[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.
____________________