 
     to the mandatory reporting requirements under this 
     subsection.
       ``(b) Voluntary Reporting to National Greenhouse Gas 
     Registry.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than April 30, 2004, and each 
     April 30 thereafter, in accordance with this subsection and 
     the regulations promulgated under section 706(f), an entity 
     may voluntarily report to the Administrator, for inclusion in 
     the national greenhouse gas registry, with respect to the 
     preceding calendar year and any greenhouse gas emitted by the 
     entity--
       ``(A) project reductions;
       ``(B) transfers of project reductions to and from any other 
     entity;
       ``(C) project reductions and transfers of project 
     reductions outside the United States;
       ``(D) indirect emissions that are not required to be 
     reported under subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii) (such as product 
     transport, waste disposal, product substitution, travel, and 
     employee commuting); and
       ``(E) product use phase emissions.
       ``(2) Types of activities.--Under paragraph (1), an entity 
     may report activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or 
     sequester a greenhouse gas, including--
       ``(A) fuel switching;
       ``(B) energy efficiency improvements;
       ``(C) use of renewable energy;
       ``(D) use of combined heat and power systems;
       ``(E) management of cropland, grassland, and grazing land;
       ``(F) forestry activities that increase carbon stocks;
       ``(G) carbon capture and storage;
       ``(H) methane recovery; and
       ``(I) carbon offset investments.
       ``(c) Adjustment Factors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each reporting entity shall adjust the 
     greenhouse gas emissions record of the reporting entity in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Significant structural changes.--
       ``(A) In general.--A reporting entity that experiences a 
     significant structural change in the organization of the 
     reporting entity (such as a merger, major acquisition, or 
     divestiture) shall adjust its greenhouse gas emissions record 
     for preceding years so as to maintain year-to-year 
     comparability.
       ``(B) Mid-year changes.--In the case of a reporting entity 
     that experiences a significant structural change described in 
     subparagraph (A) during the middle of a year, the greenhouse 
     gas emissions record of the reporting entity for preceding 
     years shall be adjusted on a pro-rata basis.
       ``(3) Calculation changes and errors.--The greenhouse gas 
     emissions record of a reporting entity for preceding years 
     shall be adjusted for--
       ``(A) changes in calculation methodologies; or
       ``(B) errors that significantly affect the quantity of 
     greenhouse gases in the greenhouse gas emissions record.
       ``(4) Organizational growth or decline.--The greenhouse gas 
     emissions record of a reporting entity for preceding years 
     shall not be adjusted for any organizational growth or 
     decline of the reporting entity such as--
       ``(A) an increase or decrease in production output;
       ``(B) a change in product mix;
       ``(C) a plant closure; and
       ``(D) the opening of a new plant.
       ``(5) Explanations of adjustments.--A reporting entity 
     shall explain, in a statement included in the greenhouse gas 
     report of the reporting entity for a year--

[[Page S13958]]

       ``(A) any significant adjustment in the greenhouse gas 
     emissions record of the reporting entity; and
       ``(B) any significant change between the greenhouse gas 
     emissions record for the preceding year and the greenhouse 
     gas emissions reported for the current year.
       ``(d) Quantification and Verification Protocols and 
     Tools.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator and the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of 
     Energy shall jointly work with the States, the private 
     sector, and nongovernmental organizations to develop--
       ``(A) protocols for quantification and verification of 
     greenhouse gas emissions;
       ``(B) electronic methods for quantification and reporting 
     of greenhouse gas emissions; and
       ``(C) greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards.
       ``(2) Best practices.--The protocols and methods developed 
     under paragraph (1) shall conform, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to the best practice protocols that have the 
     greatest support of experts in the field.
       ``(3) Incorporation into regulations.--The Administrator 
     shall incorporate the protocols developed under paragraph 
     (1)(A) into the regulations promulgated under section 706.
       ``(4) Outreach program.--The Administrator, the Secretary 
     of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary 
     of Energy shall jointly conduct an outreach program to 
     provide information to all reporting entities and the public 
     on the protocols and methods developed under this subsection.
       ``(e) Verification.--
       ``(1) Provision of information by reporting entities.--Each 
     reporting entity shall provide information sufficient for the 
     Administrator to verify, in accordance with greenhouse gas 
     accounting and reporting standards developed under subsection 
     (d)(1)(C), that the greenhouse gas report of the reporting 
     entity--
       ``(A) has been accurately reported; and
       ``(B) in the case of each project reduction, represents 
     actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or actual 
     increases in net sequestration, as applicable.
       ``(2) Independent third-party verification.--A reporting 
     entity may--
       ``(A) obtain independent third-party verification; and
       ``(B) present the results of the third-party verification 
     to the Administrator for consideration by the Administrator 
     in carrying out paragraph (1).
       ``(f) Enforcement.--The Administrator may bring a civil 
     action in United States district court against a covered 
     entity that fails to comply with subsection (a), or a 
     regulation promulgated under section 706(e), to impose a 
     civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day that the 
     failure to comply continues.

     ``SEC. 705. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY.

       ``Not later than April 30, 2002, and each April 30 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a national 
     greenhouse gas emissions inventory that includes--
       ``(1) comprehensive estimates of the quantity of United 
     States greenhouse gas emissions for the second preceding 
     calendar year, including--
       ``(A) for each greenhouse gas, an estimate of the quantity 
     of emissions contributed by each key source category;
       ``(B) a detailed analysis of trends in the quantity, 
     composition, and sources of United States greenhouse gas 
     emissions; and
       ``(C) a detailed explanation of the methodology used in 
     developing the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory; 
     and
       ``(2) a detailed analysis of the information reported to 
     the national greenhouse gas emissions information system and 
     the national greenhouse gas registry.

     ``SEC. 706. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.
       ``(b) Best Practices.--In developing regulations under this 
     section, the Administrator shall seek to leverage leading 
     protocols for the measurement, accounting, reporting, and 
     verification of greenhouse gas emissions.
       ``(c) National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information 
     System.--Not later than January 31, 2003, the Administrator 
     shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 
     establish the national greenhouse gas emissions information 
     system.
       ``(d) National Greenhouse Gas Registry.--Not later than 
     January 31, 2004, the Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to establish the national 
     greenhouse gas registry.
       ``(e) Mandatory Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) Initial reporting requirements.--Not later than 
     January 31, 2003, the Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement the initial 
     mandatory reporting requirements under section 704(a)(1).
       ``(2) Final reporting requirements.--Not later than January 
     31, 2004, the Administrator shall promulgate such regulations 
     as are necessary to implement the final mandatory reporting 
     requirements under section 704(a)(2).
       ``(f) Voluntary Reporting Provisions.--Not later than 
     January 31, 2004, the Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations and issue such guidance as are necessary to 
     implement the voluntary reporting provisions under section 
     704(b).
       ``(g) Adjustment Factors.--Not later than January 31, 2004, 
     the Administrator shall promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to implement the adjustment factors under section 
     704(c).''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now near the end of the first 
session of the 107th Congress. It has been an exceedingly long and 
difficult year. There have been many changes, surprises and tragedies.
  One politically significant event that particularly dismayed me was 
the President's modification of his campaign pledge to reduce emissions 
of four major pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and 
carbon dioxide, emitted by power plants. In March, he wrote to several 
Senators telling them he would no longer support mandatory emissions 
reductions for carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas. This struck 
me as a return to a 1950s-style energy and environmental policy.
  On a more optimistic role, however, that reversal and the 
administration's unilateral withdrawal and disengagement from the 
international negotiations to implement the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol has created more 
interest and activity on this matter than ever on Capitol Hill and in 
the media.
  Now, many Members are asking themselves whether Congress should just 
proceed without the Administration. In fact, the Daschle-Bingaman 
energy legislation contains a significant climate change title that 
does just that. This subject will contain to receive a great deal of 
attention in the Environment and Public Works Committee and elsewhere 
as we try to implement through statute our existing national commitment 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
  Today, I am joining with Senators Corzine and Lieberman in 
introducing a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require reporting of 
greenhouse gas emissions from major sources and to create a voluntary 
registry for those sources to document their emissions reduction 
efforts. This new system will be maintained and operated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which has the greatest Federal agency 
experience and capability in monitoring enforcing and tracking air 
emissions. The information generated by this system will be of great 
assistance in developing a national trading system in carbon emission 
credits. The U.S. is a global leader in the creation and operation of 
such systems and must not lag behind doors in the international 
community.
  We have been waiting some time for the Administration to make known 
the results of its climate change policy review and for a constructive 
multi-pollutant legislative proposal. There is no question that the 
terrible events of September 11, have had a devastating effect on our 
citizenry and the government. But, we are a great nation and the 
Federal Government must be capable of working on a variety of domestic 
and international fronts, even in the face of great adversity. There 
are few, if any, environmental issues more compelling than global 
warming and its effects.
  As many Senators may recall, Congress and the previous Bush 
Administration worked together and were very productive during the Gulf 
War on many pieces of environmental legislation, not the least of which 
was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. That was a different time, 
but that situation demonstrates that given the right level of attention 
and resources, we can accomplish a great deal working together even 
under stressful circumstances.
  The Administration's unilateral approach to this important subject is 
puzzling. The U.S. is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the 
total carbon loading to the atmosphere. This man-made pollution is 
leading to a warming of the entire planet through the greenhouse 
effect, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Surely, we 
should do our share to reduce these emissions to protect our 
environmental and economy, and our global neighbors. That is the most 
certain way to protect our long-term interests and reduce the impacts 
of proceeding with business as usual.
  We have asked a great deal of our friends across the globe as part of 
our

[[Page S13959]]

response to terrorism, particularly of our friends in the European 
Union. We must not forget that they too have an agenda for the 
international community and that agenda includes concerted action on 
climate change. Ignoring that agenda for too long may create 
unnecessary trade and tariff barrier problems for U.S. goods and 
services. Already, the pending adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 
European Union countries and elsewhere poses, complex accounting and 
trade issues for U.S. multi-nationals operating in Annex I countries.
  The Administration's silence on this clearly growing problem is also 
puzzling. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric and the World 
Meteorological Organization say that 2001 will be the second warmest 
year on record since records have been kept in the mid-1800s. Recently, 
the Washington Post reported on the New England Regional Assessment of 
the Potential Consequence of Climate Variability and Change.
  The Assessment, which is one of the many regional assessments being 
conducted pursuant to the Global Change Research Act of 1990, found 
that the Northeast's climate is likely to become hotter and more flood-
prone. The region may see a 6-9 degrees fahrenheit overall temperature 
increase over the next 100 hundreds due to the global warming caused by 
greenhouse gas emissions. This would cause sugar maples to disappear 
from Vermont forests, threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, 
exacerbate existing air pollution problems and harm cold-weather-
dependent industries like skiing.
  There are varying claims about the economic effects related to global 
warming and climate change. Effects that will occur beyond the normal 
economic forecasting period are difficult to determine. But, some 
studies have suggested that when a doubling of atmospheric 
CO2 occurs, sometime in the next 50-70 years according to 
most models, the cost to the U.S. economy could be between 0.3 percent-
6 percent of GDP in 2000 dollars. While the nature of the exact impacts 
of climate change on forestry, construction, hydropower, and 
agriculture are disputed, most sectors will see losses, according to 
studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, Pew Center on 
Global Climate Change, and the Institute for International Economics.

  These effects can be lessened by purposeful and strong leadership in 
the Congress and the White House. We have the technological ability to 
revolutionize our use of fossil fuels through efficiency and process 
changes, and to radically increase our production of renewable energy 
in all forms. These steps can dramatically and cost-effectively reduce 
carbon emissions in the near term, according to studies done by the 
Department of Energy and various think-tanks. However, we must do 
something soon to stimulate that revolution.
  Providing information on waste generation and release into the 
environment has been a great success of the Toxic Release Inventory. 
Educating the public and the market about wasteful behavior has 
stimulated major emissions reductions. The bill we are introducing 
today should be similarly successful in promoting innovation and 
efficiency in all major carbon emitting sectors, in addition to 
preparing the appropriate infrastructure for a national carbon credit 
trading system.
  Early in the next session, the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee will mark up S. 556, the Clean Power Act, which requires 
reductions in greenhouse gas emission from the power generating sector. 
That sector's emissions have risen approximately 26 percent above 1990 
levels and are expected to grow 1.8 percent annually without some 
Federal action. This is well beyond our international treaty 
commitments on a sector basis. The majority of those facilities are 
already required to report their carbon dioxide emissions to EPA.
  I am hopeful that we can proceed with a tri-partisan, consensual 
markup of the Clean Power Act. But, two elements may preclude our 
ability to achieve some agreement. First, the Administration may go 
forward with proposals to modify the New Source Review, NSR, program. 
This possibility gravely concerns me and other Members of the 
Committee, given the lack of transparency in the Administration's 
proceedings on the pending NSR enforcement actions and the 
``consistency'' review by the Department of Justice. And, second, 
perhaps more importantly, there is a distinct lack of constructive 
engagement with the Committee on a multi-pollutant bill or any clear 
progress on an Administration proposal.
  Next year promises to be very busy in the energy and environmental 
policy arena. We cannot afford to simply recreate the debates that 
occurred during the Energy Policy Act of 1992. We know the world to be 
a much different place now and fraught with greater and more complex 
dangers like global warming. It would be irresponsible in the extreme 
for Congress or the White House to take actions that increase, rather 
than decrease, the likelihood of those dangers.
  I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues 
on a variety of actions to make progress in adapting to the climate 
change we have already caused and on reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
to prevent greater future damage that our great-grandchildren will have 
to face.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the article to which I referred in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2001]

                     Northeast Seen Getting Balmier

                          (By Michael Powell)

       New York.--New England's maple trees stop producing sap. 
     The Long Island and Cape Cod beaches shrink and shift, and 
     disappear in places. Cases of heatstroke triple.
       And every 10 years or so, a winter storm floods portions of 
     Lower Manhattan, Jersey city and Coney Island with seawater.
       The Northeast of recent historical memory could disappear 
     this century, replaced by a hotter and more flood-prone 
     region where New York could have the climate of Miami and 
     Boston could become as sticky as Atlanta, according to the 
     first comprehensive federal studies of the possible effects 
     of global warming on the Northeast.
       ``In the most optimistic projection, we will end up with a 
     six- to nine-degree increase in temperature,'' said George 
     Hurtt, a University of New Hampshire scientist and co-author 
     of the study on the New England region. ``That's the greatest 
     increase in temperature at any time since the last Ice Age.''
       Commissioned by Congress, the separate reports on New 
     England and the New York region explore how global warming 
     could affect the coastline, economy and public health of the 
     Northeast. The language is often technical, the projections 
     reliant on middle-of-the-road and sometimes contradictory 
     predictive models.
       But the predications are arresting.
       New England, where the regional character was forged by 
     cold and long, dark winters, could face a balmy future that 
     within 30 to 40 years could result in increased crop 
     production but also destroy prominent native tree species.
       ``The brilliant reds, oranges and yellows of the maples, 
     birches and beeches may be replaced by the browns and dull 
     greens of oaks,'' the New England report concludes. Within 20 
     years, it says, ``the changes in climate could potentially 
     extirpate the sugar maple industry in New England.''
       The reports' origins date to 1990, when Congress passed the 
     Global Change Research Act. Seven years later, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency appointed 16 regional panels 
     to examine global warming, and how the nation might adapt. 
     These Northeast reports, completed about two months ago, are 
     among the last to be released. (The mid-Atlantic report, 
     which includes Washington, was completed a year go.)
       The scientists on the panels employed conventional 
     assumptions, such as an annual 1 percent increase in 
     greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They conclude that global 
     warming is already occurring, noting that, on average, the 
     Northeast became two degrees warmer in the past century. And 
     they say that the temperature rise in the 21st century ``will 
     be significantly larger than in the 20th century.'' One 
     widely used climate model cited in the report predicted a 
     six-degree increase, the other 10 degrees.
       The Environmental Protection Agency summarizes the findings 
     on its Web site.
       ``Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop 
     yields, and water supplies,'' the EPA states. ``It could also 
     threaten human health, and harm birds, fish, and many types 
     of ecosystems.''
       Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn is more skeptical. He 
     agrees that mild global warming seems likely to continue--but 
     argues that a slightly hotter climate will make the U.S. 
     economy in general, and the Northeast in particular, more 
     rather than less productive. A greater risk comes from 
     spending billions of dollars to slow emissions of greenhouse 
     gases.
       ``Even in the extreme scenarios, the northern United States 
     benefits from global

[[Page S13960]]

     warming,'' said Mendelsohn, editor of the forthcoming 
     ``Global Warming and the American Economy.'' ``To have New 
     England lead the battle against global warming would be 
     deeply ironic, because it will be beneficial to our 
     climate and economy.''
       The scientists on the Northeastern panels estimated that 
     Americans have a grace period of a decade or two, during 
     which the nation can adapt before global warming accelerates.
       ``We will face an increasingly hazardous local environment 
     in this century,'' said William Solecki, a professor of 
     geography at Montclair State University in New Jersey and a 
     co-author of the climate change report covering the New York 
     metropolitan region. ``We're in transition right now to 
     something entirely new and uncertain.''


                              heat island

       New York City, the nation's densest urban center, is 
     armored with heat-retaining concrete and stone, and so its 
     median temperature hovers five to six degrees above the 
     regional norm. The city, the New York report predicts, will 
     grow warmer still. Within 70 years, New York will have as 
     many 90-degree days a year as Miami does now.
       If temperatures and ozone levels rise, the report says, the 
     poor, the elderly and the young--especially those in crowded, 
     poorly ventilated buildings--could suffer more heatstroke and 
     asthma.
       But such problems might have relatively inexpensive 
     solutions, from subsidizing the purchase of air conditioners 
     to planting trees and painting roofs light colors to reflect 
     back heat.
       ``The experience of southern cities is that you can cut 
     deaths and adapt rather easily,'' said Patrick Kinney of the 
     Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who 
     authored a section of the report.
       Rising ocean waters present a more complicated threat. The 
     seas around New York have risen 15 to 18 inches in the past 
     century, and scientists forecast that by 2050, waters could 
     rise an additional 10 to 20 inches.
       By 2080, storms with 25-foot surges could hit New York 
     every three or four years, inundating the Hudson River 
     tunnels and flooding the edges of the financial district, 
     causing billions of dollars in damage.
       ``This clearly is untenable,'' said Klaus Jacob, a senior 
     research scientist with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty 
     Earth Observatory, who worked on the New York report and is 
     an expert on disaster and urban infrastructure. ``A world-
     class city cannot afford to be exposed to such a threat so 
     often.''
       Jacob recommends constructing dikes and reinforced seawalls 
     in Lower Manhattan, and new construction standards for the 
     lower floors of offices.
       Sea-level rise could reshape the entire Northeast 
     coastline, turning the summer retreats of the Hamptons and 
     Cape Cod into landscapes defined by dikes and houses on 
     stilts. Should this come to pass, government would have to 
     decide whether to allow nature to have its way, or to spend 
     vast sums of money to replenish beaches and dunes. 
     Complicating the issue is the fact that some wealthy coastal 
     communities exclude non-resident taxpayers from their 
     beaches.
       ``Multimillionaires already are armoring their property 
     with sandbags, but they can't do it on their own,'' said 
     Vivian Gornitz of Columbia's Center for Climate Systems 
     Research, author of the report's section on sea rise. ``You 
     would be asking taxpayers to pay for restoring beaches they 
     can never walk on, and they might demand access.''


                            mild new england

       Farther north, global warming could change flora and fauna, 
     and perhaps the culture itself.
       Compared with a century ago, the report notes, ice melts a 
     week earlier on northern lakes. Ticks carrying Lyme disease 
     range north of what scientists once assumed was their natural 
     habitat. Moist, warm winters have led to large populations of 
     mosquitoes, with an accompanying risk of encephalitis and 
     even malaria.
       ``The present warming trend has led to another growing 
     health problem,'' the report states, ``in the incidence of 
     red tides, fish kills and bacterial contamination.''
       Hot, dry summer months, the report continues, ``are ideal 
     for converting automobile exhaust . . . into ozone.'' Because 
     winds flow west to east, New England already serves as 
     something of a tailpipe for the nation. The report notes that 
     a study of ozone pollution and lung capacity found that 
     hikers on Mount Washington, New Hampshire's highest peak, 
     ended their treks in worse condition than when they started.
       These findings are not definitive. Rising temperatures 
     could exacerbate the effects of harmful ozone--but anti-
     pollution laws are also cutting emissions.
       ``There is a little tendency to be alarmist in global 
     warming studies,'' Kinney said. ``We could keep ozone in 
     check.''
       A warmer New England could help some economic sectors. As 
     oak and hickory replace maples and birch, so commercial 
     forestry might grow. Shorter winters could translate into 
     longer growing seasons, lower fuel bills and less money spent 
     on frost-heaved roads. The foliage and ski industries would 
     suffer, but lingering autumns could bring more tourists and 
     dollars to the coastal towns of Maine and Massachusetts.
       ``People complain that we'll lose the sugar maple, but 100 
     years ago, New England was 80 percent farmland,'' said Yale 
     economist Mendelsohn. ``In fact, an entire landscape has 
     shifted in the past 100 years, and most people have no idea 
     it was once so different.''
       Perhaps--though cold has defined New England for almost 400 
     years, and some historians caution that the cultural shift 
     could prove disorienting. The region reflects its climate; 
     the literature is austere, the houses stout. For the 19th 
     century naturalists of the region, a clammy southern heat 
     represented moral slackness.
       ``Surviving winter has become our self-selecting filter,'' 
     said Vermont archivist Gregory Sanford. ``What will we brag 
     about if we live in a temperate zone and go around in 
     Hawaiian shirts and sandals?''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1871. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 
a rail transportation security risk assessment, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce 
the Safe Rails Act of 2001. This bill will protect the lives of 
millions of Americans by providing our Nation's freight railroads and 
hazardous materials shippers with the ability to enhance the security 
of hazardous materials shipped on the Nation's freight rail network.
  The Safe Rails Act will require the Department of Transportation to 
focus its attention on the significant potential for harm to human 
health and public safety posed by terrorist attacks on our Nation's 
freight rail infrastructure. In performing the risk assessment called 
for in the bill, the Secretary of Transportation will be able to make 
use of the expertise of the various companies and industries involved 
in the transportation of hazardous materials. Upon completion of the 
assessment, the Secretary will administer a 2-year Rail Security Fund 
to assist railroads and hazardous materials shippers in paying the 
extraordinary costs associated with their post-September 11 activities 
to secure rail infrastructure and rolling stock.
  Among the painful lessons we have learned from the sad and alarming 
events of the past three months, one of the most obvious is that 
security measures for much of our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure needs immediate improvement. Americans had, for the most 
part, taken for granted that life in the United States was safe from 
the senseless violence that occurs all too often elsewhere on the 
planet. When terrorists used hijacked airlines as missiles against our 
people, or transformed the mail into a means of spreading illness and 
death, we awoke in this country to the potential for harm that exists 
in the misuse of things we depend upon every day.
  We depend on few things like we depend on our transportation system. 
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will agree with me that to 
adequately protect our homeland security, it is absolutely necessary 
that Congress, the administration, and the various transportation 
industries cooperate on a comprehensive evaluation and enhancement of 
transportation security. I believe we must act soon, and not wait for 
our ocean-going vessels, our long-haul trucks, or our passenger rail 
system to be used as tools of terrorist aggression against our fellow 
citizens.
  I have offered this legislation today because the threat to Americans 
from a terrorist act against a freight railroad carrying hazardous 
materials may be greater than the threats against all of those other 
modes combined. Several analyses undertaken even before September 11 
point to the chemical industry and the railroads that carry the bulk of 
its products as likely targets of terrorism. Our economy, and indeed, 
our public health, depend on the movement of these chemicals. In the 
days immediately after September 11, for example, a disruption of rail 
traffic resulted in some major cities having only a few days' supply of 
water-purifying chlorine at their disposal. It is quite obvious, I 
believe, that we must safeguard movement of these life-saving, although 
potentially dangerous, chemicals.

  There is legislation before the Senate that would protect the 21 
million passengers Amtrak carries every year. I would encourage all my 
colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. Before we enact 
that legislation and think we have completed our job, I would just say 
to my colleagues that the passenger rail traffic in this Nation covers 
only about one-sixth of the 140,000 miles in the country's freight rail 
network.
  The freight rail network, which passes through or near virtually 
every

[[Page S13961]]

small town and large city in the country, carries more than 1.7 million 
carloads, many millions of tons, of chemicals and other hazardous 
materials each year. More than 50,000 carloads of ``poison by 
inhalation'' chemicals, including chlorine, are transported within a 
few miles of a huge percentage of our population. It is not my purpose 
to alarm my colleagues or the public at large. The simple fact is, 
however, the Safe Rails Act will protect millions of Americans living 
or working in proximity to the facilities manufacturing these hazardous 
materials, or the trains carrying them.
  Very briefly, the Safe Rails Act would require the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the security 
risks on our entire rail system, with special emphasis given to a 
security needs assessment for the transportation of hazardous 
materials.
  The bill creates a Rail Security Fund, to be administered by the 
Secretary, to reimburse or defray the costs of increased or new 
security measures taken by railroads, hazardous materials shippers, or 
tank car owners, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. 
In conducting the required assessments, the Secretary will consult with 
and may use materials prepared by the railroad, chemical, and tank car 
leasing industries, as well as any relevant security analyses or 
assessments prepared by Federal or State law enforcement, public 
safety, or regulatory agencies.
  The Secretary will develop criteria to determine the appropriateness 
of full or partial reimbursement for various security-related 
activities. The Secretary may consider, but will not be limited to, 
using the Fund to help pay for costs incurred due to the following 
security-related activities: unanticipated rerouting or switching of 
trains or cargoes, and the express movement of hazardous materials to 
address security risks; hiring additional manpower required to increase 
security of the entire rail network, including rail cars on leased 
track; the purchase of equipment or improved training to enhance 
emergency response in hazardous materials transportation 
incidents; improvements in critical communications essential for rail 
operations and security, including: Development and deployment of 
global positioning tracking systems on all tank cars transporting high 
hazard materials; and development of secure network to provide 
hazardous materials shippers and tank car owners information regarding 
credible threats to shipments of their products or rolling stock; 
investment in the physical hardening of critical railroad 
infrastructure to enable it to withstand terrorist attacks; tank car 
modifications, or storage of additional tank cars in excess of the 
number normally stored on-site at shippers' facilities, as mandated by 
federal regulators; research and development supporting enhanced safety 
and security of hazardous materials transportation along the freight 
rail network, including: technology for sealing rail cars; techniques 
to transfer hazardous materials from rail cars that are damaged or 
otherwise represent an unreasonable risk to human life or public 
safety; systems to enhance rail car security on shipper property.

  Mr. President, the Safe Rails Act is crucially important legislation 
for the safety and security of our country, and for the protection of 
human health all along our Nation's rail network. I thank the chairman 
of the Commerce Committee for his commitment to mark this bill up early 
next year. I strongly urge the leadership of the Senate to schedule 
consideration of this legislation early in the next session of the 
107th Congress, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1874. A bill to reduce the disparity in punishment between crack 
and powder cocaine offenses, to more broadly focus the punishment for 
drug offenders on the seriousness of the offense and the culpability of 
the offender, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill entitled the 
Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001. This bill provides a measured and 
balanced approach to improving the statutory and guidelines system that 
governs the sentencing of drug offenders.
  This bill makes two important changes to our Federal sentencing 
system for drug offenders: First, it reduces the disparity in sentences 
for crack and powder cocaine from a ratio of 100-to-1 to 20-to-1. It 
does so by reducing the penalty for crack and increasing the penalty 
for powder cocaine.
  Second, the bill shifts some of the sentencing emphasis from drug 
quantity to the nature of the criminal conduct, the degree of the 
defendant's criminality. The bill increases penalties for the worst 
drug offenders that use violence and employ women and children as 
couriers to traffic drugs. The bill decreases mandatory penalties on 
those who play only a minimal role in a drug trafficking offense, such 
as a girlfriend or child of a drug dealer who receives little 
compensation.
  In short, this bill will make measured and balanced improvements in 
the current sentencing system to ensure a more just outcome, tougher 
sentences on the worst and most violent drug offenders and lighter 
sentences on lower-level, nonviolent offenders.
  To understand the changes that I propose, it is necessary to review 
how we got to the present system.
  Prior to the promulgation of the Sentencing Guidelines in 1984, 
judges in the Federal court system had very broad discretion to 
sentence drug offenders. Because judges had different views on 
sentencing, one defendant who committed a crime could receive parole 
while another defendant guilty of the exact same criminal conduct could 
receive literally 20 years in prison. See, e.g., United States 
Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2 (Nov. 2000).
  Further, because of the existence of the parole system, convicts 
generally served only one-third of the sentence announced by the judge. 
Id. There was no truth in sentencing. Thus, the old sentencing system 
lacked uniformity, honesty, and certainty.
  In 1984, a bipartisan Congress enacted and President Reagan signed 
the Sentencing Reform Act as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control 
Act, Pub. L. No. 98-473, Title II, 98 Stat. 2019 (1984). The Sentencing 
Reform Act created the Sentencing Commission and instructed it to 
promulgate sentencing guidelines that would provide more effective, 
more uniform, and more fair sentences. See generally United States 
Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2 (Nov. 2000). As part of this 
reform, Congress abolished the parole system and substantially reduced 
good behavior adjustments. Id. at 1.
  The Sentencing Commission went to work in studying empirical data on 
average sentences imposed for various crimes prior to the Sentencing 
Reform Act. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 
9-10 (Nov. 2000). It then made adjustments for acceptance of 
responsibility and provision of substantial assistance to the 
government. Id. at 10.
  On April 13, 1987, the Sentencing Commission submitted its first set 
of Sentencing Guidelines to Congress. See United States Sentencing 
Commission, Guidelines Manual 1 (Nov. 2000). After the prescribed 
period, the Guidelines took effect on November 1, 1987, and applied to 
all offenses committed on or after that date. Id. at 1.
  In applying the Guidelines to a particular case, a judge must 
generally:
  1. Determine the base offense level for the offense of conviction;
  2. Apply applicable adjustments for the type of victim, the 
defendant's role in the offense, and whether the defendant obstructed 
justice;
  3. Determine the defendant's criminal history category; and
  4. Determine the guideline range based on the defendant's offense 
level and criminal history category. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.1 (2000).
  After all the factors are considered, the judge is required to 
sentence within a narrow range.
  Thus, the promulgation of the Sentencing Guidelines and the repeal of 
the parole system promoted uniformity, honesty, and certainty in 
sentencing.
  In 1989, in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), the 
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing 
Guidelines. Thus, Federal prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and 
Federal judges have been applying the Sentencing Guidelines for over a 
decade.

[[Page S13962]]

  In setting the guideline ranges for particular offenses, the 
Sentencing Commission has to take into account any minimum or maximum 
sentences established by Congress.
  In 1986, Senator Dole introduced on behalf of the Reagan 
administration the Drug-Free Federal Workplace Act of 1986. S. 2849, 
99th Cong. 2d Sess. Sec. 502 (1986). See United States Sentencing 
Commission, Special Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing 
Policy 117 (1995). That bill proposed several mandatory minimum 
sentences for drug trafficking offenses based on the quantity of the 
drug involved in the offense.
  Under the bill, 500 grams of powder cocaine would have triggered a 5-
year mandatory minimum, while it would have taken 25 grams of crack to 
trigger the same 5-year mandatory minimum. This was a 20-to-l ratio of 
powder to crack.
  Ultimately, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the Omnibus 
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that set tough mandatory minimum sentences 
for various quantities of illegal drugs. Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 
3207 (1986). With respect to cocaine, the law was amended to provide 
that a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence would be triggered by 
trafficking just 5 grams of crack cocaine or by trafficking 500 grams 
of powder--a 100-to-1 ratio. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) & (iii). A 
10-year mandatory minimum sentence was imposed for trafficking 50 grams 
of crack or 5 kilograms of powder cocaine, again a 100-to-1 ratio. 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(a)(A)(ii) & (iii).
  Congress, and those of us in the law enforcement field at the time 
believed that there was substantial justification for a large 
differential between crack and powder cocaine. Because crack was cheap, 
addictive, and believed to serve as a catalyst for crime, Congress 
wanted to keep it off the streets and out of poor neighborhoods, which 
were largely minority neighborhoods. Congress sought to accomplish this 
with stiff penalties. See United States Sentencing Commission, Special 
Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy 115-21 (1995) 
(discussing legislative reasons for crack and powder cocaine 
sentences). Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, stated in 1986:

       We all know that crack is the newest and most insidious 
     addition to the drug culture. It is cheaper than cocaine, and 
     more addictive. Young people who experiment with crack often 
     become habitual users because of its highly concentrated 
     narcotic effect. They become addicts before they know what is 
     happening.--132 Cong. Rec. H3515-02 (1986) statement of Rep. 
     Rangel).

  Congressman Rangel, who chaired the Select Committee on Narcotics 
Abuse and Control, called drug dealers

     the entrepreneurs of dealing with the sale of death on the 
     installment plan. (They) have now, in a very sophisticated 
     way, packaged crack which allows our younger people for 
     smaller amounts of money to become addicted.--``Crack,'' 
     Cocaine Derivative, Called Serious Health Threat, Houston 
     Chronicle, July 16, 1986.

  Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida was one of the leaders in the Senate 
on the fight against crack. He stated:

       The whole Nation now knows about crack cocaine. They know 
     it can be bought for the price of a cassette tape, and make 
     people into slaves. It can turn promising young people into 
     robbers and thieves, stealing anything they can to get the 
     money to feed their habit.--132 Cong. Rec. S 26446, 26447 
     (1986) (statement of Sen. Chiles).

  Senator Chiles also stated with regard to the bill imposing the heavy 
penalties on crack,

       The Senate bill contained the Democratic three-tiered 
     penalty system which will impose mandatory sentences and 
     large fines against major drug traffickers and kingpins. . . 
     . I am very pleased that the Senate bill recognizes crack as 
     a distinct and separate drug from [powder] cocaine. . . .--
     132 Cong. Rec. S14270-01 (1986) (statement of Sen. Chiles).

  A principal reason for the 1986 crack law was to keep crack from 
spreading across America and to keep it out of our neighborhoods, 
especially minority neighborhoods.
  Congress continued to follow this line of reasoning in 1988, when it 
passed and President Reagan signed into law the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. 
Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988). In addition to the 
mandatory minimum penalties enacted in 1986 for the trafficking in 
crack cocaine and other drugs, this act added a mandatory minimum 
sentence of 5 years for the simple possession of crack cocaine. 21 
U.S.C. Sec. 844.
  Mandatory minimum sentences at the Federal and State levels for 
various crimes have generally been successful. They have reflected the 
seriousness with which we as a society take certain crimes and they 
have reduced crime by keeping recidivist criminals off the streets for 
longer periods of time. A 1982 Rand study reported that some repeat 
offenders committed 232 burglaries per year and some committed 485 
thefts per year. See Jan M. Chaiken & Marcia R. Chairken, Varieties of 
Criminal Behavior 44 (Rand 1982). By locking up these repeat offenders, 
we could prevent a crime a day in some cases.
  This effort to lock up the worst offenders has resulted in a 
substantial increase in Federal and State prison populations. In fact, 
since 1990 our State and Federal prison populations have increased by a 
total of 79 percent. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 
2000 1 (2001).
  And mandatory minimums did not operate alone. We also made progress 
in reducing drug use, a cause of crime, down to very low levels. With 
solid leadership and antidrug education programs we drove drug use by 
young people down. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future 
Study showed that drug use among 12th grade school children dropped by 
76 percent from 1986 to 1992. Lloyd D. Johnston, et al. Monitoring the 
Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use 14 (Univ. of Mich. 
2000).
  This dual approach of locking up recidivists and reducing drug use 
drove crime rates down. From 1990 to 1999, the crime index offenses 
reported by the FBI, including property crimes and violent crimes, fell 
to their lowest level since 1973. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Crime in the United States--1999 6(2000) (stating that crime index 
offenses for 1999 were the lowest since 1973); Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports 2000 1(2001), stating that during 
2000, crime index offenses remained stable. Thus, the War on Drugs and 
the War on Crime that began in the mid and late 1980s bore fruit in the 
1990s.
  That the system put in place in the 1980s produced good results in 
general, does not mean that it is perfect. With respect to drug 
sentencing in particular, the primary focus of the mandatory minimums 
and the Sentencing Guidelines on quantity has resulted in a blunt 
instrument that data now shows is in need of refinement.
  Since the establishment of mandatory minimums for drug trafficking, 
the Bureau of Prisons published a study on the recidivism of federal 
prisoners convicted for various offenses. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releases in 1987: A Preliminary Report 
(1994). For those prisoners convicted of general drug crimes and 
released after serving their terms, 34.2 percent were rearrested within 
3 years. Id. at 12. For those convicted of firearm and explosive 
crimes, 48.6 percent were rearrested. Id. For those who committed 
crimes against the person, such as robbery or violent assault, 65 
percent were rearrested. Id. Thus, possession of dangerous weapons and 
violence appear to be better indicators of recidivism than the quantity 
of drugs possessed or distributed.
  The 1986 mandatory minimums based on the quantity of crack cocaine 
sold or possessed, while appropriately reflecting that drug's more 
serious effects, failed to keep crack off the streets. The use of crack 
had grown rapidly in the early and mid-1980s and by 1987 and 1988, 
crack was available across America, including my home town of Mobile, 
AL, and small towns all over Alabama. See, e.g., Lloyd D. Johnston, et 
al. Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use 16 
(Univ. of Mich. 2000) (noting that crack use grew rapidly from 1983-
1986); James Coates & Robert Blau, Big-City Gangs Fuel Growing Crack 
Crisis, Chicago Tribune, Sept. 13, 1989, at C1, noting that crack use 
began in Fort Wayne, IN, in 1986 and spread rapidly through that city. 
Though the tough penalties did not stop the geographical spread of 
crack, they did, in my opinion, play a role in slowing the rate of 
increase in use that would have occurred without the tough penalties.
  The mandatory minimums for crack were intended to protect minority 
neighborhoods from the spreading influence of crack. Still, the tough 
penalties for crack created the appearance

[[Page S13963]]

of racial bias because the distributors and users of crack are largely 
African-American.
  Parenthetically, let me note that criminal statutes, as they are 
written, are not biased, they simply required punishment for those who 
break them regardless of race, sex, nationality, or religion. Thus, 
just because more males commit Federal crimes than females, it is not 
unfair or sexist to punish males with all the severity society 
concludes is necessary to stop or reduce crimes that both sexes commit. 
See United States Sentencing Commission, 2000 Sourcebook of Federal 
Sentencing Statistics 15 (Table 5) (reporting that 85.7 percent of 
Federal offenders are male and 14.3 percent are female).
  Because everyone knows that crack carries heavy penalties, I cannot 
conclude that it is discriminatory to punish all who possess or 
distribute it with equal severity. My experience does lead me to 
conclude, however, that where an overwhelming majority of those 
convicted of crack offenses are African-American, and the penalties for 
crack offenses are the most severe, we should listen to fair-minded 
people who argue that these sentences fall too heavily on African-
Americans.
  One of the facts used in the argument for changing crack sentences is 
the percentage of crack defendants that are African-American. In 1995, 
the Sentencing Commission issued report showing that of the defendants 
convicted for crack cocaine offenses, 88.2 percent were African-
American. United States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy 152 (1995). Of the persons sentenced for powder 
cocaine offenses, 32 percent where white, 27.4 percent African-
American, and 37 percent Hispanic, Id.
  This generated stories in newspapers, like one from the Birmingham 
Post-Herald that reported:

       At first, many of the nation's black leaders supported the 
     hard line against drugs. Inner-city church ministers decried 
     the crack epidemic that seemed to blaze through 
     their neighborhoods. But as the disparities in jail 
     sentences became increasingly obvious, support for the 
     policy dried up among many blacks. . . .''--Thomas 
     Hargrove, Drug's Form Influences Length of Sentence, 
     Birmingham Post-Herald, Nov. 17, 1997, at A1, A9 
     (describing differences in punishments for crack and 
     powder cocaine).

  As data from the Sentencing Commission became available during the 
mid-1990s, many federal and state officials, including myself, began to 
doubt whether the 100-to-1 ratio between powder and crack cocaine 
continued to be justifiable.
  We in the public service asked ourselves: ``If in light of our 
experience, we can conclude that crack sentences are disproportionately 
severe, why should we not act to improve them?''
  In 1995 and 1997, the Sentencing Commission unanimously concluded 
that the crack-powder disparity was no longer justified. See United 
States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy 
198-200 (1995); United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to 
the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy 2 (1997).
  Moreover, in 1995, the Sentencing Commission, most of the members of 
which are federal judges, passed two amendments to the Guidelines to 
reduce the disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine. 
Specifically, the amendments would have adopted a starting point for 
the guidelines of equal amounts of crack and powder cocaine--a 1-to-1 
ratio at the 500-gram level, and would have provided a sentencing 
enhancement for violence and other harms associated with crack cocaine. 
See United States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal Sentencing 
Policy 1 (1997). Congress, however, passed and President Clinton signed 
a law that rejected the amendments and directed the Sentencing 
Commission to study the issue more thoroughly. Pub. L. No. 104-38, 109 
Stat. 334 (1995).
  In 1997, the Sentencing Commission responded with a study entitled, 
``Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy.'' The study recommended a 
reduction in the crack-powder differential from 100-1 to approximately 
5-to-1. United States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy 9 (1997). Specifically, the Commission recommended to 
Congress that the trigger points for the 5-year mandatory minimum for 
powder be lowered from 500 grams to a range of 125 to 375 grams and for 
crack be raised from 5 grams to a range of 25 to 75 grams. Id.
  Moreover, some judges who did not sit on the Sentencing Commission 
began speaking out against the crack-powder differential. See, e.g., 
Pete Bowles, Judge Known for Unusual Sentences, Newsday, May 22, 1998, 
at A39 (quoting Judge Jack Weinstein as characterizing the Sentencing 
Guidelines as ``cruel, excessive and unnecessary,'' and saying, ``I 
simply cannot sentence another impoverished person whose destruction 
has no discernible effect on the drug trade''). And some have said that 
judges may have used downward departures more often than they should 
have to reduce drug sentences to a level that they view as more just. 
Indeed, Professors Frank Bowman and Michael Heise, citing a downward 
trend in drug sentences have stated, ``a pervasive disposition toward 
discretionary evasion of Guideline and statutory law has important 
implications for the ongoing struggle among the courts, the Justice 
Department, the Congress, and the Sentencing Commission for control of 
sentencing policy.'' See Frank O. Bowman III & Michael Heise, Quiet 
Rebellion? Explaining Nearly a Decade of Declining Federal Drug 
Sentences, 86 Iowa L. Rev. 1043, 1049-50 (2001).
  To date, however, Congress has declined to address the issue. Many 
say it is because of a fear of being called ``soft on crime.'' 
Regardless, we can wait no longer. Based on our experience, the strong 
position of the Sentencing Commission, which is not a ``soft on crime'' 
group, and plain fairness, we must act. Congress' refusal to act, in my 
view, has been unfortunate.
  And in light of our experience, we can conclude that crack sentences 
are disproportionately severe, why should we not act to improve them? 
To improve these guidelines, to fix them where they are broken, is to 
strengthen the system, to reduce judicial manipulation, and to restore 
confidence in the system's fairness.
  We must remember, however, that the goals of the drug sentencing are 
still valid today, to save babies from being addicted to the drugs 
their mothers take during pregnancy, to save teenagers from wasting 
their youth on drugs that lead to crime, to save young girls from being 
forced into prostitution to feed a habit, and to save adults from 
wasting their lives on nonproductive and damaging drugs.
  I challenge any of you to visit a drug court and look at the 
defendants before and after the drug court program. The transformation 
from a hopeless criminal on drugs to productive citizen off of drugs 
will convince anyone of the danger and destructiveness of illegal 
drugs.
  Does an easing of these tough sentences, but not gutting of them, 
carry risks. Some, but not much:
  1. Some will say that it represents proof that the war against drugs 
is a failure, but as I just explained, the War on Drugs is just as 
worthy a cause today as it used to be;
  2. Some will say that we are less serious, but a balanced reform will 
treat dangerous crimes more seriously;
  3. Some will say that it may ease a bit the pressure a prosecutor can 
put on a drug dealer to cooperate, but a balanced approach will retain 
sufficient leverage for a prosecutor to do his job justly;
  4. Some will say that heavy sentences have had some ability to reduce 
distribution, but of course, after a modest decrease the penalties will 
remain tough.
  After thoughtful review, and consideration in light of my own 
experience in prosecuting drug offense, I have concluded that we must 
reform the justness of our means to match the legitimacy of our goals. 
We must restore justness to sentencing for crack trafficking and other 
drug crimes which will maintain public confidence in the federal 
government's anti-drug efforts and make those efforts more rational and 
justifiable.
  Today, I propose a bill to make two modest changes to the current 
sentencing system:
  First, the bill will reduce the crack-powder sentencing disparity 
from the current 100-to-1 ratio to a 20-to-1 ratio--the same ratio 
proposed by the Reagan Administration in 1986. This bill would trigger 
the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking at 20 grams of 
crack--not 5 grams--and at 400 grams of powder cocaine--not 500

[[Page S13964]]

grams. The 10-year mandatory minimum would be triggered by trafficking 
200 grams of crack and by trafficking 4 kilograms of powder.
  The reduction in the amount of powder cocaine required to trigger the 
mandatory minimum from 500 grams to 400 grams reflects that 400 grams 
is almost a pound of cocaine--a large amount--worth well over $10,000. 
Also, this increase in the penalty for powder cocaine reflects that 
powder cocaine is imported and used as the raw material used to make 
crack. United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report: Cocaine and 
Federal Sentencing Policy vi (1995). Finally, the increased penalty 
responds to the powder cocaine use rates among high school students.
  According to the University of Michigan Study entitled Monitoring the 
Future, powder cocaine use among 12th grade students had risen by 61.3 
percent from 1992 to 2000, although there was a slight decline from 
1999 to 2000. Further, more than twice as many 12th grade students used 
powder cocaine than crack in 1992 and in 2000.

                          12TH GRADERS DRUG USE
                              [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Drug                       1992      2000     Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powder....................................       3.1       5.0      61.3
Crack.....................................       1.5       2.2      46.7
Percent Greater...........................     106.7               127.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  See Lloyd D. Johnston, Monitoring the Future: National Results on 
Adolescent Drug Use 14 (Univ. of Mich. 2000) (Table 2).
  We need to discourage those who are dealing powder cocaine to our 
high school students and those who are providing a supply market of 
powder cocaine that enable the manufacture of crack. This bill does 
this by providing a small increase in the penalty for powder cocaine.
  The bill's decrease in the penalty for crack reflects that a 
principal reason for creating the much more severe sentence on crack, 
to prevent the spread of crack use, has failed. Crack is used 
throughout America.
  The bill's approach of narrowing, but not eliminating, the sentencing 
disparity between crack and powder cocaine by changing the penalties 
for both drugs parallels the 1997 Sentencing Commission recommendation 
of increasing penalties and decreasing penalties on crack. United 
States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Federal 
Sentencing Policy 9 (1997). Further, it is consistent with the 
bipartisan Act of Congress that President Clinton signed in 1995 
rejecting the Sentencing Commission's attempt to equalize the penalties 
for crack and powder cocaine. That act stated, ``the sentence imposed 
for trafficking in a quantity of crack cocaine should generally exceed 
the sentence imposed for trafficking a like quantity of powder 
cocaine.'' Pub. L. No. 104-38, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. Sec. 2(a)(1)(A) 
(1995). The bill changes the penalties for crack and powder to reduce 
the 100-to-1 disparity, but retains a reasonable distinction, a 20-to-1 
ratio, between crack and powder.
  The bill also reduces the 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for the 
simple possession of 5 grams of crack to just 1 year. This reflects 
that crack is a more serious drug than most other drugs, but that the 
sentence need not be unjustifiably harsh.
  Second, the bill increases emphasis on defendant's criminality, as 
opposed to a heavy emphasis on the quantity of drug involved. This bill 
requires a sentencing enhancement for violence or possession of a 
firearm, or other dangerous weapon, associated with a drug trafficking 
offense. This reflects that use of a dangerous weapon or violent action 
results in higher recidivism rates than drug use along. See Federal 
Bureau of Prisons, Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releases in 1987: A 
Preliminary Report 12 (1994).
  Further, the bill requires an additional enhancement if the defendant 
is an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the drug trafficking 
offense and a ``superaggravating'' factor applies. Superaggravating 
factors include using a girlfriend or child to distribute drugs, 
maintaining a crack house, distributing a drugs to minor, an elderly 
person, or a pregnant woman, bribing a law enforcement official, 
importing drugs in the United States from a foreign country, or 
committing the drug offense as a part of a pattern of criminal conduct 
engaging in as a livelihood. These sentencing enhancements will apply 
to offenses involving cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, and all 
illegal drugs.
  Aside from the girlfriend factor, many of the superaggravating 
factors are already available in certain cases. The bill would employ 
these punishments in drug cases as sentencing enhancements, instead of 
statutory penalties, thus allowing a Federal prosecutor to obtain 
the tougher penalty by proving the superaggravating criminal conduct by 
a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Further, the bill will make some enhancements easier to establish. For 
example instead of proving that a victim had a particular vulnerability 
to a crime, a prosecutor could simply show that the victim was 16 years 
old.

  The offenders to which these sentencing enhancements apply are the 
most culpable members of the drug trade that prey on young women, 
school children, and the elderly, and bring violence into our 
neighborhoods. Their sentences should reflect the criminality of their 
conduct, not simply the quantity of drugs with which they are caught.
  While providing sentencing increases for the worst offenders, the 
bill limits the impact of mandatory minimums on the least dangerous 
offenders. The bill caps the drug quantity portion of a sentence for a 
defendant who plays a minimal role at 10 years, base offense level 32 
under the Sentencing Guidelines. This is very significant because 
couriers, who are often low-level participants in a drug organization, 
can have disproportionate sentences of 20 or 30 years simply because 
they are caught with a large amount of drugs in their possession. By 
capping the impact of drug quantity on the minimal role offenders, the 
bill allows a greater role for the criminality, or lack of criminality, 
of their conduct in determining their ultimate sentence.
  For example, the bill provides a decrease for the super-mitigating 
factor of the girlfriend or child who plays a minimal role in the 
offense. These are often the most abused victims of the drug trade, and 
we should not punish them as harshly as the drug dealer who used them.
  Existing adjustments could then be made for factors such as the role 
in the offense, acceptance of responsibility, and provision of 
substantial assistance to the government.
  The bill also establishes a 3-year pilot program for placing elderly, 
nonviolent prisoners in home detention in lieu of prison. It allows the 
Attorney General to designate 1 or more Federal prisons at which 
prisoners who meet the following criteria could be placed in home 
detention.
  The prisoner: 1. is at least 65 years old; 2. has served the greater 
of 10 years or one-half of his sentence; 3. has never committed a 
Federal or State crime of violence; 4. is not determined by the Bureau 
of Prisons to have a history of violence or to have committed a violent 
infraction while in prison; and 5. has not escaped or attempted to 
escape.
  My experience tells me, that elderly prisoners who are nonviolent and 
who have served a substantial amount of their sentence generally pose 
no threat to the community. Removing them from prison and placing them 
in home detention could save the federal government money and free up 
space to house the most dangerous criminals.
  The bill, however, would require an independent study on recidivism 
and cost savings. At the end of 3 years, Congress could decide whether 
to continue or expand the pilot program.
  There are those on the Left of the political spectrum who want to 
substantially restrict or even repeal mandatory minimums for some drug 
offenders and oppose all drug penalty increases. I firmly disagree with 
such an approach. The Sentencing Guidelines and mandatory minimum 
statutes have been a critical component of a criminal justice system 
that treats equal conduct equally. It increases deterrence because 
criminals know they will not be able to talk themselves out of jail. It 
is a great system. By following the balanced approach that I have 
proposed, we improve the guidelines and improve sentencing. My goal is 
to have our sentencing system consistently impose the right sentence to 
incapacitate, deter, punish, and rehabilitate the criminal. Because 
Congress has set the rules, we

[[Page S13965]]

must act to improve them. The courts cannot do it for us.

  There are those on the Right side of the political spectrum, however, 
who do not want to decrease any drug penalty whatsoever. While I 
respect their view, I can not embrace it. The mandatory minimums have 
been in effect since 1986 and the Sentencing Guidelines have been in 
effect since 1987. We are not in a position to reflect on what the 
effects have been.
  As we have seen from experience, the 100-to-1 disparity in sentencing 
between crack cocaine and power cocaine, which falls the hardest on 
African-Americans, is not justifiable. See, e.g., 145 Cong. Rec. S. 
14452-14453 (1999), (statement of Sen. Sessions,to-1 ratio is a 
movement in the right direction,'' but questioning whether solely 
increasing penalties on crack was justifiable). It is simply unjust.
  Further, the focus of the drug sentencing system on quantity of 
drugs, which has sent the girlfriends of drug dealers, who act as mere 
couriers, to prison for long terms, should be adjusted to increase the 
emphasis on the criminality of conduct. This will free up prison space 
for violent drug offenders.
  Trust me on this. The federal drug sentences are tough. In practice--
as they play out in actual time served, they are tougher than any State 
drug sentences that I know of. This legislation will in no way change 
the seriousness with which drugs are taken. Please know that I will 
resist with all the force I can muster any attempt to destroy or 
undermine the integrity or effectiveness of the Sentencing Guidelines. 
This bill simply targets the toughest sentences to those who deserve it 
most.
  The Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001 takes a measured and balanced 
approach to modifying the sentencing system that we have used for over 
a decade. By increasing penalties on the worst offenders and decreasing 
penalties on the least dangerous offenders, we will increase the focus 
of our law enforcement resources on the drug traffickers that endanger 
our families and decrease the focus on those defendants who pose less 
danger.
  I commend this bill to my colleagues to study and debate. I challenge 
them to cast aside the politics of the Left and the Right and to 
support this bill on the merits as a matter of plain, simple justice.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the 
legislation that my good friend from the State of Alabama, Senator 
Sessions, has introduced today. That legislation, the ``Drug Sentencing 
Reform Act of 2001,'' addresses the disparity between sentences handed 
down to those who traffic in power cocaine and those who traffic in 
crack cocaine. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I hope that we 
can promptly act on it when we return next year.
  This legislation provides a balanced and measured solution to the 
disparity problem without undermining our efforts to pursue 
relentlessly those who make their living peddling these poisons. At the 
same time that we reduce the crack-powder sentence ratio from 100 to 1 
to 20 to 1 and reduce sentences for girlfriends and children who play 
truly minimal roles in drug crimes, we increase sentences for those who 
play leadership roles in trafficking organizations. The bill also 
increases sentences for those who use firearms or violence in carrying 
out their drug crimes.
  As a former federal prosecutor, United States Attorney, and Attorney 
General of Alabama, Senator Sessions is uniquely qualified to lead the 
Senate on this issue. Since at least 1998, he has done just that. Both 
in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate, Senator 
Sessions has worked tirelessly to bring about a more just sentencing 
structure for cocaine offenses. This legislation represents the right 
approach, and it deserves the support of all of my colleagues.
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
        Dodd):
  S. 1876. A bill to establish a National Foundation for the Study of 
Holocaust Assets; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce with 
Senator Clinton, the Holocaust Victims' Assets Restitution Policy and 
Remembrance Act. This legislation will create a public/private 
Foundation dedicated to educating and to completing the necessary 
research in the area of Holocaust-era assets and restitution policy and 
to promote innovative solutions to restitution issues. The Foundation 
is authorized for ten years at a cost of $100 million, after which it 
will sunset and ``spin off'' its research results and materials to 
private entities. It is able to accept private funds as well as public 
dollars.
  The need for the Foundation comes from the work of the Presidential 
Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. I was 
proud to have served as a Commissioner along with several of my 
colleagues in the Senate. The Commission identified a number of policy 
initiatives that require U.S. leadership, including: further research 
and review of Holocaust-era assets in the United States and world-wide; 
providing for the dissemination of information about restitution 
programs; creating a simple mechanism to assist claimants in obtaining 
resolution of claims; and, supporting a modern database of Holocaust 
victims' claims for the restitution of personal property.
  The Commission determined that ``our government performed in an 
unprecedented and exemplary manner in attempting to ensure the 
restitution of assets to victims of the Holocaust. However, even the 
best intentioned and most comprehensive policies were unable, given the 
unique circumstances of the time, to ensure that all victims' assets 
were restituted.''
  I believe this Foundation will provide a focal point for work between 
Federal and State governments to cross-match property records with 
lists of Holocaust victims. It will work with the museum community to 
further stimulate provenance research into European paintings and 
Judaica. It will promote and monitor the implementation by major 
banking institutions of the agreement developed in conjunction with the 
New York Bankers Association. Finally, it will work with the private 
sector to develop and promote common standards and best practices for 
research on Holocaust-era assets.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in creating this 
Foundation to finish the work of the Holocaust Assets Commission. I 
urge all my colleagues to co-sponsor this important legislation that 
will solve restitution issues and engender needed research on Holocaust 
assets in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1877. A bill to clarify and reaffirm a cause of action and Federal 
court jurisdiction for certain claims against the Government of Iran; 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we all remember the dark days of the Iran 
hostage crisis between 1979 and 1981. Fifty-two Americans were taken 
hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held in captivity by the 
Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers for the ensuing 444 days in the 
newly-established Islamic Republic of Iran. They were brutalized by 
their captors and the pain and suffering of these brave Americans and 
their families throughout that ordeal cannot be over-estimated.
  A constituent of mine, Ms. Kathryn Koob, from Waverly, IA, is one of 
two women former hostages who endured this nightmarish experience. Last 
December, she joined the other 51 American heroes taken hostage and 
their families in filing a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of the 
District of Columbia seeking redress of this grievous miscarriage of 
justice and payment by the Government of Iran for the damages and 
injuries they incurred. If these plaintiffs are successful, the Federal 
courts could order payment from Iranian cash and assets still frozen in 
the United States.
  Incredibly, the U.S. Justice and State Departments in mid-October 
and, at the latest possible hour, intervened in this case, Roeder v. 
the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking to vacate the Federal judge's 
default judgment in favor of the former hostages and their families and 
to have this lawsuit dismissed altogether. De facto the Bush 
Administration is siding with the Government of Iran and against our 
own people who were taken hostage and treated so cruelly during the 
Embassy takeover. How could this be, especially when we are

[[Page S13966]]

united as a Nation in a war against terrorism and the U.S. State 
Department itself continues to document and declare the Government of 
Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world today?
  The Government of Iran has never had to pay one cent to any of the 
Americans taken hostage or their families. If U.S. Justice and State 
Department attorneys get their way, the Government of Iran will never 
have to pay anything and the hostages and their families will never be 
given their day in Federal court to pursue justice and be awarded 
compensation.
  That is why I am today introducing legislation, The Justice for 
Former U.S. Hostages in Iran Act, to prevent this grave injustice from 
being compounded. My bill would reaffirm the clear intent of this 
Congress expressed in four prior enactments and make crystal clear that 
this group of hostages and their families have the right to pursue 
their Federal lawsuit to its rightful conclusion and to be eligible to 
receive compensatory damage awards from the Government of Iran, should 
the Federal courts so determine on the merits.
  The position of the U.S. Justice and State Departments, contrary to 
the claims and interests of the American hostages and their families, 
is that the U.S. Government must honor a little-known executive 
agreement called the Algiers Accords that Presidents Carter and Reagan 
entered into in January, 1981 in order to get our hostages released 
from captivity inside Iran. The Algiers Accords, among other 
provisions, required the U.S. to immediately transfer to Iran through
  Algeria $7.9 billion in frozen assets in exchange for the freedom of 
our people. But also buried in the fine print of the Algiers Accords is 
one very specific provision which singularly strips the hostages and 
their families of their rights and flatly prohibits any of them from 
ever being able to sue the Government of Iran and make that regime pay 
for their pain and suffering. Ironically, under the terms of the 
Algiers Accords, U.S. companies can take the Iranians before an 
international tribunal at The Hague and recover damages for their lost 
property, but the Americans actually taken hostage and their families 
alone, are prohibited from doing the same. This is patently unfair to 
those American heroes and their families who suffered the most from 
this hellish experience.
  The Algiers Accords is not a treaty. It was never submitted to the 
Senate for ratification for obvious reasons. It is a shabby executive 
agreement that was negotiated under extreme duress and entered into 
between the executive branch of our government and the Government of 
Iran because the Government of Iran, at that time, was daily 
threatening otherwise to put all of our hostages on trial in Iran as 
``spies'' and to execute them. In fact, the Algiers Accords, from their 
inception, have functioned as little more than a ransom pact with 
kidnappers acting in the name and under the sponsorship of the 
Government of Iran.
  Last week, the Federal judge hearing this case expressed a reluctance 
to make a final judgment and to order the Government of Iran to pay 
damages unless the Congress takes further legislative action to clearly 
and irrefutably abrogate the Algiers Accords insofar as necessary to 
allow the Americans held hostage and their families to sue in federal 
court and recover damages from the Government of Iran. The next court 
proceeding is this unresolved matter has been scheduled for January 14.
  I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor 
this legislation with a sense of urgency and fairness. Unless the 
Congress acts promptly to reaffirm and clarify our prior enactments, 
the U.S. Justice and State Departments will block the only path still 
open to the hostages and their families to pursue justice, to get a 
federal court judgment against the Government of Iran for its brutal 
and criminal misconduct, and to require this on-going state sponsor of 
international terrorism to pay for the pain, suffering and injuries 
they inflicted on Kathryn Koob and these other courageous Americans.
  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. 1877

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

     SECTION 1. FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 
                   AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN.

       (a) Cause of Action.--Notwithstanding the Algiers Accords, 
     any other international agreement, or any other provision of 
     law, a former Iranian hostage or immediate relative thereof 
     shall have a cause of action for money damages against the 
     Government of Iran for the hostage taking and any death, 
     disability, or other injury (including pain and suffering and 
     financial loss) to the former Iranian hostage resulting from 
     the former Iranian hostage's period of captivity in Iran.
       (b) Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.--Notwithstanding 
     the Algiers Accords, any other international agreement, or 
     any other provision of law, no United States court shall 
     decline to hear or determine on the merits a claim under 
     subsection (a) against the Government of Iran.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Algiers Accords.--The term ``Algiers Accords'' means 
     the Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and 
     Popular Republic of Algeria concerning commitments and 
     settlement of claims by the United States and Iran with 
     respect to resolution of the crisis arising out of the 
     detention of 52 United States nationals in Iran, with 
     Undertakings and Escrow Agreement, done at Algiers January 
     19, 1981.
       (2) Former iranian hostage.--The term ``former Iranian 
     hostage'' means any United States personnel held hostage in 
     Iran during the period of captivity in Iran.
       (3) Immediate relative.--The term ``immediate relative'' 
     means, with respect to a former Iranian hostage, the parent, 
     spouse, son, or daughter of the former Iranian hostage.
       (4) Period of captivity in iran.--The term ``period of 
     captivity in Iran'' means the period beginning on November 4, 
     1979, and ending on January 20, 1981.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to--
       (1) any action brought before the date of enactment of this 
     Act and being maintained on such date; and
       (2) any action brought on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1878. A bill to establish programs to address the health care 
needs of residents of the United States-Mexico Border Area, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S./
Mexico Border Health Improvement Act. The issue of public health along 
the U.S./Mexico Border is as vast and varied as the 2000-mile Border 
itself. With the enactment of the NAFTA agreement, and the tremendous 
growth in population in the region, the Border represents, for both 
countries, the area of both greatest potential and enormous challenge. 
From San Yisidro to Brownsville, and from Tijuana to Matamoros, over 10 
million people call the Border region home. At the same time, the U.S. 
Border population is growing three times as fast as the rest of the 
Nation's, and the population of Mexico's border cities is expected to 
double over the next decade. For this reason, I am pleased to be joined 
by Senator Bingaman to offer legislation on the critical issue of 
improving U.S./Mexico Border Health.
  The Border region is like a ``top ten'' list of substandard living 
conditions: the highest poverty rate; the lowest education rate; 
highest unemployment; worst environmental degradation; and the worst 
record for all major public health indicators.
  The statistics are mind-numbing, but it is the sad reality of the 
human suffering and of the individuals, families, and communities 
behind those numbers that is so heart wrenching. Diabetes, HIV, 
hepatitis, tuberculosis, and birth defects all remain 
disproportionately and unacceptably high. Meanwhile, childhood 
immunizations, screenings, health education, and the ratio of health 
care providers to the general population all remain unacceptably low.
  This legislation that I offer today provides for a comprehensive 
border health program to address this woeful situation that includes 
the creation of an office of Border Health within Health and Human 
Services, authorizations for community health centers, and dental 
outreach programs. This bill also directs the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to recruit and retain quality members of the National 
Health Service Corps for service

[[Page S13967]]

in the border region, while requesting authorization for the 
recruitment, training and retaining of bilingual health professionals, 
``promotor(a)s.''
  As a member of the United States Senate, I have worked very hard to 
improve the health of Border residents in the short term, but more 
important, to putting in place the infrastructure and institutions 
necessary to ensure a good, healthful life for our Nation's people well 
into the twenty-first century.
  I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his support on this issue, 
and I urge other Senators to join us in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1878

       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 ``United States/Mexico Border 
     Health Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States-Mexico Border Area is the area 
     located in the United States within 100 kilometers of the 
     border between the United States and Mexico.
       (2) In the United States, the United States-Mexico Border 
     Area encompasses 46 counties in California, Arizona, New 
     Mexico, and Texas.
       (3) Presently, the United States-Mexico Border Area is 
     experiencing explosive population growth. In the United 
     States, this region currently has 11,500,000 residents. 
     However, this number is expected to exceed 22,000,000 by the 
     year 2025. The population of the region in Mexico is growing 
     at an ever faster rate. In total, the population of the 
     communities in both countries is expected to double between 
     the years 2020 and 2025.
       (4) With 11,500,000 residents and a 2,000-mile expanse, the 
     United States-Mexico Border Area has the population and size 
     of a State of the United States. If the region was such a 
     State, it would rank--
       (A) last in access to health care;
       (B) second in death rates (due to hepatitis);
       (C) third in deaths related to diabetes;
       (D) first in the number of tuberculosis cases;
       (E) first in schoolchildren living in poverty; and
       (F) last in per capita income.
       (5) In addition to the specific health problems listed in 
     paragraph (5), hundreds of thousands of Area residents also 
     each day face increased health risks due to being exposed to 
     the polluted water, soil, and air of the region.
       (6) Every county in the United States-Mexico Border Area in 
     the United States has at least a partial health professional 
     shortage area designation. Twenty-five percent of such 
     counties have severe shortages and lack adequate primary care 
     physicians. The shortage of dentists is also severe in many 
     Area localities.
       (7) According to GAO, the United States-Mexico Border Area 
     contains hundreds of colonias. Colonias are substandard 
     developments that typically lack running water, sewerage 
     systems, and electricity. Many of the residents of colonias 
     are migrant farmworker families.
       (8) Due to the poor living conditions in the colonias, the 
     United States-Mexico Border Area has a much higher rate of 
     waterborne infectious diseases. The occurrence of hepatitis 
     A, for example, is 3 times the national rate, and the 
     occurrence of salmonella and shigella dysentery occur is 2 to 
     4 times the national rate.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) United States-Mexico Border Area.--The term ``United 
     States-Mexico Border Area'' means the area located in the 
     United States within 100 kilometers of the border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 4. OFFICE OF BORDER HEALTH.

       (a) In General.--There is established within the Department 
     of Health and Human Services an Office of Border Health 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Office'').
       (b) Director.--The Secretary shall appoint a Director of 
     the Office to administer and oversee the functions of such 
     Office.
       (c) Authority.--In overseeing the Office, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director--
       (1) shall be responsible for the overall direction of the 
     Office and for the establishment and implementation of 
     general policies respecting the management and operation of 
     programs and activities of the Office;
       (2) shall establish programs and activities to study and 
     monitor border health service delivery in general, the 
     coordination of Federal and State and Federal and local 
     border health activities, the health education available for 
     border residents, existing outreach for residents and the 
     success of such outreach, health service activities, 
     particularly prevention, and early intervention activities, 
     and any other activity that the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate to improve the health of United States-Mexico 
     Border Area residents, including the health of Native 
     American tribes located within the primary Area;
       (3) shall review Federal public health programs and 
     identify opportunities for collaboration with other Federal, 
     State, and local efforts to address border health issues;
       (4) shall coordinate activities with the United States-
     Mexico Border Health Commission and State offices;
       (5) shall award grants to States, local governments, 
     nonprofit organizations, or other eligible entities as 
     determined by the Secretary, in the United States-Mexico 
     border area to address priorities and recommendations 
     established by--
       (A) the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission on a 
     binational basis, including the Healthy Border 2010 Program 
     Objectives; and
       (B) the Director, to improve the health of border region 
     residents;
       (6) shall award grants to programs that seek to improve the 
     health care of Area residents, with priority given to 
     applicants such as the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration and other applicants that seek to provide 
     telemedicine and telehealth services; and
       (7) shall collaborate with appropriate counterparts in 
     Mexico to coordinate actions and programs to improve health 
     for residents of the United States-Mexico border area.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     describing Federal health programs' limitations in addressing 
     United States-Mexico Border Area health concerns and 
     recommending solutions to better address such concerns.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER AREA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     eligible entities as determined by the Secretary to establish 
     environmental health hazard programs for the United States-
     Mexico Border Area.
       (b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that 
     propose to establish and carry out programs that address 
     environmental health hazards in the United States-Mexico 
     Border Area for pregnant women and children.
       (c) Duties.--An eligible entity that receives a grant under 
     this section, shall use funds received through such grant 
     to--
       (1) establish an environmental health program that 
     addresses health hazards along the United States-Mexico 
     Border Area;
       (2) identify and eliminate environmental health hazards;
       (3) coordinate its program with any environmental health 
     programs, if applicable, administered by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the National Institute of Environmental 
     Health Sciences, the International Consortium for the 
     Environment (ICE), other relevant Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, and nongovernmental organizations;
       (4) recruit and train health professionals and 
     environmental health specialists to identify and address 
     environmental health hazards in the United States-Mexico 
     Border Area; or
       (5) support State and local public health, food safety, and 
     building inspection agencies to reduce environmental health 
     hazards, including hazards existing in or around private 
     residences in the United States-Mexico Border Area.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 6. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS.

       Part D of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 330I. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER AREA GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     eligible entities as determined by the Secretary to establish 
     community health centers in medically underserved areas of 
     the United States-Mexico Border Area.
       ``(b) Definitions.--The term ``United States-Mexico Border 
     Area'' means the area located in the United States within 100 
     kilometers of the border between the United States and 
     Mexico.
       ``(c) Duties.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section shall establish and fund community health 
     centers in medically underserved areas of the United States-
     Mexico Border Area, and as designated by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.''.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.

       Subpart II of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S13968]]

     ``SEC. 339. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a loan 
     repayment program and recruit National Health Service Corps 
     members to provide health services for United States-Mexico 
     Border Area residents in exchange for participation in such 
     program.
       ``(b) Preference.--In selecting Corps members to 
     participate, the Secretary shall give preference to 
     pediatricians and pediatric specialists who are fluent in 
     English and Spanish, and to applicants who agree to serve 
     along the United States-Mexico Border Health Area for at 
     least 2 years.
       ``(c) Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a loan 
     repayment program described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Contract.--Under such program, the Secretary shall 
     enter into written agreements with individuals selected by 
     the Secretary to provide the health services described in 
     subsection (a) in exchange for the Secretary providing 
     payment for the individual for the principal, interest, and 
     related expenses on government and commercial loans received 
     by the individual regarding the graduate or undergraduate 
     education of the individual (or both).
       ``(3) Payment for years served.--For every 2 years of 
     service that an individual contracts to serve under this 
     section the Secretary may pay for 1 year of educational 
     expenses, including tuition, living expenses, and any other 
     such reasonable educational expenses.
       ``(d) United States-Mexico Border Area.--The term ``United 
     States-Mexico Border Area'' means the area located in the 
     United States within 100 kilometers of the border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.''.

     SEC. 8. PROMOTOR(A) GRANT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to eligible entities to establish promotor(a) programs to 
     recruit, train, and retain bilingual lay health advisers to 
     provide culturally appropriate health education and other 
     services for medically underserved populations in the United 
     States-Mexico Border Area.
       (b) Definition.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     school of public health, an academic health sciences center, 
     a Federally qualified health center, a public health agency, 
     a border health office, or a border health education training 
     center or any other entity determined by the Secretary that 
     is located in or that serves the United States-Mexico Border 
     Area.
       (c) Duties.--An eligible entity that receives a grant under 
     this section shall, in addition to the duties described in 
     subsection (a), develop bilingual promotor(a) and other 
     border-specific health training programs.
       (d) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under 
     this section, shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 9. GRANTS FOR DISTANCE LEARNING.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to United States-Mexico Border Area State and local health 
     agencies, community health centers, and other appropriate 
     organizations to fully participate in the provider education 
     distance learning/information dissemination network of the 
     Health Services and Resources Administration.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 10. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF HIV/AIDS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     study to review agency activities regarding reducing the 
     spread of HIV/Aids affecting the residents in the United 
     States-Mexico Border Area.
       (b) Coordinations.--In carrying out such study, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate activities with the appropriate 
     Federal and State agencies and with appropriate agencies in 
     Mexico to develop early intervention and treatment efforts to 
     curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 11. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     study to review agency activities regarding reducing the 
     spread of tuberculosis, particularly multi-drug resistant 
     tuberculosis, affecting the residents in the United States-
     Mexico Border Area.
       (b) Coordination.--In carrying out such study, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate activities with the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service and other appropriate Federal and 
     State agencies and with appropriate agencies in Mexico to 
     develop diagnosis, detection, and early intervention and 
     treatment efforts to curb the spread of tuberculosis, 
     particularly multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 12. CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish a targeted campaign of public 
     education and awareness in the United States-Mexico Border 
     Area that is culturally relevant to the residents of that 
     Area.

     SEC. 13. INTERVENTION AND TREATMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to eligible entities as determined by the Secretary to carry 
     out intervention and treatment programs for diabetes.
       (b) Use of Funds.--An entity that receives a grant under 
     this section shall use funds received through such grant to--
       (1) develop intervention programs oriented towards 
     increasing access to diabetes health care;
       (2) increase venues and opportunities for physical activity 
     and exercise in the border area;
       (3) address obesity as a risk factor for diabetes, 
     especially in juvenile populations;
       (4) improve health choices in school nutrition; and
       (5) develop diabetes networks and coalitions to encourage 
     communities to address diabetes risk factors.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 14. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention shall establish a National Border Health 
     Databank (referred to in this section as the ``Databank'') to 
     gather and retain data and other information on the health of 
     United States-Mexico Border Area residents and on past, 
     present, and emerging health issues in such Area.
       (b) Content.--The Databank shall include an Epidemiological 
     Information System that shall be linked, where feasible, to 
     all relevant State and local health agencies and other 
     relevant national and international health organizations.
       (c) Availability of Data.--All information gathered and 
     retained by the Databank shall, where practicable, be made 
     available for the public via the Internet. The Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention shall publish no less than 
     quarterly a publication reporting on activities, studies, and 
     trends regarding United States-Mexico Border Area health 
     issues, including, the resources available from the Databank.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 15. CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL PREVENTION.

       (a) Program Authorized.--There is established within the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a Border Health 
     Surveillance Network (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Network'').
       (b) Duties.--The Network shall--
       (1) carry out activities to develop and electronically link 
     the health surveillance, assessment, and response 
     capabilities of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention and all border State and local health agencies; 
     and
       (2) award grants to State and local public health agencies, 
     medical schools, schools of public health, Border Health 
     Education Training Centers, or other entities as determined 
     by the Secretary located in or serving the United States-
     Mexico Border Area for the development of border health 
     epidemiology training programs and to build upon the existing 
     Health Alert Network, the Information Network for Public 
     Health Officials, the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance 
     (``BIDS'') Project, and a Noncommunicable Disease 
     Surveillance System.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 16. BORDER AREA BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING.

       Section 1501 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300k) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Special Consideration for Border Area Residents.--In 
     making grants under subsection (a), the Secretary shall set-
     aside certain funds described in give special consideration 
     to any State that proposes to increase the number of United 
     States-Mexico Border Area residents who are screened for 
     breast and cervical cancer.''.

     SEC. 17. GRANTS FOR BORDER AREA HEALTH TESTING.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall award grants to United States-
     Mexico Border Area State and local health agencies to upgrade 
     public health laboratories and conduct rapid tests for 
     disease organisms and toxic chemicals.
       (b) Coordination.--A State or local health agency that 
     receives a grant under this section shall, to the extent 
     possible, coordinate its activities carried out with funds 
     received under this section with activities carried out under 
     programs administered by the National Laboratory Training 
     Network.
       (c) Application.--A State or local health agency desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Director

[[Page S13969]]

     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     as the Director may reasonably require.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 18. HEALTH PROMOTION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish new, 
     comprehensive guidelines for community- and family-oriented 
     prevention and health promotion activities focused on 
     Guidelines under The Healthy Border 2010 Guidelines. The 
     Director shall disseminate these guidelines in both English 
     and Spanish to all United States-Mexico Border Area health 
     professionals, utilizing all available tools, including the 
     CDC Prevention Guidelines Database.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 19. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The General Accounting Office 
     shall conduct a comprehensive study of Federal and Federal 
     and State border health programs.
       (b) Content.--The study described in subsection (a) shall 
     review border health care programs to determine the manner in 
     which such programs may be improved. Such study shall also 
     review any problematic limitations of medicare and medicaid 
     programs in serving United States-Mexico Border Area 
     residents.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the General Accounting Office 
     shall prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the 
     findings of the study described in subsection (a) and 
     recommending certain courses of action to improve such border 
     health care programs, with particular emphasis on 
     recommendations for improving Federal and State and Federal 
     and local coordinations. Such report shall also make 
     recommendations for changes with regard to medicare and 
     medicaid payment laws and policies for telemedicine and 
     telehealth activities.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 20. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY.

       (a) In General.--The Agency for Health Care Research and 
     Quality shall conduct a comprehensive study of border health 
     needs, trends, and areas of needed improvement and shall 
     utilize border academic institutes to carry out such study 
     and share the results of such study with such institutes.
       (b) Content.--The study described in subsection (a) shall 
     study the health needs of United States-Mexico Border Area 
     residents and--
       (1) residents' access to health care services;
       (2) communicable disease control in the Area;
       (3) environmental problems in the Area that contribute to 
     health care problems;
       (4) health research being done on residents' health care 
     needs;
       (5) make recommendations regarding environmental 
     improvements that may be made to improve health conditions of 
     Area residents; and
       (6) make recommendations regarding long range plans to 
     improve the quality and availability of health care of Area 
     residents.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 21. GRANTS TO INCREASE RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY WATER 
                   FLUORIDATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the Division of Oral Health of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, may make grants to Southwestern 
     border States or localities for the purpose of increasing the 
     resources available for community water fluoridation.
       (b) Use of Funds.--A State or locality shall use amounts 
     provided under a grant under subsection (a)--
       (1) to purchase fluoridation equipment;
       (2) to train fluoridation engineers; or
       (3) to develop educational materials on the advantages of 
     fluoridation.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 22. COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the U.S. Mexico Border Health Commission and the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall 
     establish a demonstration project that is designed to assist 
     rural water systems in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and 
     California in successfully implementing the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention water fluoridation guidelines 
     entitled ``Engineering and Administrative Recommendations for 
     Water Fluoridation'' (referred to in this section as the 
     ``EARWF'').
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Collaboration.--The Director of the U.S. Mexico Border 
     Health Commission shall collaborate with the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing the 
     project under subsection (a). Through such collaboration the 
     Directors shall ensure that technical assistance and training 
     are provided to sites located in each of the 4 States 
     referred to in subsection (a). The Director of the U.S. 
     Mexico Border Health Commission shall provide coordination 
     and administrative support to tribes under this section.
       (2) General use of funds.--Amounts made available under 
     this section shall be used to assist small water systems in 
     improving the effectiveness of water fluoridation and to meet 
     the recommendations of the EARWF.
       (3) Fluoridation specialists.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall provide for the establishment of fluoridation 
     specialist engineering positions in each of the Dental 
     Clinical and Preventive Support Centers through which 
     technical assistance and training will be provided to tribal 
     water operators.
       (B) CDC.--The Director of the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention shall appoint individuals to serve as the 
     fluoridation specialists.
       (4) Implementation.--The project established under this 
     section shall be planned, implemented and evaluated over the 
     5-year period beginning on the date on which funds are 
     appropriated under this section and shall be designed to 
     serve as a model for improving the effectiveness of water 
     fluoridation systems of small rural communities.
       (c) Evaluation.--In conducting the ongoing evaluation as 
     provided for in subsection (b)(4), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that such evaluation includes--
       (1) the measurement of changes in water fluoridation 
     compliance levels resulting from assistance provided under 
     this section;
       (2) the identification of the administrative, technical and 
     operational challenges that are unique to the fluoridation of 
     small water systems;
       (3) the development of a practical model that may be easily 
     utilized by other tribal, State, county or local governments 
     in improving the quality of water fluoridation with emphasis 
     on small water systems; and
       (4) the measurement of any increased percentage of 
     Southwestern border residents who receive the benefits of 
     optimally fluoridated water.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 23. COMMUNITY-BASED DENTAL SEALANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, may award grants to 
     eligible entities determined by the Secretary to provide for 
     the development of innovative programs utilizing mobile van 
     units to carry out dental sealant activities to improve the 
     access of children to sealants as well as for prevention and 
     primary care.
       (b) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant under subsection (a) to provide funds to 
     eligible community-based entities to make available a mobile 
     van unit to provide children in second or sixth grade with 
     access to dental care and dental sealant services. Such 
     services may be provided by dental hygienists so long as a 
     formalized plan for the referral of a child for treatment of 
     dental problems is established.
       (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive funds under 
     this section an entity shall--
       (1) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require; and
       (2) be a community-based entity that is determined by the 
     Secretary to provide an appropriate entry point for children 
     into the dental care system and be located within 100 
     kilometers of the United States Mexico Border.
       (d) Coordination with Other Programs.--An entity that 
     receives funds from a State under this section shall serve as 
     an enrollment site for purposes of enabling individuals to 
     enroll in the State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or in the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.

     SEC. 24. UNITED STATES HISPANIC NUTRITION EDUCATION AND 
                   RESEARCH CENTER.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a United 
     States Hispanic Nutrition Education and Research Center 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Center'') at a regional 
     academic health center.
       (b) Purpose.--The general purpose of the Center shall be to 
     undertake nutrition research and nutrition education 
     activities that sustain and promote the health of United 
     States Hispanics, particularly those United States Hispanics 
     in the United States-Mexico Border Area. The Center shall 
     serve as a national clearinghouse for research, and for data 
     collection and information dissemination on nutrition in the 
     United States Hispanic population. In addition, the Center 
     shall serve as an educational resource on United States 
     Hispanic nutrition for students, universities, and academic 
     and research institutions throughout the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1879. A bill to resolve the claims of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., to 
lands adjacent to the Russian River in the State of Alaska; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the

[[Page S13970]]

``Russian River Land Act''. The purpose of this legislation is to 
ratify an agreement that settles a land ownership issue at the Russian 
River on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska between the U.S. Forest Service, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., CIRI, 
an Alaska Native Corporation.
  The legislation ratifies an agreement reached between CIRI and the 
agencies after three years of negotiations and it covers the lands at 
the confluence of the Kenai and Russian Rivers in Alaska.
  The area surrounding the confluence of the Russian and Kenai Rivers 
is rich in archaeological cultural features. It is also the site of 
perhaps the most heavily used public sports fishery in Alaska. Because 
of the archaeological resources at Russian River, Cook Inlet Region, 
Inc., made selections at Russian River under the section of the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act that allowed for selections of historical 
places and cemetery sites. The lands at the confluence are managed in 
part by the U.S. Forest Service and in part by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
  Seeking to protect the public's access to the sport fishery at 
Russian River, the two federal agencies and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 
reached an agreement that requires the Federal legislation in order to 
become effective. Because this agreement provides for continuing 
ownership and management by the two Federal agencies of the vast 
majority of lands at Russian River, the public's right to continue 
fishing remains unchanged from its current status.
  I congratulate the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and CIRI for finding a way to fulfill the intent of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act in a way that fully protects the interests of the 
public. I also congratulate all three parties on reaching final accord 
on the longstanding unresolved issue of land ownership at Russian 
River.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 1880. A bill to provide assistance for the relief and 
reconstruction of Afghanistan, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing the Afghanistan 
Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001. This legislation is a 
comprehensive framework for U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance 
for the humanitarian relief and long-term reconstruction and 
rehabilitation of Afghanistan. It is a companion to H.R. 3427, 
introduced by Representatives Lantos and Ackerman in the House.
  The last pockets of Taliban resistance are being routed, and the new 
interim administration of Afghanistan is set to assume power in Kabul 
in 2 days. Freedom is returning to Afghanistan. Its men and women are 
listening to music again and women are leaving their homes unescorted, 
cautiously optimistic about their future after enduring years of 
repressive rule.
  Now is the time for decisive action by Congress and by the 
administration to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan and 
throughout the Muslim world that the war against the al-Qaida and the 
Taliban was neither a war against Muslims, nor against ordinary 
Afghans. The United States has led the effort to eliminate the 
terrorist network in Afghanistan, and now it must lead the peace effort 
by helping the Afghan people reclaim their country and rebuild their 
lives.
  The United States did not live up to its commitment to the Afghan 
people after the Soviets were defeated in the 1980s. I regret to say we 
walked away. If we break or commitment again, Afghanistan is likely to 
remain an isolated incubator of terrorist activities, and regional 
instability will continue. We would not now be focused on Afghanistan 
had the events of September 11 not occurred. Those horrific events have 
driven home the truth that the indivisibility of human security is not 
just an empty slogan, but a fact, which we ignore at our peril.
  The causes of the Afghan tragedy include nearly all the horrors that 
stalk failed states: meddling and invasion by neighboring states, 
internecine warfare leading to a takeover by brutal fanatics, 
oppression of a majority of the population, especially women and, 
finally, the Taliban's fateful decision to host international 
terrorists.
  The cures for Afghanistan's agony are less obvious, but one is clear. 
The rival political and ethnic groups must take advantage of the 
historic opportunity that emerged in Bonn and make a genuine commitment 
to the peaceful sharing of power. They must establish a government 
broad and effective enough to meet the basic needs of the people. The 
same narrow-minded factionalism that originally left the country 
vulnerable to backward mullahs, greedy warlords and predatory neighbors 
continues to pose a threat to the country now.
  One other thing is clear: the United States must lead the 
international community in moving quickly and decisively in a long-term 
commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The people of 
Afghanistan have endured 23 years of war and misery. The conflict has 
threatened international stability and placed enormous burdens on the 
people's limited means. The Bush administration has said that it will 
not let Afghanistan descend into chaos. But, talk is not enough. We 
must act by committing significant resources. We must show Afghans that 
our commitments are not hollow. We must show genuine solidarity and 
real generosity now.
  It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect. The United 
States, in partnership with the international community, must be 
willing to make a multi-year, multinational effort to rebuild 
Afghanistan. Current estimates of the cost of assisting Afghanistan 
range from $5 billion over 5 years to $40 billion over a decade. The 
United States should be the lead financial contributor to the 
rehabilitation and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and we believe 
should contribute as much as $5 billion to this effort over the next 5 
years.
  The reconstruction effort must focus on education, particularly for 
girls, which has proven to give the greatest return for each assistance 
dollar. Creation of secular schools will help break the stranglehold of 
extremism and allow both boys and girls to make positive contributions 
to the development of their society. The effort must also focus on 
rebuilding basic infrastructure, repairing shattered bridges and roads, 
removing land mines, reconstructing irrigation systems and drilling 
wells. We must also rebuild the health infrastructure by establishing 
basic hospitals and village clinics.
  Over the past few months, I have held a series of hearings in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and 
South Asia Affairs regarding the humanitarian and reconstruction needs 
of Afghanistan. Based on these hearings, I am convinced we must help 
the Afghan people live in a society where they can feed their children, 
live in safety and participate fully in their country's development 
regardless of gender, religious belief or ethnicity.
  The Afghan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001 does just that. 
That bill:
  Expresses a sense of Congress on the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, 
including promoting its independence, supporting a broad-based, multi-
ethnic, gender-inclusive, fully representative government, and 
maintaining a significant U.S. commitment to the relief, rehabilitation 
and reconstruction of Afghanistan.
  Authorizes $400 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in 
fiscal year 03, including $75m for refugee assistance and $175m for 
food aid.
  Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for a multinational security 
force in Afghanistan, in fiscal year 02 and fiscal year 03.
  Authorizes $1.175 billion for rehabilitation and reconstruction 
assistance for fiscal years 2002-2006, to be distributed by USAID, with 
conditions for each year to ensure that benchmarks laid out in the 
December 5, 2001, Bonn Agreement between the various Afghan factions 
are being met; assistance for agriculture, health care, education, 
vocational training, disarmament and demobilization, and anticorruption 
and good governance programs; a special emphasis on assistance to women 
and girls; a report on assistance actually provided; and authority to 
provide some of this assistance through a multilateral fund and/or 
international foundation.

  Authorizes the President to furnish such sums as may be necessary to 
finance a multilateral fund or international foundation, to assist in 
security, rehabilitation, and reconstruction

[[Page S13971]]

efforts in Afghanistan, as described above.
  Authorizes $60 million for Democracy and human rights initiatives for 
FY02 through FY04.
  Authorizes $62.5 for a contribution to the U.N. Drug Control Program 
for FY02 through FY04 to reduce or eliminate the trafficking of illicit 
drugs in Afghanistan.
  Authorizes $65 million for a new secure diplomatic facility in 
Afghanistan.
  The legislation's message is simple: the United States is not only a 
great Nation, but a generous Nation. We keep our word, and stand ready 
to match our words with our actions. We must not turn our backs again 
on the people of Afghanistan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 1881. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to establish 
a list of consumers who request not to receive telephone sales calls; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along 
with my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, to help 
individuals whose personal time is interrupted by the constant 
annoyance of telephone solicitors. Our bill, modeled after a 
Connecticut statute, would require the Federal Trade Commission to 
establish a ``no-call'' list of consumers who do not wish to receive 
unsolicited telemarketing calls.
  A Department of Labor survey reports that 84 percent of Americans 
would trade income for more free time. People want to spend more time 
in the evening with their families, whether it be sitting down to 
dinner together, relaxing in front of the television, helping children 
with homework, or catching up with household chores. I suspect most 
people do not want to be inconvenienced with intrusive, unsolicited 
telemarketing calls during the evening or anytime throughout the day.
  Telemarketing revenue increased from $492.3 billion in 1998 to $585.9 
billion in 2000, which translates into millions of phone calls every 
year. While many sales pitches are made on behalf of legitimate 
organizations and businesses, consumers still lose more than $40 
billion a year to fraudulent sales of goods and services over the 
telephone. It is time to empower consumers with the ability to stop 
most unsolicited calls, legitimate or otherwise, from entering their 
homes and disturbing their lives.
  In Connecticut, people now have the right to place their name on a 
``do not call'' list and more than 225,000 households have contacted 
the Department on Consumer Protection to take advantage of the new law. 
All telemarketers are required to consult that list and are prohibited 
from contacting households on the list. Other states, including 
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, 
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee, have enacted similar 
laws.
  States are taking this action because a 1994 Federal law to curb 
unsolicited telemarketing, while a good beginning, has not fully 
succeeded in protecting families' privacy. In fact, individual 
consumers must keep track of every telemarketer they have contacted to 
determine if a solicitation call was made in violation. There are 
numerous exemptions to the Federal law, as well, as because there are 
no penalties for calls made in ``error,'' it has proved difficult to 
enforce.
  Direct Marketing Association members do not oppose the Connecticut 
law. It is their belief that consumers placing their name on a list 
would never buy a product from a telemarketer anyway, and thus the list 
saves telemarketers time and resources.
  Our legislation would take much of the burden off of consumers. At 
the same time, a comprehensive and universal law actually could help 
telemarketers by streamlining the process. The legislation we are 
introducing today would require the Federal Trade Commission to 
establish a ``no sales solicitation calls'' listing of consumers who do 
not wish to receive unsolicited calls. Although certain types of calls 
would be exempt, including calls from any company with whom a consumer 
currently does business, non-profits looking for donations, pollsters, 
and those publishing telephone directories, a violation of the ``no 
call'' list would be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice and 
the telemarketer could be fined.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important consumer legislation 
and I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
  I think the chair and 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. 1881

       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 ``Telemarketing Intrusive 
     Practices Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Caller identification service or device.--The term 
     ``caller identification service or device'' means a telephone 
     service or device that permits a consumer to see the 
     telephone number of an incoming call.
       (2) Chairman.--The term ``Chairman'' means the Chairman of 
     the Federal Trade Commission.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (4) Consumer.--The term ``consumer'' means an individual 
     who is an actual or prospective purchaser, lessee, or 
     recipient of consumer goods or services.
       (5) Consumer goods or services.--The term ``consumer good 
     or service'' means an article or service that is purchased, 
     leased, exchanged, or received primarily for personal, 
     family, or household purposes, including stocks, bonds, 
     mutual funds, annuities, and other financial products.
       (6) Marketing or sales solicitation.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``marketing or sales 
     solicitation'' means the initiation of a telephone call or 
     message to encourage the purchase of, rental of, or 
     investment in, property, goods, or services, that is 
     transmitted to a person.
       (B) Exception.--The term does not include a call or 
     message--
       (i) to a person with the prior express invitation or 
     permission of that person;
       (ii) by a tax-exempt nonprofit organization;
       (iii) on behalf of a political candidate or political 
     party; or
       (iv) to promote the success or defeat of a referendum 
     question.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
       (8) Telephone sales call.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``telephone sales call'' means a 
     call made by a telephone solicitor to a consumer for the 
     purpose of--
       (i) engaging in a marketing or sales solicitation;
       (ii) soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods 
     or services; or
       (iii) obtaining information that will or may be used for 
     the direct marketing or sales solicitation or exchange of or 
     extension of credit for consumer goods or services.
       (B) Exception.--The term does not include a call made--
       (i) in response to an express request of the person called; 
     or
       (ii) primarily in connection with an existing debt or 
     contract, payment, or performance that has not been completed 
     at the time of the call.
       (9) Telephone solicitor.--The term ``telephone solicitor'' 
     means an individual, association, corporation, partnership, 
     limited partnership, limited liability company or other 
     business entity, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, that 
     does business in the United States and makes or causes to be 
     made a telephone sales call.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION NO CALL LIST.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) establish and maintain a list for each State, of 
     consumers who request not to receive telephone sales calls; 
     and
       (2) provide notice to consumers of the establishment of the 
     lists.
       (b) State Contract.--The Commission may contract with a 
     State to establish and maintain the lists.
       (c) Private Contract.--The Commission may contract with a 
     private vendor to establish and maintain the lists if the 
     private vendor has maintained a national listing of consumers 
     who request not to receive telephone sales calls, for not 
     less than 2 years, or is otherwise determined by the 
     Commission to be qualified.
       (d) Consumer Responsibility.--
       (1) Inclusion on list.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (d)(2), a consumer who wishes to be included on a list 
     established under subsection (a) shall notify the Commission 
     in such manner as the Chairman may prescribe to maximize the 
     consumer's opportunity to be included on that list.
       (2) Deletion from list.--Information about a consumer shall 
     be deleted from a list upon the written request of the 
     consumer.
       (e) Update.--The Commission shall--
       (1) update the lists maintained by the Commission not less 
     than quarterly with information the Commission receives from 
     consumers; and

[[Page S13972]]

       (2) annually request a no call list from each State that 
     maintains a no call list and update the lists maintained by 
     the Commission at that time to ensure that the lists 
     maintained by the Commission contain the same information 
     contained in the no call lists maintained by individual 
     States.
       (f) Fees.--The Commission may charge a reasonable fee for 
     providing a list.
       (g) Availability.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall make a list available 
     only to a telephone solicitor.
       (2) Format.--The list shall be made available in printed or 
     electronic format, or both, at the discretion of the 
     Chairman.

     SEC. 4. TELEPHONE SOLICITOR NO CALL LIST.

       (a) In General.--A telephone solicitor shall maintain a 
     list of consumers who request not to receive telephone sales 
     calls from that particular telephone solicitor.
       (b) Procedure.--If a consumer receives a telephone sales 
     call and requests to be placed on the do not call list of 
     that telephone solicitor, the solicitor shall--
       (1) place the consumer on the no call list of the 
     solicitor; and
       (2) provide the consumer with a confirmation number which 
     shall provide confirmation of the request of the consumer to 
     be placed on the no call list of that telephone solicitor.

     SEC. 5. TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS.

       (a) Telephone Sales Call.--A telephone solicitor may not 
     make or cause to be made a telephone sales call to a 
     consumer--
       (1) if the name and telephone number of the consumer appear 
     in the then current quarterly lists made available by the 
     Commission under section 3;
       (2) if the consumer previously requested to be placed on 
     the do not call list of the telephone solicitor pursuant to 
     section 4;
       (3) to be received between the hours of nine o'clock p.m. 
     and nine o'clock a.m. and between five o'clock p.m. and seven 
     o'clock p.m., local time, at the location of the consumer;
       (4) in the form of an electronically transmitted facsimile; 
     or
       (5) by use of an automated dialing or recorded message 
     device.
       (b) Caller Identification Device.--A telephone solicitor 
     shall not knowingly use any method to block or otherwise 
     circumvent the use of a caller identification service or 
     device by a consumer.
       (c) Sale of Consumer Information to Telephone Solicitors.--
       (1) In general.--A person who obtains the name, residential 
     address, or telephone number of a consumer from a published 
     telephone directory or from any other source and republishes 
     or compiles that information, electronically or otherwise, 
     and sells or offers to sell that publication or compilation 
     to a telephone solicitor for marketing or sales solicitation 
     purposes, shall exclude from that publication or compilation, 
     and from the database used to prepare that publication or 
     compilation, the name, address, and telephone number of a 
     consumer if the name and telephone number of the consumer 
     appear in the then current quarterly list made available by 
     the Commission under section 3.
       (2) Exception.--This subsection does not apply to a 
     publisher of a telephone directory when a consumer is called 
     for the sole purpose of compiling, publishing, or 
     distributing a telephone directory intended for use by the 
     general public.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       The Chairman may adopt regulations to carry out this Act 
     that shall include--
       (1) provisions governing the availability and distribution 
     of the lists established under section 3;
       (2) notice requirements for a consumer who requests to be 
     included on the lists established under section 3; and
       (3) a schedule for the payment of fees to be paid by a 
     person who requests a list made available under section 3.

     SEC. 7. CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION.

       (a) Action by Commission.--
       (1) Unfair or deceptive trade practice.--A violation of 
     section 4 or 5 is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (2) Cumulative damages.--In a civil action brought by the 
     Commission under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to recover damages arising from more than 
     one alleged violation, the damages shall be cumulative.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--A person or entity may, if otherwise 
     permitted by the laws or the rules of court of a State, bring 
     in an appropriate court of that State--
       (A) an action based on a violation of section 4, 5, or 6 to 
     enjoin the violation;
       (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from a 
     violation of section 4, 5, or 6, or to receive $500 in 
     damages for each violation, whichever is greater; or
       (C) an action under paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (2) Willful violation.--If the court finds that the 
     defendant willfully or knowingly violated section 4, 5, or 6, 
     the court may, in the discretion of the court, increase the 
     amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 
     times the amount available under paragraph (1)(B) of this 
     subsection and to include reasonable attorney's fees.

     SEC. 8. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a State 
     from enacting or enforcing more stringent legislation in the 
     regulation of telephone solicitors.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. DeWine; Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1884. A bill to amend the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 
1999 to revise eligibility and other requirements for loan guarantees 
under that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce, on behalf of myself 
and Senators DeWine, Dayton, Specter, Mukulski and Bayh the ``Emergency 
Steel Loan Guarantee Amendments of 2001.'' These amendments to the 
Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 are designed to make the loan 
guarantee program more accessible to companies in urgent need of 
assistance as they attempt to recover from the devastating impacts of 
enormous, unfair import surges, as well as the effects of the current 
recession.
  A strong domestic steel industry is essential to our national 
security. To ensure the continuing viability of this critical industry 
and to deal with the current crisis, we must act quickly, and we must 
act comprehensively.
  First, the Administration must provide immediate and decisive strong 
relief in the pending Section 201 steel import surge investigation. 
That relief needs to include substantial tariffs as well as quotas.
  Second, we need a formula for industry-wide sharing of the huge 
retiree health-care cost burdens resulting from the massive layoffs 
during the 1970's and 1980's. We must protect retirees health care 
needs without undermining the ability of companies attempting to 
compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. Several colleagues 
and I have previously introduced legislation to accomplish this, and we 
have urged the Administration to support us in this effort as past of a 
comprehensive solution to the steel crisis we face today.
  Finally, companies urgently need access to capital to sustain their 
operations. This is precisely what the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee 
Act of 1999 was designed to insure. The tireless efforts and foresight 
of Senator Byrd led to the creation of the Emergency Steel Loan 
Guarantee Board in 1999, but since then massive import surges, the 
current economic downturn and apparently overly-restrictive 
interpretations of the Board's authority have made it all but 
impossible for struggling steel firms to meet the Board's eligibility 
criteria.
  The bill we introduce today is designed to address these concerns. It 
provides the Board with the necessary flexibility to provide these 
essential loan guarantees. In particular, the bill would do the 
following: 1. Clarify that a company that has placed its facilities on 
``hot idle status'' is eligible to receive a loan guarantee. 2. 
Increase the amount of loans guaranteed with respect to a single 
qualified steel company to $350,000,000. 3. Permit the Steel Loan 
Guarantee Board to guarantee a loan where there is a fair likelihood of 
repayment, assuming vigorous and timely enforcement of our trade laws 
and general economic prosperity. 4. Provide flexibility to the Board in 
structuring security arrangements to maximize participation of lenders. 
5. Expand the scope of lenders permitted to participate in a loan 
subject to the guarantee to include public and private institutions, 
including the company's existing lenders. 6. Require the Board to adopt 
form of guarantee regulations no less favorable than those used in 
other government programs, including the Export-Import bank. 7. Include 
as a requirement for loan guarantees that the company's business plan 
maximize both retention of jobs and capacity consistent with the long-
term economic viability of the company. 8. Increase the loan guarantee 
level for all loans to 95 percent.
  The recent economic conditions facing the U.s. iron ore and steel 
industry are of particular concern in Minnesota. We are extremely proud 
of our State's history as the Nation's largest producer of iron ore. 
The taconite mines on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister 
State of Michigan have provided key raw materials to the Nation's steel 
producers for over a century.

[[Page S13973]]

  You will not find a harder-working, more committed group of workers 
anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite 
industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of 
conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now 
face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own. Unfairly traded 
iron ore, semi-finished steel and finished steel products are taking 
their jobs.
  Earlier this year, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at its 
Hoyt Lakes, MN mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good paying jobs and 
affecting nearly 5,000 additional workers. We need to act and we need 
to act now. Workers in the steel, iron ore and taconite industries want 
nothing more than the chance to do their jobs. The bill we introduce 
today is one part of the answer. I urge my colleagues to join with me 
in moving this legislation as quickly as possible.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend 
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, to introduce the Emergency Steel 
Loan Guarantee Amendments Act. This legislation would improve the 
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program.
  Our steel industry is on the brink of financial collapse because of 
unfair and illegal trade practices. To date, some 25 U.S. steel 
companies, including LTV Steel in Cleveland, Ohio, have filed 
bankruptcy. These companies employ thousands of workers and are 
responsible for providing benefits to their retirees. If our steel 
industry goes under, the consequences to our nation, and particularly 
Ohio, would be grave. Steel is vitally important to our military and 
economic security. During times of crisis, the industry has been a 
source of strength for America. With our economy sputtering and our 
nation fighting a new war on terrorism, we need a healthy steel 
industry now more than ever.
  In 1998, more than 41 million tons of steel found their way to U.S. 
markets. This was an 83 percent increase over the 23 million net ton 
average for the previous eight years. While in 1999 some claimed that 
the steel import crisis was over, they were soon reminded how volatile 
the situation really is. In 2000, 37.8 million tons of steel flooded 
U.S. markets. This was almost as high as the record 1998 import levels.
  For almost 50 years, foreign steel producers have received direct and 
often illegal assistance from their governments in the form of 
subsidies or market intervention. This has contributed to a worldwide 
over production of steel. In 1999, the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development, OECD, found that world steel making 
capacity remained ``well-above'' production between 1985 and 1999. Much 
of this excess steel has been shipped to the United States and priced 
well below U.S. steel. In some cases, these imports were dumped, 
subsidized, and shipped in such increased quantities as to inflict 
serious financial harm to U.S. producers.
  As a key supporter of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program, I 
believe that we must modify the program to make it work better. It is 
true that we have changed it this year; extending its life and 
increasing the portion of the loan covered by the guarantee from 85 
percent to in some cases 95 percent. However, we need to do more. The 
Wellstone/DeWine legislation would clarify that a company, such as LTV, 
which has placed its facilities on ``hot idle status'' is eligible to 
receive a loan guarantee. It would also increase the amount of loans 
guaranteed with respect to a single qualified steel company to 
$350,000,000; permit the Steel Loan Guarantee Board to guarantee a loan 
where there is a fair likelihood of repayment, assuming vigorous and 
timely enforcement of our trade laws and general economic prosperity; 
provide flexibility to the Board in structuring security arrangements 
to maximize participation of lenders; expand the scope of lenders 
permitted to participate in a loan subject to the guarantee to include 
public and private institutions, including the company's existing 
lenders; require the Board to adopt a form of guarantee regulations no 
less favorable than those used in other government programs, including 
the Export-Import bank, and; increase the loan guarantee level for all 
loans to 95 percent.
  We in the steel community are grateful for the President's leadership 
in initiating the Section 201 trade investigation, and we were 
generally pleased with the International Trade Commission's 
recommendations. I was pleased to see the Customs Service proceeding in 
a timely manner with the release of dumping and subsidy offset payments 
to the victims of illegal trade practices, including LTV, under the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. However, without these 
changes to the Emergency Steel Loan program, many of our steel 
companies will not survive. We have an opportunity to send a powerful 
message to the world that America is standing by our steel industry in 
its time of need just as the industry has stood by America in her time 
of need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1885. A bill to establish the elderly housing plus health support 
demonstration program to modernize public housing for elderly and 
disabled persons; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1886. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
business credit for supported elderly housing; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that 
will help address a growing problem in America, our ability to provide 
safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. 
Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number 
will double within the next thirty years. By 2030, 20 percent of the 
U.S. population will be over 65 years old.
  Both of the bills that I am introducing will promote the development 
of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, 
including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and 
grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn 
give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves 
where they live and how they exercise their independence.
  The first bill I am introducing is the ``Elderly Plus Supportive 
Health Support Demonstration Act,'' which will provide Federal grants 
to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new 
strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. Nearly one 
third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This 
figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly 
continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we 
remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and 
affordable housing.
  Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the 
country, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public 
housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to 
meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing 
units are equipped with equipment and features that facilitate mobility 
for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen 
counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the 
difference between a senior being able to stay in her home or having to 
leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less 
independence and control over their lives. The ``Elder Housing Plus 
Health Support Demonstration Act'' will give public housing authorities 
the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors 
will not be prematurely forced out of their homes.
  The second bill that I am introducing is the ``Assisted Living Tax 
Credit Act,'' which will provide a tax incentive to help construct 
assisted living housing for low- and moderate-income Americans. The 
current stock of assisted living facilities is inadequate to meet 
demand in certain places around the country and the stock of 
moderately-priced units is even tighter. The demand for assisted living 
units will only increase as our population ages and this highly desired 
housing choice should be available to all Americans. The ``Assisted 
Living Tax Credit Act'' will help make assisted living arrangements 
available to those who have previously been priced out of the market.
  The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has social costs 
that we

[[Page S13974]]

must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. 
Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be 
devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are 
torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide 
the best possible care to their aging family members.
  Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. 
Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges 
for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the largest 
challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of 
defining new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing 
elderly population.
  It is my hope that the bills I am introducing today will generate 
earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead 
to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and 
dignity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Elderly Housing Plus 
Health Support Demonstration Act'' be printed in the Record. I also ask 
unanimous consent that the ``Assisted Living Tax Credit Act'' be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 1885

  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
       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 ``Elderly Housing Plus Health 
     Support Demonstration Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) there are not fewer than 34,100,000 Americans who are 
     65 years of age and older, and persons who are 85 years of 
     age or older comprise almost one-quarter of that population;
       (2) the Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce 
     estimates that, by 2030, the elderly population will double 
     to 70,000,000 persons;
       (3) according to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development report ``Housing Our Elders--A Report Card on the 
     Housing Conditions and Needs of Older Americans'', the 
     largest and fastest growing segments of the older population 
     include many people who have historically been vulnerable 
     economically and in the housing market--women, minorities, 
     and people over the age of 85;
       (4) many elderly persons are at significant risk with 
     respect to the availability, stability, and accessibility of 
     affordable housing;
       (5) one third of public housing residents are approximately 
     62 years of age or older, making public housing the largest 
     Federal housing program for senior citizens;
       (6) the elderly population residing in public housing is 
     older, poorer, frailer, and more racially diverse than the 
     elderly population residing in other assisted housing;
       (7) two-thirds of the public housing developments for the 
     elderly, including those that also serve the disabled, were 
     constructed before 1970 and are in dire need of major 
     rehabilitation and reconfiguration, such as rehabilitation to 
     provide new roofs, energy-efficient heating, cooling, utility 
     systems, accessible units, and up-to-date safety features;
       (8) many of the dwelling units in public housing 
     developments for elderly and disabled persons are undersized, 
     are inaccessible to residents with physical limitations, do 
     not comply with the requirements under the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, or lack railings, grab bars, 
     emergency call buttons, and wheelchair accessible ramps;
       (9) a study conducted for the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development found that the cost of the basic 
     modernization needs for public housing for elderly and 
     disabled persons exceeds $5,700,000,000;
       (10) a growing number of elderly and disabled persons face 
     unnecessary institutionalization because of the absence of 
     appropriate supportive services and assisted living 
     facilities in their residences;
       (11) for many elderly and disabled persons, independent 
     living in a non-institutionalization setting is a preferable 
     housing alternative to costly institutionalization, and would 
     allow public monies to be more effectively used to provide 
     necessary services for such persons;
       (12) congregate housing and supportive services coordinated 
     by service coordinators is a proven and cost-effective means 
     of enabling elderly and disabled persons to remain in place 
     with dignity and independence; and
       (13) the effective provision of congregate services and 
     assisted living in public housing developments requires the 
     redesign of units and buildings to accommodate independent 
     living.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish a demonstration program to make 
     competitive grants to provide state-of-the-art health-
     supportive housing with assisted living opportunities for 
     elderly and disabled persons;
       (2) to provide funding to enhance, make safe and 
     accessible, and extend the useful life of public housing 
     developments for the elderly and disabled and to increase 
     their accessibility to supportive services;
       (3) to provide elderly and disabled public housing 
     residents a readily available choice in living arrangements 
     by utilizing the services of service coordinators and 
     providing a continuum of care that allows such residents to 
     age in place;
       (4) to incorporate congregate housing service programs more 
     fully into public housing operations; and
       (5) to accomplish such purposes and provide such funding 
     under existing provisions of law that currently authorize all 
     activities to be conducted under the program.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Elderly and disabled families.--The term ``elderly and 
     disabled families'' means families in which 1 or more persons 
     is an elderly person or a person with disabilities.
       (2) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' means a 
     person who is 62 years of age or older.
       (3) Person with disabilities.--The term ``person with 
     disabilities'' has the same meaning as in section 3(b)(3)(E) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437a(b)(3)(E)).
       (4) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing 
     agency'' has the same meaning as in section 3(b)(6)(A) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)(A)).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY FOR ELDERLY HOUSING PLUS HEALTH SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish an elderly housing plus 
     health support demonstration program (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``demonstration program'') in accordance with this Act 
     to provide coordinated funding to public housing projects for 
     elderly and disabled families selected for participation 
     under section 5, to be used for--
       (1) rehabilitation or reconfiguration of such projects;
       (2) the provision of space in such projects for supportive 
     services and community and health facilities;
       (3) the provision of service coordinators for such 
     projects; and
       (4) the provision of congregate services programs in or 
     near such projects.

     SEC. 5. PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM.

       (a) Application and Plan.--To be eligible to be selected 
     for participation in the demonstration program, a public 
     housing agency shall submit to the Secretary--
       (1) an application, in such form and manner as the 
     Secretary shall require; and
       (2) a plan for the agency that--
       (A) identifies the public housing projects for which 
     amounts provided under this Act will be used, limited to 
     projects that are designated or otherwise used for 
     occupancy--
       (i) only by elderly families; or
       (ii) by both elderly families and disabled families; and
       (B) provides for local agencies or organizations to 
     establish or expand the provision of health-related services 
     or other services that will enhance living conditions for 
     residents of public housing projects of the agency, primarily 
     in the project or projects to be assisted under the plan.
       (b) Selection and Criteria.--
       (1) Selection.--The Secretary shall select public housing 
     agencies for participation in the demonstration program based 
     upon a competition among public housing agencies that submit 
     applications for participation.
       (2) Criteria.--The competition referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall be based upon--
       (A) the extent of the need for rehabilitation or 
     reconfiguration of the public housing projects of an agency 
     that are identified in the plan of the agency pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(2)(A);
       (B) the past performance of an agency in serving the needs 
     of elderly public housing residents or non-elderly, disabled 
     public housing residents given the opportunities in the 
     locality;
       (C) the past success of an agency in obtaining non-public 
     housing resources to assist such residents given the 
     opportunities in the locality; and
       (D) the effectiveness of the plan of an agency in creating 
     or expanding services described in subsection (a)(2)(B).

     SEC. 6. CONFIGURATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to public 
     housing agencies selected for participation under section 5, 
     to be used only--
       (A) for capital improvements to rehabilitate or reconfigure 
     public housing projects identified in the plan submitted 
     under section 5(a)(2)(A); and
       (B) to provide space for supportive services and for 
     community and health-related facilities primarily for the 
     residents of projects identified in the plan submitted under 
     section 5(a)(2)(A).
       (2) Source of funds.--Grants shall be made under this 
     section from funds made available for the demonstration 
     program in accordance with subsection (c).
       (3) Inapplicability of other provisions.--Section 9(c)(1) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437g(c)(1)) does not apply to grants made under this 
     section.
       (b) Allocation.--Grants funded in accordance with this 
     section shall--

[[Page S13975]]

       (1) be allocated among public housing agencies selected for 
     participation under section 5 on the basis of the criteria 
     established under section 5(b)(2); and
       (2) be made in such amounts and subject to such terms as 
     the Secretary shall determine.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the demonstration program, to make 
     grants in accordance with this section--
       (1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 7. SERVICE COORDINATORS.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to public 
     housing agencies selected for participation under section 5, 
     to be used only--
       (A) for public housing projects for elderly and disabled 
     families for whom capital assistance is provided under 
     section 6; and
       (B) to provide service coordinators and related activities 
     identified in the plan of the agency pursuant to section 
     5(a)(2), so that the residents of such public housing 
     projects will have improved and more economical access to 
     services that support the health and well-being of the 
     residents.
       (2) Source of funds.--Grants shall be made under this 
     section from funds made available for the demonstration 
     program in accordance with subsection (c).
       (3) Inapplicability of other provisions.--Section 9(c)(1) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437g(c)(1)) does not apply to grants made under this 
     section.
       (b) Allocation.--The Secretary shall provide a grant 
     pursuant to this section, in an amount not to exceed 
     $100,000, to each public housing agency that is selected for 
     participation under section 5.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the demonstration program, to make 
     grants in accordance with this section--
       (1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 8. CONGREGATE HOUSING SERVICES PROGRAMS.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to public 
     housing agencies selected for participation under section 5, 
     to be used only--
       (A) in connection with public housing projects for elderly 
     and disabled families for which capital assistance is 
     provided under section 6; and
       (B) to carry out a congregate housing service program 
     identified in the plan of the agency pursuant to section 
     5(a)(2) that provides services as described in section 
     202(g)(1) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(g)(1)).
       (2) Source of funds.--Grants shall be made under this 
     section from funds made available for the demonstration 
     program in accordance with subsection (c).
       (3) Inapplicability of other provisions.--Other than as 
     specifically provided in this section--
       (A) section 9(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(c)(1)) does not apply to grants made 
     under this section; and
       (B) section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
     1701q) does not apply to grants made under this section.
       (b) Allocation.--The Secretary shall provide a grant 
     pursuant to this section, in an amount not to exceed 
     $150,000, to each public housing agency that is selected for 
     participation under section 5.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the demonstration program, to make 
     grants in accordance with this section--
       (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 9. SAFEGUARDING OTHER APPROPRIATIONS.

       Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this Act to 
     carry out this Act are in addition to any amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated under any other provision of law, or 
     otherwise made available in appropriations Acts, for 
     rehabilitation of public housing projects, for service 
     coordinators for public housing projects, or for congregate 
     housing services programs.
                                  ____


                                S. 1886

       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 ``Assisted Living Tax Credit 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORTED ELDERLY HOUSING CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     SEC. 42A. SUPPORTED ELDERLY HOUSING CREDIT.

       ``(a) Amount of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     amount of the supported elderly housing credit determined 
     under this section for any taxable year in the credit period 
     shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 9 percent of the qualified basis of each qualified 
     supported elderly building, plus
       ``(B) 4 percent of such qualified basis with respect to any 
     qualified supported elderly building providing qualified 
     supported elderly services.
       ``(b) Qualified Basis; Qualified Supported Elderly 
     Building; Credit Period.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified basis.--
       ``(A) Determination.--The qualified basis of any qualified 
     supported elderly building for any taxable year is an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) the applicable fraction (determined as of the close 
     of such taxable year) of
       ``(ii) the eligible basis of such building (determined 
     under rules similar to the rules under section 42(d)).
       ``(B) Applicable fraction.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `applicable fraction' means the smaller of the 
     unit fraction or the floor space fraction.
       ``(C) Unit fraction.--For purposes of subparagraph (B), the 
     term `unit fraction' means the fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the number of supported 
     elderly units in the building, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the number of 
     residential rental units (whether or not occupied) in such 
     building.
       ``(D) Floor space fraction.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (B), the term `floor space fraction' means the fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the total floor space of 
     the supported elderly units in such building, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the total floor space of 
     the residential rental units (whether or not occupied) in 
     such building.
       ``(E) Qualified basis to include portion of building used 
     to provide qualified supported elderly services.--In the case 
     of a qualified supported elderly building described in 
     subsection (a)(2), the qualified basis of such building 
     for any taxable year shall be increased by the less of--
       ``(i) so much of the eligible basis of such building as is 
     used through the year to provide qualified support elderly 
     services, or
       ``(ii) 20 percent of the qualified basis of such building 
     (determined without regard to this subparagraph).
       ``(2) Qualified supported elderly building.--The term 
     `qualified supported elderly building' means any building 
     which is part of a qualified supported elderly housing 
     project at all times during the period--
       ``(A) beginning on the 1st day in the compliance period on 
     which such building is part of such a project, and
       ``(B) ending on the last day of the compliance period with 
     respect to such building.

     Such term does not include any building with respect to which 
     moderate rehabilitation assistance is provided, at any time 
     during the compliance period, under section 8(e)(2) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (other than assistance 
     under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this sentence)).
       ``(3) Credit period.--The term `credit period' means, with 
     respect to any building, the period of 10 taxable years 
     beginning with--
       ``(A) the taxable year in which the building is placed in 
     service, or
       ``(B) at the election of the taxpayer, the succeeding 
     taxable year,

     but only if the building is a qualified supported elderly 
     building as of the close of the 1st year of such period. The 
     election under subparagraph (B), once made, shall be 
     irrevocable.
       ``(4) Applicable rules.--
       ``(A) For treatment of certain rehabilitation expenditures 
     as separate new buildings, subsection (e) of section 42 shall 
     apply.
       ``(B) For rules regarding the application of the credit 
     period, paragraph (2) through (5) of section 42(f) shall 
     apply.
       ``(c) Qualified Supported Elderly Housing Project.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified supported elderly 
     housing project' means any project for residential rental 
     property if the project meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) whichever is elected by the taxpayer:
       ``(A) 20-50 test.--The project meets the requirements of 
     this subparagraph if 20 percent or more of the residential 
     units in such project are both rent-restricted and occupied 
     by individuals whose income is 50 percent or less of area 
     median gross income.
       ``(B) 40-90 test.--The project meets the requirements of 
     this subparagraph if 40 percent or more of the residential 
     units in such project are both rent-restricted and occupied 
     by individuals whose income is 90 percent or less of area 
     median gross income.

     Any election under this paragraph, once made, shall be 
     irrevocable. For purposes of this paragraph, any property 
     shall not be treated as failing to be residential rental 
     property merely because part of the building in which such 
     property is located is used for purposes other than 
     residential rental purposes.
       ``(2) Rent-restricted units.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     residential unit is rent-restricted if the gross rent with 
     respect to such unit does not exceed 65 percent of the 
     imputed income limitation applicable to such unit. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount of the 
     income limitation under paragraph (1) applicable for any 
     period shall not be less than such limitation for the 
     earliest period the building (which contains the unit) was 
     included in the determination of whether the project is a 
     qualified supported elderly housing project.
       ``(B) Gross rent.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), gross 
     rent--
       ``(i) includes any fee for a qualified supported elderly 
     service which is paid to the

[[Page S13976]]

     owner of the unit (on the basis of the supported elderly 
     status of the tenant of the unit) by any governmental program 
     of assistance (or by an organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) and exempt from tax under section 501(a)) if such 
     program (or organization) provides assistance for rent and 
     the amount of assistance provided for rent is not separable 
     from the amount of assistance provided for supportive 
     services.
       ``(ii) does not include any payment under section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 or any comparable rental 
     assistance program (with respect to such unit or occupants 
     thereof),
       ``(iii) includes any utility allowance determined by the 
     Secretary after taking into account such determinations under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, and
       ``(iv) does not include any rental payment to the owner of 
     the unit to the extent such owner pays an equivalent amount 
     to the Farmers' Home Administration under section 515 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949.
       ``(C) Imputed income limitation applicable to unit.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the imputed income limitation 
     applicable to a unit is the income limitation which would 
     apply under paragraph (1) to individuals occupying the unit 
     if the number of individuals occupying the unit were as 
     follows:
       ``(i) In the case of a unit which does not have a separate 
     bedroom, 1 individual.
       ``(ii) In the case of a unit which has 1 or more separate 
     bedrooms, 1.5 individuals for each separate bedroom.
       In the case of a project with respect to which a credit is 
     allowable by reason of this section and for which financing 
     is provided by a bond described in section 142(a)(7), the 
     imputed income limitation shall apply in lieu of the 
     otherwise applicable income limitation for purposes of 
     applying section 142(d)(4)(B)(ii).
       ``(D) Treatment of units occupied by individuals whose 
     incomes rise above limit.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     notwithstanding an increase in the income of occupants of a 
     supported elderly unit above the income limitation applicable 
     under paragraph (1), such unit shall continue to be treated 
     as a supported elderly unit if the income of such occupants 
     initially met such income limitation and such unit continues 
     to be rent restricted.
       ``(ii) Next available unit must be rented to supported 
     elderly tenant if income rises above 140 percent of income 
     limit.--If the income of the occupants of the unit increases 
     above 140 percent of the income limitation applicable under 
     paragraph (1), clause (i) shall cease to apply to such 
     unit if any residential rental unit in the building (of a 
     size comparable to, or smaller than, such unit) is 
     occupied by a new resident whose income exceeds such 
     income limitation. In the case of a project described in 
     section 142(d)(4)(B), the preceding sentence shall be 
     applied by substituting `170 percent' for `140 percent' 
     and by substituting `any supported elderly unit in the 
     building is occupied by a new resident whose income 
     exceeds 40 percent of area median gross income' for `any 
     residential unit in the building (of a size comparable to, 
     or smaller than, such unit) is occupied by a new resident 
     whose income exceeds such income limitation'.
       ``(E) Units where federal rental assistance is reduced as 
     tenant's income increases.--If the gross rent with respect to 
     a residential unit exceeds the limitation under subparagraph 
     (A) by reason of the fact that the income of the occupants 
     thereof exceeds the income limitation applicable under 
     paragraph (1), such unit shall, nevertheless, be treated as a 
     rent-restricted unit for purposes of paragraph (1) if--
       ``(i) a Federal rental assistance payment described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i) is made with respect to such unit or its 
     occupants, and
       ``(ii) the sum of such payment and the gross rent with 
     respect to such unit does not exceed the sum of the amount of 
     such payment which would be made and the gross rent which 
     would be payable with respect to such unit if--
       ``(I) the income of the occupants thereof did not exceed 
     the income limitation applicable under paragraph (1), and
       ``(II) such units were rent-restricted within the meaning 
     of subparagraph (A).

     The preceding sentence shall apply to any unit only if the 
     result described in clause (ii) is required by Federal 
     statute as of the date of the enactment of this subparagraph 
     and as of the date the Federal rental assistance payment is 
     made.
       ``(3) Qualified supported elderly service.--The term 
     `qualified supported elderly service' means any service 
     provided under a planned program of services designed to 
     enable residents of a residential rental property to remain 
     independent and avoid placement in a hospital, nursing home, 
     or intermediate care facility for the mentally or physically 
     handicapped. In the case of a single-room occupancy unit or a 
     building described in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iii), such term 
     includes any service provided to assist tenants in locating 
     and retaining permanent housing.
       ``(4) Date for meeting requirments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph, a building shall be treated as a qualified 
     supported elderly building only if the project (of which such 
     building is a part) meets the requirements of paragraph (1) 
     not later than the close of the 1st year of the credit period 
     for such building.
       ``(B) Buildings which rely on later buildings for 
     qualification.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining whether a building (in 
     this subparagraph referred to as the `prior building') is a 
     qualified supported elderly building, the taxpayer may take 
     into account 1 or more additional buildings placed in service 
     during the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to the prior building only if the taxpayer elects to 
     apply clause (ii) with respect to each additional building 
     taken into account.
       ``(ii) Treatment of elected buildings.--In the case of a 
     building which the taxpayer elects to take into account under 
     clause (i), the period under subparagraph (A) for such 
     building shall end at the close of the 12-month period 
     applicable to the prior building.
       ``(iii) Date prior building is treated as placed in 
     service.--For purposes of determining the credit period and 
     the compliance period for the prior building, the prior 
     building shall be treated for purposes of this section as 
     placed in service on the most recent date any additional 
     building elected by the taxpayer (with respect to such prior 
     building) was placed in service.
       ``(C) Special Rule.--A building--
       ``(i) other than the 1st building placed in service as part 
     of a project, and
       (ii) other than a building which is placed in service 
     during the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A) with 
     the respect to a prior building which becomes a qualified 
     supported elderly building,

     shall in no event be treated as a qualified supported elderly 
     building unless the project is a qualified supported elderly 
     housing project (without regard to such building) on the date 
     such building is placed in service.
       ``(D) Projects with more than 1 building must be 
     identified.--For purposes of this section a project shall be 
     treated as consisting of only 1 building unless, before the 
     close of the 1st calendar year in the project period (as 
     defined in subsection (d)(1)(F)(ii)), each building which is 
     (or will be) part of such project is identified in such form 
     and manner as the Secretary may provide.
       ``(5) Certain rules made applicable.--Paragraphs (2) (other 
     than subparagraph (A) thereof), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) 
     of section 142(d), and section 6652(j), shall apply for 
     purposes of determining whether any project is a qualified 
     supported elderly housing project and whether any unit is a 
     supported elderly unit; except that, in applying such 
     provisions for such purposes, the term `gross rent' shall 
     have the meaning given such term by paragraph (2)(B) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Election to treat building after compliance period as 
     not part of a project.--For purposes of this section, the 
     taxpayer may elect to treat any building as not part of a 
     qualified supported elderly housing project for any period 
     beginning after the compliance period for such building.
       ``(7) Special rule where de minimis equity contribution.--
     Proeprty shall not be treated as failing to be residential 
     rental property for purposes of this section merely because 
     the occupant of a residential unit in the project pays (on a 
     voluntary basis) to the lessor a de minimis amount to be held 
     toward the purchase by such occupant of a residential unit in 
     such project if--
       ``(A) all amounts so paid are refunded to the occupant on 
     the cessation of his occupancy of a unit in the project, and
       ``(B) the purchase of the unit is not permitted until after 
     the close of the compliance period with respect to the 
     building in which the unit is located.

     Any amount paid to the lessor as described in the preceding 
     sentence shall be included in gross rent under paragraph (2) 
     for purposes of determining whether the unit is rent-
     restricted.
       ``(8) Scattered site projects.--Buildings which would (but 
     for their lack of proximity) be treated as a project for 
     purposes of this section shall be so treated if all of the 
     dwelling units in each of the buildings are rent-restricted 
     (within the meaning of paragraph (2)) residential rental 
     units.
       ``(9) Waiver of certain de minimis errors and 
     recertifications.--On application by the taxpayer, the 
     Secretary may waive--
       ``(A) any recapture under subsection (i) in the case of any 
     de minimis error in complying with paragraph (1), or
       ``(B) any annual recertification of tenant income for 
     purposes of this subsection, if the entire building is 
     occupied by supported elderly tenants.
       ``(d) Limitation on Aggregate Credit Allowable With Respect 
     to Projects Located in a State.--
       ``(1) Credit may not exceed credit amount allocated to 
     building.--The amount of the credit determined under this 
     section for any taxable year with respect to any building 
     shall not exceed the supported elderly housing credit dollar 
     amount allocated to such building under rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraph (1) of section 42(h).
       ``(2) Allocated credit amount to apply to all taxable years 
     ending during or after credit allocation year.--Any supported 
     elderly housing credit dollar amount allocated to any 
     building for any calendar year--
       ``(A) shall apply to such building for all taxable years in 
     the compliance period ending during or after such calendar 
     year, and
       ``(B) shall reduce the aggregate supported elderly housing 
     credit dollar amount of the allocating agency only for such 
     calendar year.
       ``(3) Supported elderly housing credit dollar amount for 
     agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate supported elderly housing 
     credit dollar amount which a

[[Page S13977]]

     supported elderly housing credit agency may allocate for any 
     calendar year is the portion of the State supported elderly 
     housing credit ceiling allocated under this paragraph for 
     such calendar year to such agency.
       ``(B) State ceiling initially allocated to state supported 
     elderly housing credit agencies.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), the State supported elderly 
     housing credit ceiling for each calendar year shall be 
     allocated to the supported elderly housing credit agency of 
     such State. If there is more than 1 supported elderly housing 
     credit agency of a State, all such agencies shall be treated 
     as a single agency.
       ``(C) State supported elderly housing credit ceiling.--The 
     State supported elderly housing credit ceiling applicable to 
     any State and any calendar year shall be an amount equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) the unused State supported elderly housing credit 
     ceiling (if any) of such State for the preceding calendar 
     year,
       ``(ii) $1.25 multiplied by the State population,
       ``(iii) the amount of State supported elderly housing 
     credit ceiling returned in the calendar year, plus
       ``(iv) the amount (if any) allocated under subparagraph (D) 
     to such State by the Secretary.

     For purposes of clause (i), the unused State supported 
     elderly housing credit ceiling for any calendar year is the 
     excess (if any) of the sum of the amounts described in 
     clauses (i) through (iv) over the aggregate supported elderly 
     housing credit dollar amount allocated for such year. For 
     purposes of clause (iii), the amount of State supported 
     elderly housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year 
     equals the supported elderly housing credit dollar amount 
     previously allocated within the State to any project which 
     fails to meet the 10 percent test under section 
     42(h)(1)(E)(ii) on a date after the close of the calendar 
     year in which the allocation was made or which does not 
     become a qualified supported elderly housing project within 
     the period required by this section or the terms of the 
     allocation or to any project with respect to which an 
     allocation is canceled by mutual consent of the supported 
     elderly housing credit agency and the allocation recipient.
       ``(D) Unused supported elderly housing credit carryovers 
     allocated among certain states.--
       ``(i) In general.--The unused supported elderly housing 
     credit carryover of a State for any calendar year shall be 
     assigned to the secretary for allocation among qualified 
     states for the succeeding calendar year.
       ``(ii) Unused supported elderly housing credit carryover.--
     For purposes of this subparagraph, the unused supported 
     elderly housing credit carryover of a State for any calendar 
     year is the excess (if any) of--
       ``(I) the unused State supported elderly housing credit 
     ceiling for the year preceding such year, over
       ``(II) the aggregate supported elderly housing credit 
     dollar amount allocated for such year.
       ``(iii) Formula for allocation of unused supported elderly 
     housing credit carryovers among qualified states.--The amount 
     allocated under this subparagraph to a qualified State for 
     any calendar year shall be the amount determined by the 
     Secretary to bear the same ratio to the aggregate unused 
     supported elderly housing credit carryovers of all States for 
     the preceding calendar year as such State's population for 
     the calendar year bears to the population of all qualified 
     States for the calendar year. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, population shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 146(j).
       ``(iv) Qualified state.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the term `qualified State' means, with respect to a calendar 
     year, any State--
       ``(I) which allocated its entire State supported elderly 
     housing credit ceiling for the preceding calendar year; and
       ``(II) for which a request is made (not later than May 1 of 
     the calendar year) to receive an allocation under clause 
     (iii).
       ``(E) Special rule for states with constitutional home rule 
     cities.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(i) In general.--The aggregate supported elderly housing 
     credit dollar amount for any constitutional home rule city 
     for any calendar year shall be an amount which bears the same 
     ratio to the State supported elderly housing credit ceiling 
     for such calendar year as--
       ``(I) the population of such city, bear to
       ``(II) the population of the entire State.
       ``(ii) Coordination with other allocations.--In the case of 
     any State which contains 1 or more constitutional home rule 
     cities, for purposes of applying this paragraph with respect 
     to supported elderly housing credit agencies in such State 
     other than constitutional home rule cities, the State 
     supported elderly housing credit ceiling for any calendar 
     year shall be reduced by the aggregate supported elderly 
     housing credit dollar amounts determined for such year for 
     all constitutional home rule cities in such State.
       ``(iii) Constitutional home rule city.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `constitutional home rule city' has 
     the meaning given such term by section 146(d)(3)(C).
       ``(F) State may provide for different allocation.--Rules 
     similar to the rules of section 146(e) (other than paragraph 
     (2)(B) thereof) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(G) Population.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     population shall be determined in accordance with section 
     146(j).
       ``(4) Credit for buildings financed by tax-exempt bonds 
     subject to volume cap not taken into account.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     portion of any credit allowable under subsection (a) which is 
     attributable to eligible basis financed by any obligation the 
     interest on which is exempt from tax under section 103 if--
       ``(i) such obligation is taken into account under section 
     146, and
       ``(ii) principal payments on such financing are applied 
     within a reasonable period to redeem obligations the proceeds 
     of which were used to provide such financing.
       ``(B) Special rule where 50 percent or more of building is 
     financed with tax-exempt bonds subject to volume cap.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), if 50 percent or more of the 
     aggregate basis of any building and the land on which the 
     building is located is financed by any obligation described 
     in subparagraph (A), paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     portion of the credit allowable under subsection (a) with 
     respect to such building.
       ``(5) Portion of state ceiling set-aside for certain 
     projects involving qualified nonprofit organizations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not more than 90 percent of the State 
     supported elderly housing credit ceiling for any State for 
     any calendar year shall be allocated to projects other 
     than qualified supported elderly housing projects 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Projects involving qualified nonprofit 
     organizations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a qualified 
     supported elderly housing project is described in this 
     subparagraph if a qualified nonprofit organization is to 
     materially participate (within the meaning of section 469(h)) 
     in the development and operation of the project throughout 
     the compliance period.
       ``(C) Qualified nonprofit organization.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `qualified nonprofit organization' 
     means any organization if--
       ``(i) such organization is described in paragraph (3) or 
     (4) of section 501(c) and is exempt from tax under section 
     501(a),
       ``(ii) such organization is determined by the State 
     supported elderly housing credit agency not to be affiliated 
     with or controlled by a for-profit organization; and
       ``(iii) 1 of the exempt purposes of such organization 
     includes the fostering of supported elderly housing.
       ``(D) Treatment of certain subsidiaries.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     qualified nonprofit organization shall be treated as 
     satisfying the ownership and material participation test of 
     subparagraph (B) if any qualified corporation in which such 
     organization holds stock satisfies such test.
       ``(ii) Qualified corporation.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the term `qualified corporation' means any corporation if 100 
     percent of the stock of such corporation is held by 1 or more 
     qualified nonprofit organizations at all times during the 
     period such corporation is in existence.
       ``(E) State may not override setaside.--Nothing in 
     subparagraph (F) of paragraph (3) shall be construed to 
     permit a State not to comply with subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(6) Buildings eligible for credit only if minimum long-
     term commitment to supported elderly housing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under rules similar to the rules under 
     section 42(h)(6), no credit shall be allowed by reason of 
     this section with respect to any building for the taxable 
     year unless an extended supported elderly housing commitment 
     is in effect as of the end of such taxable year.
       ``(B) Extended supported elderly housing commitment.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `extended supported 
     elderly housing commitment' has the meaning given the term 
     `extended low-income housing commitment' under section 
     42(h)(6).
       ``(7) Application of certain rules.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 42(h)(7) shall 
     apply.
       ``(8) Other definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Supported elderly housing credit agency.--The term 
     `supported elderly housing credit agency' means any agency 
     authorized to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Possessions treated as states.--The term `State' 
     includes a possession of the United States.
       ``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Compliance period.--The term `compliance period' 
     means, with respect to any building, the period of 15 taxable 
     years beginning with the 1st taxable year of the credit 
     period with respect thereto.
       ``(2) Supported elderly unit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `supported elderly unit' means 
     any unit in a building if--
       ``(i) such unit is rent-restricted (as defined in 
     subsection (c)(2)), and
       ``(ii) the individuals occupying such unit meet the income 
     limitation applicable under subsection (c)(1) to the project 
     of which such building is a part.
       ``(B) Exception.--
       ``(i) In general.--A unit shall not be treated as a 
     supported elderly unit unless the unit

[[Page S13978]]

     is suitable for occupancy and used other than on a transient 
     basis.
       ``(ii) Suitability for occupancy.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the suitability of a unit for occupancy shall be 
     determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     taking into account local health, safety, and building codes.
       ``(iii) Transitional housing for homeless.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), a unit shall be considered to be used other than 
     on a transient basis if the unit contains sleeping 
     accommodations and kitchen and bathroom facilities and is 
     located in a building--
       ``(I) which is used exclusively to facilitate the 
     transition of homeless individuals (within the meaning of 
     section 103 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 11302), as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this clause) to independent living within 24 
     months, and
       ``(II) in which a governmental entity or qualified 
     nonprofit organization (as defined in subsection (d)(5)(C)) 
     provides such individuals with temporary housing and 
     supportive services designed to assist such individuals in 
     locating and retaining permanent housing.
       ``(iv) Single-room occupancy units.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), a single-room occupancy unit shall not be treated as 
     used on a transient basis merely because it is rented on a 
     month-by-month basis.
       ``(C) Special rule for buildings having 4 or fewer units.--
     In the case of any building which has 4 or fewer residential 
     rental units, no unit in such building shall be treated as a 
     supported elderly unit if the units in such building are 
     owned by--
       ``(i) any individual who occupies a residential unit in 
     such building, or
       ``(ii) any person who is related (within the meaning of 
     section 42(d)(2)(D)(iii)) to such individual.
       ``(D) Owner-occupied building having 4 or fewer units 
     eligible for credit where development plan.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subparagraph (C) shall not apply to the 
     acquisition or rehabilitation of a building pursuant to a 
     development plan of action sponsored by a State or local 
     government or a qualified nonprofit organization (as defined 
     in subsection (d)(5)(C)).
       ``(ii) Limitation on credit.--In the case of a building to 
     which clause (i) applies, the applicable fraction shall not 
     exceed 80 percent of the unit fraction.
       ``(iii) Certain unrented units treated as owner-occupied.--
     In the case of a building to which clause (i) applies, any 
     unit which is not rented for 90 days or more shall be treated 
     as occupied by the owner of the building as of the 1st day it 
     is not rented.
       ``(3) Application to estates and trusts.--In the case of an 
     estate or trust, the amount of the credit determined under 
     subsection (a) and any increase in tax under subsection (i) 
     shall be apportioned between the estate or trust and the 
     beneficiaries on the basis of the income of the estate or 
     trust allocable to each.
       ``(4) Impact of tenants right of 1st refusal to acquire 
     property.--
       ``(A) In general.--No Federal income tax benefit shall fail 
     to be allowable to the taxpayer with respect to any qualified 
     supported elderly building merely by reason of a right of 1st 
     refusal held by the tenants (in cooperative form or 
     otherwise) or resident management corporation of such 
     building or by a qualified nonprofit organization (as defined 
     in subsection (d)(5)(C)) or government agency to purchase the 
     property after the close of the compliance period for a price 
     which is not less than the minimum purchase price determined 
     under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Minimum purchase price.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the minimum purchase price under this subparagraph is an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the principal amount of outstanding indebtedness 
     secured by the building (other than indebtedness incurred 
     within the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale to 
     the tenants), and
       ``(ii) all Federal, State, and local taxes attributable to 
     such sale.

     Except in the case of Federal income taxes, there shall not 
     be taken into account under clause (ii) any additional tax 
     attributable to the application of clause (ii).
       ``(f) Recapture of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) as of the close of any taxable year in the compliance 
     period, the amount of the qualified basis of any building 
     with respect to the taxpayer is less than.
       ``(B) the amount of such basis as of the close of the 
     preceding taxable year,

     then the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable 
     year shall be increased by the credit recapture amount 
     determined under rules similar to the rules of section 42(j).
       ``(g) Application of At-Risk rules.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 42(k) shall 
     apply.
       ``(h) Responsibilities of Taxpayers and Supported Elderly 
     Housing Credit Agencies.--For purposes of this section, 
     subsections (l) and (m) of section 42 shall apply.
       ``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section, including regulations--
       ``(1) dealing with--
       ``(A) projects which include more than 1 building or only a 
     portion of a building,
       ``(B) buildings which are placed in service in portions,
       ``(2) providing for the application of this section to 
     short taxable years,
       ``(3) preventing the avoidance of the rules of this 
     section, and
       ``(4) providing the opportunity for supported elderly 
     housing credit agencies to correct administrative errors and 
     omissions with respect to allocations and record keeping 
     within a reasonable period after their discovery, taking into 
     account the availability of regulations and other 
     administrative guidance from the Secretary.''.
       (b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(14) the supported elderly housing credit determined 
     under section 42A(a).''.
       (c) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback 
     and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(10) No carryback of supported elderly housing credit 
     before effective date.--No amount of unused business credit 
     available under section 42A may be carried back to a taxable 
     year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 55(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by inserting ``or subsection (f) or (g) of section 
     42A'' after ``section 42''.
       (2) Subsections (i)(c)(3), (i)(c)(6)(B)(i), and (k)(1) of 
     section 469 of such Code are each amended by inserting ``or 
     42A'' after ``section 42''.
       (3) Section 772(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10), by redesignating 
     paragraph (11) as paragraph (12), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (10) the following:
       ``(11) the supported elderly housing credit determined 
     under section 42A, and''.
       (4) Section 774(b)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``, 42A(f),'' after ``section 42(j)''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 42 the following:

``Sec. 42A. Supported elderly housing credit.''.

       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures made in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1887. A bill to provide for renewal of project-based assisted 
housing contracts at reimbursement levels that are sufficient to 
sustain operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
intended to correct serious inequities created by existing statutes 
affecting owners, financing agencies, and low-income residents 
participating in one of HUD's Section 8 multifamily rental subsidy 
programs.
  I have worked closely with the Maine Congressional Delegation on this 
matter, as well as the Maine State Housing Authority and several 
housing projects in Maine, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development--HUD. At issue is HUD's interpretation of Section 524 of 
the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 
as it relates to the renewal of Section 8 ``moderate rehabilitation'' 
contracts in Maine and elsewhere.
  The effect of HUD's interpretation of current law results in the 
application of HUD ``published Fair Market Rents.'' Such rents are 
often well below the actual comparable market rent. If this problem is 
not addressed, and addressed soon, I am very concerned that we could 
lose this affordable rental housing stock in Maine, resulting in the 
displacement of the residents of these properties.
  The Maine Delegation worked with HUD over the last year to try to 
identify an administrative solution to this problem, but have been 
advised by HUD that we must pursue a change in law to enable the 
projects to obtain reimbursements at a level sufficient to sustain 
operations. Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today will 
correct the portion of the statute that could result in the loss of 
this critical housing stock.
  The program involved is the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation 
program, which is administered by local and state housing agencies 
throughout the nation. Existing law, contained in Section 524 of the 
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, as 
amended--MAHRA--regarding renewal of expiring project-based Section 8 
contracts, treats contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation

[[Page S13979]]

Program in a fundamentally different way from contracts under the New 
Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Loan Management Set-Aside 
programs.
  Section 524(b)(3) of MAHRA provides a separate and distinct formula 
for calculating renewal rents for expiring contracts under the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program. The formula is more restrictive than the 
formula applicable to expiring contracts under other Section 8 
programs, based on an assumption that the debt service payments on the 
original moderate rehabilitation financing would not be a continuing 
obligation of the project owner after expiration of the original 
subsidy contract.
  The assumption was correct as to many projects under the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program, but it is not true as to some significant 
projects serving particularly vulnerable populations, including two 
very important community projects located in Maine, which I will 
describe later.
  Perhaps an even greater concern than the formula itself, however, is 
a ruling by HUD's Office of General Counsel that Section 524(b)(3) 
presents the exclusive method for renewal of expiring contracts under 
the Moderate Rehabilitation program. In order to appreciate the drastic 
and problematic results of this opinion, it is necessary to understand 
the relationship between the Section 8 renewal legislation and the 
Mark-to-Market program, also enacted by MAHRA.
  According to HUD, housing subsidy contracts are expiring on thousands 
of privately owned multifamily properties with federally insured 
mortgages. Many of these contracts set rents at amounts higher than 
those of the local market. As these subsidy contracts expire, the Mark-
to-Market program will reduce rents to market levels and will 
restructure existing debt to levels supportable by these rents.
  The basic principle of this integrated legislative structure is that 
for projects financed by FHA-insured mortgages, expiring Section 8 
contracts which are subsidizing rents higher than market rents in the 
area will be renewed at rents reduced to a level not higher than the 
market rents. Where this reduced rent will not support debt service on 
the FHA-insured mortgage, the mortgage will be restructured pursuant to 
Mark-to-Market. The basic tradeoff is that while the Federal Government 
may bear some cost in the FHA insurance fund, it will be a lesser cost 
than continuing to subsidize above-market rents.
  However, not all Section 8 projects are financed by FHA-insured 
mortgages. Many, instead, are financed by State housing agency bond-
financed mortgages without FHA insurance, and some are even 
conventionally financed. The legislation provides, therefore, for an 
important ``exception'' to the requirement that rents be reduced upon 
renewal to market rents. Under Sections 524(b)(1) and (2), Section 8 
contracts for ``exception'' projects--which are principally projects 
not eligible for Mark-to-Market because their mortgages are not FHA-
insured--may be renewed at rents not exceeding the lower of current 
rents, as adjusted by an operating cost adjustment factor, and a 
``budget-based rent'' approved by HUD, notwithstanding that such rents 
may exceed market rents in the area.
  The effect of the HUD ruling that Section 524(b)(3) provides the 
exclusive authority for renewing expiring contracts in the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program is that ``exception'' project treatment under 
Section 524(b)(1) and (2) is made unavailable for Moderate 
Rehabilitation projects. The irony of this is that while the majority 
of Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation projects, 
and of course all Loan Management Set-Aside projects, are financed by 
FHA-insured mortgages--and therefore non-insured projects are truly the 
``exception'' under those programs--the opposite is true in the 
Moderate Rehabilitation program.
  Information provided by HUD indicates that not more than 
approximately 13 percent of all units ever subsidized under the 
Moderate Rehabilitation program were in projects financed by FHA-
insured mortgages. Non-insured mortgages, therefore, were the rule, not 
the exception, in the Moderate Rehabilitation program.
  The impact of this circumstance is well illustrated by two projects 
in Maine, both of which represent vital community resources for highly 
vulnerable low-income populations.
  Loring House is a 104-unit development in Portland. The building 
originally was the Portland City Hospital, which was closed by the City 
in the early 1980s. It was converted to a residential facility for 
elderly and handicapped residents with significant public participation 
and support, including tax-exempt bond first mortgage financing by the 
Maine State Housing Authority, Moderate Rehabilitation Section 8 rental 
subsidies from the Portland and Westbrook public housing authorities, 
and second mortgage operating deficit financing by the Portland Housing 
Development Corporation.
  The Loring House Section 8 contract expired in stages commencing 
December 31, 2000. The Loring House mortgage financing is not FHA-
insured, but based on the HUD opinion I described, ``exception'' 
project treatment was denied. Under the Section 524(b)(3) formula, the 
Section 8 contract rents were reduced approximately 14 percent on 
renewal--this notwithstanding that the project was already incurring 
substantial operating deficits, supported by public operating deficit 
financing, even under the previous rents. The ultimate financial risk 
on this development is borne by the Maine State Housing Authority.
  Loring House is an important community resource aside from the 
substantial public stake in its financing. Since 1985, the resident 
population has undergone a significant transformation, attributable 
largely to deinstitutionalization of two state mental institutions and 
concentration of State-supported comprehensive mental health services 
in the Portland area.
  It is estimated that currently 70 percent of the tenant population 
are impacted by mental health, mental retardation and/or substance 
abuse issues. This change in population served has increased the total 
independence of the project on project-based assistance if it is to 
continue to serve this population. The only feasible avenue to 
financial survival of this facility, much less to its continued ability 
to serve its special population, is availability of ``exception'' 
project treatment.
  Maison Marcotte is a 128-unit congregate care facility located in 
Lewiston. The building was built originally in the 1920s as a nursing 
home on a health care campus owned by the Sisters of Charity Health 
System.
  Following construction of a new nursing home on the campus in the 
early 1980s, the Health System ground leased the former nursing home to 
a for-profit development group which renovated the facility into 
several discrete uses, including a kitchen and cafeteria facility for 
the health care campus, a wing of physician offices, and 128 one-
bedroom congregate care units. The renovation was assisted by a 110-
unit Moderate Rehabilitation award by the Lewiston Housing Authority; 
18 units are private-pay.
  A nonprofit subsidiary of Sisters of Charity Health System took over 
possession and operation of the facility following a Chapter 11 
reorganization of the for-profit developer in the late 1980s. The bank 
debt on the facility was refinanced in 1993 by a tax-exempt bond 
financed first mortgage loan made by the Maine State Housing Authority 
which matures in 2023. The mortgage financing is not FHA-insured. The 
Moderate Rehabilitation HAP Contract expires October 31, 2001.
  The current Moderate Rehabilitation contract rents for the one-
bedroom units are substantially lower than the private-pay rents for 
similar units in the facility. Nevertheless, contract renewal pursuant 
to the existing Section 524(b)(3) formula would result in a 20-percent 
rent reduction, which clearly would threaten survival of the project. 
The financial risk, again, is borne solely by the Maine State Housing 
Authority.
  The property might appear to have the option of opting out and 
converting to all private-pay units at the higher rental, but that is 
not the desire of the nonprofit operator nor would it be consistent 
with the low-income use restrictions arising from the tax-exempt bond 
issue. The only feasible outcome for this facility which would permit 
continuance of its commitment to very low-income elderly residents is 
renewal at ``exception rent'' pursuant to Section 524(b)(1).
  I find it inconceivable that Congress consciously intended to impose 
the financial impact of Section 8 rent reductions in cases such as 
these onto State housing finance agencies. I also have no reason to 
think that the circumstances of these two projects, in which state 
housing agencies have undertaken the financing risk of long-term 
mortgages backed by short-term rental subsidy contracts because of the 
important public purposes of the projects, are unique to the State of 
Maine.

[[Page S13980]]

  The legislation I am introducing today, therefore, would correct this 
inequity by simply striking subsection (b)(3) of Section 524. Under 
this legislation, the renewal of expiring contracts in the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program would be governed by the same renewal rent 
provisions as are applicable to expiring contracts in the New 
Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs, including the 
availability of ``exception'' project rents where the project financing 
is not FHA-insured.
  Finally, the legislation would also strike one other current 
provision of the Section 8 renewal legislation which singles out 
Moderate Rehabilitation projects for unfavorable treatment and, more 
importantly, excludes Moderate Rehabilitation projects from the 
important policy preference for encouraging Section 8 project owners to 
continue their participation in the program and thereby maintain the 
availability of the units for low-income occupancy.
  An essential tool for the preservation program, as strengthened by 
amendments to MAHRA enacted in 1999, is the ability to permit Section 8 
owners currently receiving below-market rents under expiring contracts 
to receive rent increases upon renewal up to the level of market rents 
in the area, in exchange for a commitment to remain in the program for 
not less than an additional 5 years. Expiring contracts under the 
Moderate Rehabilitation program were excluded from this authority. 
However, from the standpoint of lower-income families needing 
subsidized housing opportunities in their communities, I believe the 
preservation of units which happen to be subsidized under the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program is no less vital than preservation of units 
under other subdivisions of the Section 8 program.

  The Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, while relatively small 
in comparison to the New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation 
programs, is nevertheless widespread throughout the nation, in both 
large and small communities. It also has suffered a marked attrition of 
units, presumably due in large part to owner opt-outs in recent years. 
Information provided by HUD indicates that out of the total of 
approximately 120,000 units that we assisted under the Moderate 
Rehabilitation program, 52,000 units remained in the program in May 
2000.
  HUD information also indicated that 113 separate housing agencies in 
42 States across the nation plus Puerto Rico, including State as well 
as local agencies, had 100 or more units under contract in May 2000. 
Since many if not most Moderate Rehabilitation project owners receive 
rents under their original contracts that are lower than market rents, 
it cannot be doubted that the ability to receive market rents could 
encourage many owners to remain in the program and to continue to 
provide affordable housing opportunities for their communities.
  Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today would also strike 
the current exclusion of contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation 
program from the ability to receive renewal rents increased to market 
rent levels.
  The overall effect of my legislation is to place expiring contracts 
under the Moderate Rehabilitation program on an equal footing with 
other expiring Section 8 contracts having similar characteristics in 
terms of comparison of contract rents with market rents and in terms of 
financing source--HUD-insured or non-insured.
  I believe that preservation of these critical housing units is an 
imperative to my constituents and the communities I represent, as well 
as communities and projects elsewhere. As such, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1889. A bill to provide for work authorization for nonimmigrant 
spouses of intracompany transferees, and to reduce the period of time 
during which certain intracompany transferees have to be continuously 
employed before applying for admission to the United States; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1890. A bill to provide for work authorization for nonimmigrant 
spouses of treaty traders and treaty investors; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to introduce companion measures to 
two House bills that would end the barring of the spouses of `E' and 
`L' nonimmigrant visa holders from work authorization while they are in 
the United States. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2277 and 
H.R. 2278 with broad bipartisan support earlier this year and the 
Senate Judiciary Committee approved the House versions of both bills by 
unanimous consent earlier today.
  The companion to H.R. 2277 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to authorize the husbands and wives of treaty traders or treaty 
investors working in the United States, or E visa holders, to work 
themselves. The companion to H.R. 2278 is very similar, granting 
employment authorization to the spouses of intracompany transfers, or L 
visa holders. This measure would also allow individuals to apply for L 
visas after six months, rather than one year, of employment with the 
company with which they are working in the United States. I believe 
that both of these bills are very reasonable and deserve the support of 
the Senate.
  Both pieces of legislation would end practices that deserve change as 
they currently stand. It is not right to force one spouse in a family 
to forgo employment simply because the other is working in the United 
States. Granting employment authorization to the spouses of E and L 
visa recipients makes it easier for foreign countries and multinational 
companies to persuade highly qualified employees, who are used to 
having both spouses actively employed, to relocate to the United 
States.
  The time requirement for L visa applicants also warrants change. 
Current law requires that an L visa not be granted unless the applicant 
has been employed for at least 1 year with the employer in question. In 
many situations, this is too restrictive. This requirement inhibits 
firms who wish to hire individuals with specialized skills to meet the 
needs of clients in the United States. A shorter prior employment 
period would allow companies to meet the needs of their clients in a 
more timely manner.
  I thank the House of Representatives and especially Congressman 
Gekas, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
for their hard work on these bills. Given the work between the House 
and Senate on these bills, I feel comfortable urging my colleagues to 
give these issues all due attention and support these measures.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1891. A bill to extend the basic pilot program for employment 
eligibility verification, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand to introduce a companion bill to 
H.R. 3030, the House bill that would extend a pilot program for 
employment eligibility verification of non-citizens. This bill would 
extend the program, set to expire this year, for two more years.
  This basic pilot program, available to employers in California, 
Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas, was authorized in 
1996, and has proved to be an incredibly effective resource since them. 
The program allows participating employers to electronically access 
certain government databases in order to verify the employment 
authorization of non-citizens. Electronic confirmation of this 
information provides a critical tool for employers to ensure that they 
are not hiring unauthorized aliens. This program allows employers to 
protect themselves from the employer sanction provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, while providing meaningful deterrence 
to would-be employers who lack appropriate authorization from the INS.
  During this time of increased national security, we can all 
appreciate any tool that will facilitate enforcement of our immigration 
laws. After communication between the House and the Senate on this 
issue, and the favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Committee 
this morning, I have little doubt that my colleagues in the Senate will 
recognize the useful nature of the Pilot Program and support its 
extension.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S.J. Res. 30. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of 
individuals to serve as Members of the House of Representatives in the 
event a significant number of Members are unable to serve at any time 
because of death or incapacity; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
discuss language for a proposed constitutional amendment that would 
provide for the appointment of temporary Representatives by a Governor 
if fifty percent or more of the members of the House were killed or 
incapacitated. I place this

[[Page S13981]]

language in the Record not with the intention of urging its passage 
this session, but rather to afford my colleagues an opportunity to 
offer their comments and suggestions, and to afford them the 
opportunity to consider co-sponsoring this proposed amendment.
  The events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks 
directed against members of Congress and other Americans highlight the 
very real possibility that the Senate and House of Representatives 
could suffer catastrophic casualties that would prevent either or both 
bodies from fulfilling their essential roles in the governance of our 
Nation. Despite the morbidity of such a scenario, it is essential that 
we put in place a contingency plan for the effective continuance of our 
democracy. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution allows for the 
temporary replacement of Senators by appointment by the Governor of 
their respective States. However, no such provision applies to members 
of the House. Only a proposed amendment to the United States 
Constitution would remedy this deficiency.
  The only means to replace members of the House is by special 
election. Article 1, Section 2, clause 14, states that ``[w]hen 
vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive 
Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such 
Vacancies.'' My legislative language proposes that if at any time, 
fifty percent or more of the Members of the House of Representatives 
are unable to carry out their duties because of death or incapacity, 
each Governor of a State represented by such Member would have the 
power to appoint an otherwise qualified individual to take the place of 
the Member as soon as practicable after certification of the Member's 
death or incapacity. Article I, Section 4, clause I states that ``a 
Majority of each [House] shall constitute a Quroum to do Business.'' 
Accordingly, this extraordinary measure giving a Governor the power of 
appointment of a replacement Member would be triggered, when due to 
death or incapacity, the House would not have a quorum to conduct 
business.

  My proposed amendment requires an individual appointed to take the 
place of the Member to serve until a Member is elected to fill the 
vacancy by a special election to be held at any time during the 90-day 
period which begins on the date of the individual's appointment, except 
that if a regularly schuled general election for the office was 
scheduled to be held during such period or 30 days thereafter, no 
special election would be held, and the Member elected in such 
regularly scheduled general election would fill the vacancy upon 
election. Further, my proposed amendment allows for the appointed 
individual to be a candidate in the special election or regularly 
scheduled general election.
  The Governor would be required to appoint a person of the same party 
as the ``replaced'' member. This stipulation would ensure that the 
citizens of a congressional district would continue to be represented 
by a Congressperson from the same party.
  While I understand that this is an issue we would rather not grapple 
with, it is imperative that we deliberate and ensure that, in case of a 
catastrophe, our system of governance will continue to remain strong 
and stable. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives. I welcome comments from my colleagues in both the 
House and Senate and look forward to passing meaningful legislation 
when Congress returns from its winter recess.

                          ____________________