[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 37 (Tuesday, April 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2414-S2417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2075. A bill to facilitate the availability of electromagnetic
spectrum for the deployment of wireless based services in rural areas,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Spectrum Access Act, RESA, of 2002. Wireless communications is
revolutionizing the way we communicate. It allows us to place calls
from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world. We can check our
favorite websites, and even stay in touch with family and friends
through email, all without a phone line. It's empowering to know that
we can do all this and more while sitting on top of a mountain in
Montana.
However, these services require spectrum, the wireless waves that
give us this freedom. Due to the way the FCC distributes spectrum,
rural America is finding it more and more difficult to get quality
wireless service. The current system distributes spectrum on very large
geographic areas, which in effect, inhibits certain carriers from
participating in wireless auctions. Since the geographic licensing
areas are so large and the price for the spectrum is equally as large,
rural carriers often find it difficult bidding on the spectrum. My
legislation will correct this inequity.
RESA requires the Federal Communications Commission, in future
auctions, to distribute spectrum on smaller geographic levels. It does
not favor one type of carrier over another, or pick which carrier can
serve which areas. Rather, it simply allows carriers to bid on spectrum
that they find difficult under today's system.
It is my hope that this bill will allow more of our rural
telecommunication carriers to participate in future auctions. The RESA
Act will bring more choices, better service and lower prices for those
of us living in rural America.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 2076. A bill to prohibit the cloning of humans; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senate will soon start debating the
issue of human cloning. I want to state unequivocally that I am against
the cloning of a human being. The cloning of a human being raises
serious moral and ethical questions about society's perception of human
life.
Today, I am introducing legislation that prohibits the cloning of a
human being. It is a simple bill, but it reflects my view and a view
that is held by almost everyone. My bill reflects the common ground
that we can all agree to in this debate. My legislation makes it
illegal to clone a human being and imposes strict penalties against
anyone who violates this prohibition.
I urge my colleagues to support a ban on the cloning of a human
being, and encourage their cosponsorship of my legislation.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 2077. A bill to make grants to improve public safety in order to
prepare for and respond to terrorist threats; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I am introducing the Securing Our
States Act. As the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11 taught us
all too well, our Nation is not as prepared for widespread emergencies
as it should be. The legislation I am introducing today, Securing Our
States Act, or SOS Act, will help make our Nation more secure by
strengthening our first line of defense, the first responders in our
States and communities.
As the Presiding Officer is well aware, when a terrorist attack or
other disaster occurs, it is the State and local police, firefighters,
and emergency medical personnel who are first on the scene. Nearly 2
million State and local police, firefighters, emergency medical
personnel, and others are closest to these challenges. They understand
best what is needed to respond effectively, and they tell me they need
improved training, more and better equipment, greater coordination, and
more exercises. They need them as soon as possible. They are the ones
who are always on the front lines when disaster strikes.
Properly trained and equipped, first responders have the greatest
potential to save lives and limit casualties after a terrorist attack.
Currently, however, our capabilities for responding to a terrorist
attack vary widely from community to community, State to State, across
this great country. Many areas simply have very little capacity to
respond to a terrorist attack. In fact, most localities could not
respond effectively to a terrorist attack if weapons of mass
destruction were used. Even the best prepared States and communities do
not possess adequate resources to respond to the full range of possible
terrorist attacks.
This legislation I am introducing will help by providing much needed
resources. The SOS Act, which is consistent with the first responders
proposal in President Bush's budget, will provide $4 billion in
critically needed funding, an increase of more than 1,000 percent in
Federal resources that will flow to State and local governments.
[[Page S2415]]
This bill is designed to accomplish the following objectives: First,
more resources to States and communities to conduct important planning
and exercises, purchase equipment, and better train their personnel.
Second, it would provide flexibility for States and localities to
address whatever the needs of their particular locality may be. States
differ in their preparedness, and this would allow flexibility in the
use of funds.
Third, another important feature of this bill is its simplicity. We
need to speed the disbursement of Federal funds to States and
communities without further delay.
Fourth, this legislation is designed to promote cooperation across
the Nation so local, State, Federal, and volunteer networks can operate
together effectively.
To achieve these objectives, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
known as FEMA, will implement a streamlined and simple procedure
designed to speed the flow of resources to States and communities. The
funds may be used for a variety of activities, including planning to
develop comprehensive plans to prepare for and respond to a terrorist
attack; equipment to respond more effectively to terrorist attack,
including personal protective equipment, chemical, and biological
detectors and interoperable communications gear.
We want to make sure our emergency personnel can communicate with one
another. We have learned from the lessons of September 11 that can be a
devastating problem.
The legislation would also allow funds to be used for more training
to enable firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical
professionals to respond and operate in a chemical or biological
environment, even a very dangerous environment.
We need to have more exercises to improve response capabilities,
practice mutual aid and assess operational improvements and
deficiencies.
The legislation I am introducing will help make our Nation safer.
Nearly 2 million first responders are always there, willing to put
their lives at risk to save the lives of others and to make our country
safer. This bill will help these brave men and women do their jobs
better and will help all of our communities be more secure. The
benefits of the Securing Our States Act are immediate and widespread
and the goal is one we can all embrace, the goal of making our Nation
safer from terrorist attacks while also bolstering everyday response
capabilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
I yield the floor.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Feingold, and Mr. Levin):
S. 2078. A bill to amend section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to eliminate notification and return requirements for State and
local political committees and candidate committees and avoid duplicate
reporting by certain State and local political committees of
information required to be reported and made publicly available under
State law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today I am pleased to again be
offering legislation that will solve a significant issue for State and
local legislators and candidates across the country and which I know is
of serious concern.
Two years ago, Congress enacted the Full and Fair Political
Activities Disclosure Act of 2000, Public Law 106-230, a law that
imposed new IRS reporting requirements on political organizations
claiming tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue
Code. The purpose of this law was to uncover so-called ``stealth
PACs,'' tax-exempt groups which, prior to the enactment of this law,
did not have to disclose any contributions or expenditures and were
free to influence elections in virtual anonymity. While Public Law 106-
230 was intended to target ``stealth PACs,'' it has had the unintended
consequence of imposing burdensome and duplicative reporting
requirements on State and local candidates who are not involved in any
federal election activities. In many States like Texas, state and local
candidates already file detailed reports with their state election
officials.
To correct this problem, I have worked closely with Senator
Lieberman, among others, to develop legislation that would exempt state
and local candidates from some of the IRS reporting requirements of
Public Law 106-230. We have done this in a way that solves the problem
but without creating new loopholes that would allow ``stealth''
organizations to reemerge. This legislation is the product of
bipartisan and I would like to thank those who have supported our
efforts, including Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and Senator Levin
who join me and Senator Lieberman on this bill today. I originally
offered legislation on this issue last year and it was included in the
tax cut bill, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001. Unfortunately, our provision was dropped from the bill in
conference.
Since then, P.L. 106-230 has created an increasingly heavy burden on
local and State candidates. This is exacerbated by the fact that many
candidates were not aware of the notification requirements and could
now face severe penalties. It is time to take action and get this issue
resolved. The bill we introduce today solves this problem while also
addressing some issues that have been raised since we first made this
effort last year. The deadline for the most burdensome reporting
requirements is fast approaching in May. Congress has delayed too long.
I again urge my colleagues to support this bill and to solve the
problem that we created and to do so now.
______
By Mr. ROCKFELLER:
S. 2079. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to facilitate
and enhance judicial review of certain matters regarding veterans'
benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am today introducing legislation
which responds to concerns relating to judicial review of VA benefits
expressed by the authors of the Independent Budget for Veteran's
Programs for fiscal year 2003. I am doing this in order to provide a
vehicle for further discussion on these and related matters.
The Independent Budget, the IB, is the collaborative effort of a
coalition of four veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of
Foreign Wars, which is endorsed by dozens of other veterans' groups and
others. This is the sixteenth year that the these organizations have
drafted an independent budget to advocate for the funding that they
feel is necessary to properly provide care and benefits to our
veterans.
This bill proposes three amendments to title 38, United States Code,
and a free-standing provision relating to the Equal Access to Justice
Act. Section 1 of this legislation would amend section 502 of title 38
to allow the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
the Federal Circuit, to review and set aside VA changes to the schedule
for rating disabilities found to be arbitrary and capricious or in
violation of statute. Section 2 would amend section 7261 of title 38 to
specify that the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims, the
CAVC, shall apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when
reviewing findings of fact made by the Board of Veterans Appeals.
Section 3 would amend section 7292 of title 38 to permit the Federal
Circuit to review CAVC decisions on questions of law. The final section
of this legislation would allow the CAVC, when awarding attorneys fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act to award compensation to
qualified non-attorney representatives before the CAVC.
Current section 502 of title 38, provides for judicial review of VA
rules and regulations in the Federal Circuit, but expressly precludes
review of VA actions relating to the adoption or revision of the so
called ``rating schedule'' made pursuant to section 1155 of title 38.
This rating schedule is the system by which VA categorizes types and
levels of disability by percentages and, as noted by the IB authors,
this preclusion of review was based on the view that VA has specific
expertise in this area, an expertise not found in most courts. However,
while the IB authors recognize the importance of VA's particularly
informed judgment in this
[[Page S2416]]
area, they are concerned that, ``without any constraints or oversight
whatsoever, VA is free to promulgate rules to rating disabilities that
do not have as their basis reduction in earning capacity.'' To remedy
this concern, the authors of the IB propose an amendment to section 502
of title 38 which would authorize Federal Circuit review of rating
schedule decisions. This is the intent of section 1 of this bill.
A second concern of the authors of the IB relates to the scope of
review applied by the CAVC to factual determinations of the Board of
Veterans' Appeal. Under current law, section 5107(b) of title 38, VA is
required to give a claimant the benefit of the doubt when ``there is an
approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the
merits'' of an issue material to the claim. However, as noted in the IB
for fiscal year 2003, the CAVC, in reviewing a VA decision on a factual
issue, is required to apply a ``clearly erroneous'' standard. Under
this standard, which is the same as applied by Federal appellate courts
in their review of factual determinations of trial courts, if there is
a plausible basis for a factual finding, it can not be clearly
erroneous. This results in the CAVC having to accord significant
deference to findings of fact made by the Board. As the IB authors
note, this approach of requiring the CAVC to uphold a Board decision
based on only the lower ``plausible basis'' undermines the statutory
``benefit of the doubt'' rule. Section 2 of this legislation would
protect the ``benefit of the doubt'' rule by amending section 7261 of
title 38 to specify that the CAVC is to apply a preponderance of the
evidence standard when reviewing factual determinations of the Board.
Another concern of the IB authors is the present limit on Federal
Circuit's authority to review CAVC precedential decisions on questions
of law. Under section 7292 of title 38, the Federal Circuit is
authorized to review CAVC findings on questions of statutory or
regulatory interpretation, but is not authorized to review such
decisions based on questions of law not rooted on a constitutional,
statutory, or regulatory interpretation. In a 1992 case, Livingston v.
Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, the Federal Circuit has described this
limitation as follows: ``The interpretation of the board's decision is
unquestionably a matter of law, but that is not enough to bring the
appeal within this court's statutory jurisdiction. In the absence of a
challenge to the validity of a statute or a regulation, or the
interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a
regulation, we have no authority to consider the appeal.'' The IB
authors express the concern that this ``unavailability of Federal
Circuit review, has, in many instances, undesirable consequences'' and
urge that the law be amended to give the Federal Circuit jurisdiction
to review all CAVC decisions on questions of law. Section 3 would
modify section 7292 of title 38 to accomplish that result.
A final issue raised by the authors of the Independent Budget is not
one of procedural fairness, but rather of equality of access to the
administrative and judicial structures of the veterans' appeals
process. Currently, veterans who enlist the aid of attorneys, and non-
attorney practitioners supervised by attorneys, who are successful in
their claims and satisfy the other requirements, can avail themselves
of the benefits of the Equal Access to Justice Act, the EAJA. The EAJA
shifts the burden of attorney fees from the citizen to the government
in cases where the citizen successfully challenges an unreasonable
government action. In the case of VA claims, however, claimants often
turn to qualified, non-attorney representatives of the many veterans
service organizations to represent them, up to and through the CAVC.
Based upon the prior long standing limitation on paying attorney fees
in veterans' benefits cases, there had not been an active veterans'
bar. As a result, veterans service organizations developed expertise to
enable them to effectively represent claimants before VA. VA does not
require that these representatives be attorneys, only credentialed by a
VA-recognized veterans service organization. Therefore, when the court
was created, certain non-attorney practitioners were allowed to
represent appellants at the court. However, as currently interpreted,
these non-attorney practitioners are not eligible to receive
compensation under the EAJA, despite the fact that they are doing the
same work as their attorney counterparts. The authors of the
Independent Budget, representatives of the organizations which are
affected by this limitation, ask that unsupervised, non-attorneys be
given access to fee compensation under the EAJA. They believe that this
change would allow veterans organizations to represent even more
veterans. Section 4 of the bill would provide for this change.
As a new generation is called to sacrifice in service of our country
it is imperative that we ensure the fairness and accessibility of the
benefits that they so richly deserve and it is for this reason that I
introduce this bill. As I noted earlier in my statement, I am doing so
in order to provide a vehicle for detailed discussion of these and
other issues related to the judicial review of VA claims. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on these matters in the months
ahead.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2080. A bill to designate a United States courthouse to be
constructed in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United
States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
name the Federal courthouse building to be constructed at Tulare and
``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United
States Courthouse.''
It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected
and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and
persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project.
Since prior to 1994, Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to
build a new courthouse in Fresno. In the course of his work, Judge
Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing
a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process
of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well
received by national court administrators that it is now a nationwide
program run by Judge Coyle. In addition to meeting the needs of the
court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key
element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's
efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a
major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took
place earlier this month.
Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the
bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President
Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the
Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge
Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings
College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a
Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958
with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained
until his appointment by President Reagan. He is very active in the
community and has served in many judicial leadership positions,
including: Chair, Space and Security Committee; Chair, Conference of
the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth
Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors
of the State Bar of California and President of the Fresno County Bar.
My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern
District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the
community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge
Robert E. Coyle.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (by request):
S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution approving the site at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, yesterday, the Governor of the State
of
[[Page S2417]]
Nevada submitted to the Senate and to the House of Representatives a
notice of disapproval of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, pursuant to section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
notice was duly referred in the Senate to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is my duty, as
the chairman of the committee to which the notice of disapproval was
referred, to introduce, by request, a resolution of repository siting
approval not later than the first day of session following the day on
which the Governor's notice of disapproval was submitted.
In accordance with the statutory requirement, I am today introducing
the resolution of repository siting approval. The text of the
resolution is prescribed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
resolution will be referred to committee for a period of up to 60 days.
Under the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Governor's notice
of disapproval will stand, and the Department of Energy will be
prohibited from applying for a license to develop a nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, unless both Houses of Congress pass the
resolution of repository siting approval and it becomes law within 90
days from yesterday.
This is an extraordinary process. The 97th Congress, which prescribed
this process for us to follow 20 years ago, did not do so lightly. The
Members of the 97th Congress only arrived at this procedure after
considerable debate. Representative Morris K. Udall, who was the
principal architect of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, explained the
thinking of our predecessors. ``We are all agreed that the States ought
to have a veto,'' Chairman Udall said. ``If you are going to put
something as important, as a nuclear waste repository, in a State, then
the State, through its Governor or legislature, ought to be able to say
no thanks.'' But, he continued, ``we are also agreed that once the
State has made that veto, that there ought to be mechanism so that, in
the national interest, it could be overridden, as we do in war when we
need an air base or at other times when we need Federal eminent
domain.''
The process upon which we are embarking today was designed to serve
those two goals. It will afford the State of Nevada a fair hearing on
its objections to the repository and will ensure that those objections
stand unless the administration can persuade both Houses of Congress to
override them. At the same time, it will give the administration an
opportunity to present its case and to override the State's objections
if it can show its decision was sound and in the national interest.
It is my intention, once the Senate completes action on the energy
bill, to schedule hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources to consider the President's recommendation of the Yucca
Mountain site and the objections of the State of Nevada to the use of
the site for the nuclear waste repository and to report the committee's
recommendation to the Senate within the prescribed 60-day period as the
97th Congress envisioned.
____________________