[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2952-S2976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 2194. A bill to hold accountable the Palestine Liberation
Organization and the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from
California and myself, I offer the Arafat Accountability Act. This act
seeks to create conditions more conducive to stopping the senseless
violence and flow of innocent blood in the Middle East.
The act takes aim at the weakest link in ongoing efforts to negotiate
a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--PLO Chairman
Yasser Arafat. His leadership has been marked by repeated failures--
failure to forcefully denounce and terminate the spree of horrific
homicide bombings, failure to serve as a credible and reliable partner
in peace, and failure to fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian
people for stability, economic opportunity, and a viable homeland.
Instead, he has acquiesced to terror and violence. Documents seized
during recent counterterrorism operations on the West Bank reveal his
personal involvement in financing and supporting terrorism against
Israeli civilians. The successful interception of a cargo vessel from
Iran earlier this year--loaded with offensive weaponry destined for the
Palestinian Authority--should have conclusively proven that Chairman
Arafat was, at best, a balky partner in peace, or, at worst, a foe of
any meaningful reconciliation.
The terrorist attacks against Israel must come to an end. And they
must end on terms that safeguard the lives and livelihoods of innocent
Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Much like our war against the
Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Israel is rotting out terrorist
cells and destroying their networks.
It is no understatement that the Israeli military is undertaking its
operations with precision and professionalism that no other army in the
region could exert.
The Arafat Accountability Act will not frustrate or derail the
important efforts of the administration to secure a political solution
to the ongoing strife. Rather, it places critical incentives to ensure
that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority do not deliver a
fatal blow to the prospects for peace.
Specifically, the act denies a visa to Arafat and other senior PLO
officials to travel to the United States, downgrades the PLO's
representative office here in Washington, restricts the travel of
senior PLO officials at the United Nations, and seizes the assets of
the PLO and the Palestinian Authority and Arafat in the United States.
It also requires the administration to report to Congress on any acts
of terrorism committed by the PLO or its constituent elements.
Importantly, the bill provides the President with flexibility in
determining the sanctions, but it is my expectation that they would
remain in place until a cease-fire is achieved and the Tenet plan
implemented. These are the very same short-term goals that Secretary
Powell has been trying to achieve over the last few days.
We should not forget that in 1993 Arafat himself committed the PLO to
``a peaceful resolution of the conflict,'' so we are not holding Arafat
to any higher standard than he established for himself already.
I would offer that Arafat should have listened more carefully to
Secretary Powell when he said to the Nation and the world from the
McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of
Louisville last year that solutions to this conflict ``will not be
created by teaching hate and division, nor will they be born amidst
violence and war.''
I emphasize that it is not my intent to push this bill to a vote on
the Senate floor at this time. We should give the President and his
advisers more time to pursue their objectives in the region.
It is my intent, though, and the intent of the Senator from
California, to send a powerful signal to Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority that the Senate will not stand idly by while they
talk peace in English and practice terror in Arabic.
No progress toward a political solution to this conflict will be made
until and unless Yasser Arafat forcefully, clearly, and repeatedly
condemns homicide bombings and other acts of terrorism against Israel
and takes concrete measures to restrain Palestinian extremists.
[[Page S2953]]
The bill we introduce today puts added pressure on Arafat and the PLO
to be responsible and responsive partners in peace. There is no room
for further failure on Arafat's part. He must either lead his people
toward peace or get out of the way.
Let me close by commending President Bush and his administration for
their superb conduct in the ongoing war against terrorism. They
certainly have my full support in this endeavor--be it in the West Bank
or in Gaza or, for that matter, in Iraq.
My colleagues and I are looking forward to hearing from Secretary
Powell when he appears before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee next
week.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky
for his work and leadership on this issue.
We are here because we believe any hope for peace in the Middle East
must begin with the complete renunciation of terrorism by the
Palestinian Liberation Organization and a strong, unwavering commitment
to bring such terrorism to an end.
We also believe that only with the leadership of the United States
can there be a peaceful settlement and resolution of issues in the
area.
For the past 18 months, as the violence of the second Intifada has
increased, the United States has consistently called upon Yasser Arafat
to halt the terrorism he pledged to end in the Oslo accords.
Unfortunately, Arafat has incited the violence and helped financially
support the terrorists.
We now know that one of Arafat's top advisers is directly involved in
financing the illegal weapons purchases and terror activities of the Al
Aqsa Brigade.
We now know, according to documents seized by the Israeli Defense
Forces, that Arafat was directly involved in efforts to illegally
smuggle more than 50 tons of arms into Israel from Iran a few months
ago.
We now know that Arafat has failed to confiscate weapons of terrorist
suspects.
We know he has failed to arrest and hold suspected terrorists and is
harboring suspects in the assassination of an Israeli Cabinet official
in his own headquarters in Ramallah.
In fact, much of the terrorism emanates from the heart of the PLO,
carried out by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, composed of members of
Arafat's own Fatah faction.
Since the beginning of the year, 209 people have been murdered and
more than 1,500 injured in these suicide bombings. These are children,
women, men--innocent civilians.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed credit for numerous of these
attacks, including on March 31, central Jerusalem, killing 3 people;
March 3, killing 10 people in west Jerusalem; and January 31, when the
first female bomber killed an elderly Israeli.
A document seized by the Israel Defense Forces in Ramallah, signed by
Arafat himself, approves funding for the Al Aqsa Brigades.
On February 3, Arafat wrote a New York Times op-ed opposing violence
against Israel. Yet he declared a few days later, in Ramallah, that
``we will make the lives of the infidels Hell'' and led a chant of ``A
million martyrs marching to Jerusalem!''
And this past week, while Arafat spoke out against terrorism, his
wife, in Paris, said she would be proud if she had a son who became a
suicide bomber.
I believe, sincerely, that this is not a leader who wants peace for
his people. In fact, I believe the suicide bombings have been precisely
calculated to destroy any chance for peace.
If these suicide bombers cannot be stopped, the situation is going to
continue to deteriorate, Israel will have to continue to exercise its
legitimate right of self-defense, and the result will be full-scale
military conflagration.
Israel has done no less--and certainly no more--than what any country
would do to defend itself. There has been a lamentable loss of life in
the West Bank. And I grieve for it because I believe, very deeply,
every life--Israeli or Palestinian--has equal value.
But let us not forget that Israel's military operation has been one
based on specific intelligence information, with specific military
goals--to act directly against terrorists who before the start of the
operation were carrying out daily suicide bombings against Israeli
civilians--and carried out with considerable restraint.
Certainly, Israel has not gone beyond what the United States and our
allies have been doing in Afghanistan, or the United Kingdom in
Northern Ireland, or the bloody French campaign in Algeria--let alone,
what Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, or Iran do on almost a daily
basis to quell dissent.
Does anyone doubt that a suicide bombing in Cairo, or Riyadh, or
Damascus, or Beirut, or Paris would be met with the strongest of
reactions, as was the 9-11 terrorist incident here?
There simply is no excuse for arming a teenage girl with bombs around
her waist to blow up women and children. And this kind of terror is
happening over and over again.
So the time is now for this Senate to stand up, in a strong, unified
voice, to condemn the actions of Chairman Arafat and his PLO and the
terrorism that has spawned.
Chairman Arafat has said one thing in English and another in Arabic.
Chairman Arafat fans the flames and incites the people.
We offer this bill, after witnessing the failure of efforts by
Messrs. Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, and, at least initially, Secretary
Powell to break the deadlock largely because Chairman Arafat has not
brought to an end the suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism.
This legislation would require the President to report to Congress
every 90 days, detailing the acts of terrorism engaged in by the
Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of its constituent elements
and, based on that report, to designate the PLO or its constituent
elements as terrorist organizations, or explain why not.
The legislation also finds that Chairman Arafat and the PLO have
violated his commitment to peace through the recent purchase of 50 tons
of offensive weaponry from Iran; that they are responsible for the
murder of hundreds of innocent Israelis and the wounding of thousands
more since October 2000, and that they have been directly implicated in
funding and supporting terrorists who have claimed responsibility for a
number of homicide bombings inside Israel.
Because of the failure by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to
renounce terrorism, the act would, A, downgrade PLO representation in
the United States to before Oslo; B, place travel restrictions on
senior PLO representatives at the United Nations; C, confiscate assets
of PLO or Palestinian Authority or Chairman Arafat in the United
States; D, deny visas to Chairman Arafat or other officials of the PLO
or the Palestinian Authority.
It is important to note that the President may, on a case-by-case
basis, waive this provision based on national security considerations.
The legislation presents a sense of the Senate outlining the first
steps needed to reach peace. First, the United States should urge an
immediate and unconditional end to all terrorist activities and
commencement of a cease-fire. Two, Arafat and the PLO should turn over
to Israel for detention and prosecution those wanted by the Israeli
Government for the assassination of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Mr.
Zeevi. Third, Arafat and the PLO should take broad and immediate action
to condemn all acts of terrorism, including and especially suicide
bombing, which has resulted in the murder of over 125 Israeli men,
women, and children in the month of March alone and the injury of
hundreds more; confiscate and destroy the infrastructure of terrorism,
including weapons, bomb factories and materials, as well as end all
financial support of terrorist activities; and to take positive steps
to urge all Arab nations and individuals to cease funding terrorist
operations and the families of terrorists.
Finally, the President of the United States, working with the
international community, with Israel and the Arab States, should
continue the search for a comprehensive peace in the region.
There is no question that there are serious differences to be
reconciled between Israel and the Palestinian people and that only a
political settlement can hopefully bring the violence in this region to
an end. I believe the 1967 borders, borders which have the imprimatur
of the United Nations, hold the key to a settlement. Despite serious
differences about the refugee problem, ongoing security, and the status
of Jerusalem, I believe peace can be
[[Page S2954]]
achieved through negotiation and agreement. But I know it cannot be
achieved through violence.
The necessary first step is the end of the violence, the terrorism,
and the suicide bombing. Once that is done, we are firmly convinced
that if leaders on both sides want peace, the rest can all be worked
out.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Carnahan, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 2195. A bill to establish State infrastructure banks for
education; to the Committees on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the need to rebuild our Nation's
crumbling schools is clear. The National Center for Education
Statistics estimates that it would cost $127 billion to repair,
modernize, and renovate U.S. schools. Fourteen million U.S. students
currently attend schools that report a need for extensive repair. And a
study by the American Society of Civil Engineers concludes that public
schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national
infrastructure.
And yet the Federal Government is doing far too little to help.
That is why I am introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act
of 2002. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Carnahan, and Feinstein
join with me as co-sponsors.
This legislation allows States to create ``infrastructure banks'' for
public schools and libraries. Modeled after State revolving funds,
which have been used successfully to finance transportation projects,
these banks would offer low-interest loans to school districts for
building or repairing public schools, and to public libraries for
building or repairing libraries. As the loans are repaid, the bank
funds would be replenished, and the banks could make new loans to other
schools and libraries. Once the banks got rolling, they would sustain
themselves, without any need for ongoing Federal appropriations.
After more than a decade of fighting to rebuild our Nation's
deteriorating schools, I am well aware that this bill is just one part
of the solution. Two years ago, as the ranking member on the Senate
Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort
to provide $1.2 billion in grants to schools that urgently need
repairs. Last year, the Senate approved another $925 million on a
bipartisan vote, but unfortunately that funding was eliminated during
conference negotiations with the House.
I also introduced the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would
provide tax credits to subsidize $25 billion in new construction. That
legislation is still pending, and I am hopeful that it will succeed.
The Investing for Tomorrow 's School Act is the final piece of the
puzzle.
If the nicest buildings our kids see in their hometowns are shopping
malls, sports arenas and movie theaters, and the most rundown place
they see is their school, what kind of signal are we sending? We can
and must do better for our children. The Investing for Tomorrow's
School Act should be a critical part of our strategy to improve
education, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I ask 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. 2195
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 ``Investing for Tomorrow's
Schools Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to a 1996 study conducted by the American
School & University, $10,420,000,000 was spent to address the
Nation's education infrastructure needs in 1995, with the
average total cost of a new high school at $15,400,000.
(2) According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, an estimated $127,000,000,000 in repairs,
renovations, and modernizations is needed to put schools in
the United States into good overall condition.
(3) Approximately 14,000,000 American students attend
schools that report the need for extensive repair or
replacement of 1 or more buildings.
(4) Academic research has proven that there is a direct
correlation between the condition of school facilities and
student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers
found that students assigned to schools in poor conditions
can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points behind those
in buildings in excellent condition. Similar studies have
demonstrated improvement of up to 20 percent in test scores
when students were moved from a poor facility to a new
facility.
(5) The Director of Education and Employment Issues at the
Government Accounting Office testified that nearly 52 percent
of schools, affecting 21,300,000 students, reported
insufficient technology elements for 6 or more areas.
(6) Large numbers of local educational agencies have
difficulties securing financing for school facility
improvement.
(7) The challenges facing our Nation's public elementary
schools and secondary schools and libraries require the
concerted efforts of all levels of government and all sectors
of the community.
(8) The United States competitive position within the world
economy is vulnerable if America's future workforce continues
to be educated in schools and libraries not equipped for the
21st century.
(9) The deplorable state of collections in America's public
school libraries has increased the demands on public
libraries. In many instances, public libraries substitute for
school libraries, creating a higher demand for material and
physical space to house literature and educational computer
equipment.
(10) Research shows that 50 percent of a child's
intellectual development takes place before age 4. The
Nation's public and school libraries play a critical role in
a child's early development because the libraries provide a
wealth of books and other resources that can give every child
a head start on life and learning.
SEC. 3. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary of Education
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''), in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may enter
into cooperative agreements with States under which--
(A) States establish State infrastructure banks and
multistate infrastructure banks for the purpose of providing
the loans described in subparagraph (B); and
(B) the Secretary awards grants to such States to be used
as initial capital for the purpose of making loans--
(i) to local educational agencies to enable the agencies to
build or repair elementary schools or secondary schools that
provide free public education; and
(ii) to public libraries to enable the libraries to build
or repair library facilities.
(2) Interstate compacts.--
(A) Consent.--Congress grants consent to any 2 or more
States, entering into a cooperative agreement under paragraph
(1) with the Secretary for the establishment of a multistate
infrastructure bank, to enter into an interstate compact
establishing a multistate infrastructure bank in accordance
with this section.
(B) Reservation of rights.--Congress expressly reserves the
right to alter, amend, or repeal this section and any
interstate compact entered into pursuant to this section.
(b) Repayments.--Each infrastructure bank established under
subsection (a) shall apply repayments of principal and
interest on loans funded by the grant received under
subsection (a) to the making of additional loans.
(c) Infrastructure Bank Requirements.--A State establishing
an infrastructure bank under this section shall--
(1) contribute in each account of the bank from non-Federal
sources an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the
amount of each capitalization grant made to the bank under
subsection (a);
(2) identify an operating entity of the State as recipient
of the grant if the entity has the capacity to manage loan
funds and issue debt instruments of the State for purposes of
leveraging the funds;
(3) allow such funds to be used as reserve for debt issued
by the State, so long as proceeds are deposited in the fund
for loan purposes;
(4) ensure that investment income generated by funds
contributed to an account of the bank will be--
(A) credited to the account;
(B) available for use in providing loans to projects
eligible for assistance from the account; and
(C) invested in United States Treasury securities, bank
deposits, or such other financing instruments as the
Secretary may approve to earn interest to enhance the
leveraging of projects assisted by the bank;
(5) ensure that any loan from the bank will bear interest
at or below the lowest interest rates being offered for
bonds, the income from which is exempt from Federal taxation,
as determined by the State, to make the project that is the
subject of the loan feasible;
(6) ensure that repayment of any loan from the bank will
commence not later than 1 year after the project has been
completed;
(7) ensure that the term for repaying any loan will not
exceed 30 years after the date of the first payment on the
loan under paragraph (6); and
(8) require the bank to make an annual report to the
Secretary on its status, and make such other reports as the
Secretary may require by guidelines.
[[Page S2955]]
(d) Forms of Assistance From Infrastructure Banks.--
(1) In general.--An infrastructure bank established under
this section may make a loan to a local educational agency or
a public library in an amount equal to all or part of the
cost of carrying out a project eligible for assistance under
subsection (e).
(2) Applications for loans.--
(A) In general.--A local educational agency or public
library desiring a loan under this Act shall submit to an
infrastructure bank an application that includes--
(i) in the case of a renovation project--
(I) a description of each architectural, civil, structural,
mechanical, or electrical deficiency to be corrected with
loan funds and the priorities to be applied; and
(II) a description of the criteria used by the applicant to
determine the type of corrective action necessary for the
renovation of a facility;
(ii) a description of any improvements to be made and a
cost estimate for the improvements;
(iii) a description of how work undertaken with the loan
will promote energy conservation; and
(iv) such other information as the infrastructure bank may
require.
(B) Timing.--An infrastructure bank shall take final action
on a completed application submitted to it in accordance with
this subsection not later than 90 days after the date of the
submission of the application.
(3) Criteria for loans.--In considering an application for
a loan, an infrastructure bank shall consider--
(A) the extent to which the local educational agency or
public library desiring a loan would otherwise lack the
fiscal capacity, including the ability to raise funds through
the full use of such bonding capacity of the agency or
library, to undertake the project proposed in the
application;
(B) in the case of a local educational agency, the threat
that the condition of the physical plant in the proposed
project poses to the safety and well-being of students;
(C) the demonstrated need for the construction,
reconstruction, or renovation based on the condition of the
facility in the proposed project; and
(D) the age of the facility proposed to be reconstructed,
renovated, or replaced.
(e) Qualifying Projects.--
(1) In general.--A project is eligible for a loan from an
infrastructure bank if it is a project that consists of--
(A) the construction of a new elementary school or
secondary school to meet the needs imposed by enrollment
growth;
(B) the repair or upgrading of classrooms or structures
related to academic learning, including the repair of leaking
roofs, crumbling walls, inadequate plumbing, poor ventilation
equipment, and inadequate heating or lighting equipment;
(C) an activity to increase physical safety at the
educational facility involved;
(D) an activity to enhance the educational facility
involved to provide access for students, teachers, and other
individuals with disabilities;
(E) an activity to address environmental hazards at the
educational facility involved, such as poor ventilation,
indoor air quality, or lighting;
(F) the provision of basic infrastructure that facilitates
educational technology, such as communications outlets,
electrical systems, power outlets, or a communication closet;
(G) work that will bring an educational facility into
conformity with the requirements of--
(i) environmental protection or health and safety programs
mandated by Federal, State, or local law, if such
requirements were not in effect when the facility was
initially constructed; and
(ii) hazardous waste disposal, treatment, and storage
requirements mandated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) or similar State laws;
(H) work that will enable efficient use of available energy
resources;
(I) work to detect, remove, or otherwise contain asbestos
hazards in educational facilities; or
(J) work to construct new public library facilities or
repair or upgrade existing public library facilities.
(2) Davis-bacon.--The wage requirements of the Act of March
3, 1931 (referred to as the ``Davis-Bacon Act'' (40 U.S.C.
276a et seq.)) shall apply with respect to individuals
employed on the projects described in paragraph (1).
(f) Supplementation.--Any loan made by an infrastructure
bank shall be used to supplement and not supplant other
Federal, State, and local funds available to carry out school
or library construction, renovation, or repair.
(g) Limitation on Repayments.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the repayment of a loan from an
infrastructure bank under this section may not be credited
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project.
(h) Secretarial Requirements.--In administering this
section, the Secretary shall specify procedures and
guidelines for establishing, operating, and providing
assistance from an infrastructure bank.
(i) United States Not Obligated.--The contribution of
Federal funds into an infrastructure bank established under
this section shall not be construed as a commitment,
guarantee, or obligation on the part of the United States to
any third party, nor shall any third party have any right
against the United States for payment solely by virtue of the
contribution. Any security or debt financing instrument
issued by the infrastructure bank shall expressly state that
the security or instrument does not constitute a commitment,
guarantee, or obligation of the United States.
(j) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335 and 6503 of
title 31, United States Code, shall not apply to funds
contributed under this section.
(k) Program Administration.--A State may expend an amount
not to exceed 2 percent of the grant funds contributed to an
infrastructure bank established by a State or States under
this section to pay the reasonable costs of administering the
infrastructure bank.
(l) Secretarial Review and Report.--The Secretary shall--
(1) review the financial condition of each infrastructure
bank established under this section; and
(2) transmit to Congress a report on the results of such
review not later than 90 days after the completion of the
review.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Elementary school, free public education, local
educational agency, and secondary school.--The terms
``elementary school'', ``free public education'', ``local
educational agency'', and ``secondary school'' have the same
meanings as in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
(2) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic
of Palau;
(3) Public library.--The term ``public library''--
(A) means a library that serves free of charge all
residents of a community, district, or region, and receives
its financial support in whole or in part from public funds;
and
(B) includes a research library, which, for purposes of
this subparagraph, means a library that--
(i) makes its services available to the public free of
charge;
(ii) has extensive collections of books, manuscripts, and
other materials suitable for scholarly research which are not
available to the public through public libraries;
(iii) engages in the dissemination of humanistic knowledge
through services to readers, fellowships, educational and
cultural programs, publication of significant research, and
other activities; and
(iv) is not an integral part of an institution of higher
education; and
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and each of the outlying areas.
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 2196. A bill to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage
Area in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, today it gives me great pleasure to
introduce for the Senate's consideration legislation establishing the
National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area.
Spanning 250 miles, from the small town of Fairview, UT southward to
our border with Arizona, the area encompassed by the National Mormon
Pioneer Heritage Area includes outstanding examples of historical,
cultural, and natural resources shaped by the Mormon pioneers. The
story of the Mormon pioneers is one of the most compelling and
captivating in our Nation's history. After traveling 1,400 miles from
Illinois either by wagon or by pulling a handcart the pioneers came to
the Great Salt Lake Valley. Along the way, the pioneers experienced
many hardships including starvation, dehydration, exposure to the
elements, Indian attacks, and religious persecution to name a few. Many
people died during their journey. Shortly after arriving in and
establishing Salt Lake City, Brigham Young dispatched pioneers to
establish communities in present day Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and other
regions of Utah. The vast colonization effort in no way ended the
hardship experienced by the pioneers. Throughout the area included in
my proposal are numerous stories of pioneers who perserved through
challenging circumstances. Communities such as Panguitch have Quilt
Days every year to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its
pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The
Quilt Days celebration is a remembrance of an event known as the Quilt
Walk, in which a group of men from Panguitch attempted to cross over
the mountains to Parowan, a community to the west, to procure food
during the community's first winter. Because of deep
[[Page S2956]]
snows the pioneers were unable to trek across the mountains. Using
their quilts, the pioneers formed a path which would support their
weight and were able to reach Parowan, secure food, and return to
Panguitch. There are other remarkable stories in the proposed heritage
area that demonstrate the tenacity of the Mormon pioneers. At times in
order to survive, the pioneers had to overcome major natural obstacles.
One such obstacle was the Hole-in-the-Rock. In 1880 a group of 250
people, 80 wagons, and 1,000 head of cattle came upon the Colorado
River Gorge. After looking for sometime to find an acceptable path to
the river, the pioneers found a narrow crevice leading to the bottom of
the gorge. Because the crevice was too narrow to accommodate their
wagons, the pioneers spent six weeks enlarging the crevice by hand,
using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder, so wagons could pass.
Today the Hole-in-the-Rock stands as a monument to the resourcefulness
of the Mormon pioneers.
The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as special
recognition to the people and places that have contributed greatly to
our Nation's development. Throughout the heritage area are wonderful
examples of architecture, such as the community of Spring City,
heritage products, and cultural events, such as the Mormon Miracle
Pageant, that demonstrate the way-of-life of the pioneers.
This designation will allow for the conservation of historical and
cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive exhibits, will
increase public awareness, and specifically allows for the preservation
of historic buildings. This is a locally based, locally supported
undertaking. My legislation has broad support from Sanpete, Sevier,
Piute, Garfield, and Kane Counties. Furthermore, nothing in my
legislation affects private property, land use planning, or zoning.
I am very proud to introduce this legislation today. I look forward
to working with my colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources to pass this legislation this year.
______
By Mr. WYDEN.
S. 2197. A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain entries of roller chain; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation whose
purpose is to correct a gross injustice that has been carried out for
more than two decades by bureaucrats at the International Trade
Administration, ITA, and the U.S. Customs Service, Customs, against a
small Oregon business, GS Associates, Inc., GS. What has been allowed
to happen to this company at the hands of the federal government is a
shocking and ultimately disturbing example of what can happen to
ordinary, hardworking Americans when an overzealous Federal bureaucracy
is allowed to run horribly amok.
In 1973, imports of Japanese roller chain, not bicycle chain,
potentially became subject to dumping duties, and in 1980, Congress
instructed the International Trade Administration, ITA, to conduct
complete annual administrative reviews of outstanding dumping findings
to determine whether any dumping duties should be assessed. But ITA
failed to complete its reviews on a timely basis. In fact, for my small
Oregon importer, GS, the ITA wasn't just a day or two late in reporting
the findings of its review of the company's Japanese supplier for
shipments imported from April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982, they were
nine-and-a-half years late. When ITA finally got around to issuing a
notice regarding its administrative review on September 22, 1992, a
court challenge was initiated by the Japanese supplier and a court
decision was rendered on July 11, 1995. Not surprisingly, ITA failed to
publish notice of the court's decision in the Federal Register within
ten days, as required by law. That was in 1995. The year is now 2002,
and ITA still has not published that notice. And as if all of this
ineptitude were not enough, ITA then failed to instruct Customs to
begin assessing dumping duties on and to liquidate GS Associates'
shipments until the Spring of 2000. When Customs finally began
assessing duties, they added on enormous amounts of interest, dating
back almost 20 years, in sums that were two to three times greater than
the original dumping duty assessments. This outrageous pattern of
conduct by the federal government threatens GS with bankruptcy.
The level of ineptitude displayed in this case by bureaucrats at ITA
and the Customs Service is egregious bordering on negligence.
Legitimate small businesses in this country should have the expectation
they will be treated fairly and forthrightly by their federal
government. ITA and the Customs Service deserve a very strong rebuke.
GS Associates deserves to have its case resolved quickly and fairly,
and that is the point of my legislation. It will liquidate once and for
all the $1.7 million in duties and interest that have accumulated over
the past 20 years on these imports because of federal government
negligence.
I intend to work with the Finance Committee to assure that this
measure is included in the legislation the committee is preparing on
temporary duty suspensions, and hope that the duty suspension bill will
enable this Oregon company to be able to put this terrible experience
behind it.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2199. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
permit additional States to enter into long-term care partnerships
under the Medicaid Program in order to promote the use of long-term
care insurance; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term
Care Insurance Partnership Act.
In the early 1990's, with support from a grant by the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, four States, California, Connecticut, Indiana and
New York, initiated programs to create public-private long-term care
partnerships to provide citizens with options for long-term care
coverage without having to spend down to Medicaid eligibility. However,
current law prohibits additional States from including asset protection
in any public-private partnerships they may develop. Other States may
set up the policies, but the beneficiaries receive no asset protection
in the event they exhaust the long-term care insurance policies. They
would be forced to spend down to Medicaid levels, thereby removing the
key incentive behind the partnership program--asset protection.
Under the partnership program, States authorize the sale of approved
long-term care insurance policies that meet certain benefit
requirements. Individuals who purchase approved policies, would receive
a guarantee from the State that should their policy benefits be
exhausted, the State would then cover the cost of their continuing care
through Medicaid. The primary incentive for purchasing partnership
policies is asset protection.
In other words, the State Medicaid program would become a payer of
last resort rather than providing first-dollar coverage, in effect
becoming a long-term care ``stop-loss'' program.
The benefits of the program are significant for both seniors and
government: Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their
own long-term care needs rather than relying on a State benefit. It
avoids forcing middle-class individuals to spend down to Medicaid
levels, but gives these same individuals the knowledge that the
government will be there if they need it. This program has been
successful in the goal of keeping people from needing to use Medicaid.
Under this program in four States, there are nearly 66,000 policies in
force and so far only 28 policyholders have exhausted their long-term
care insurance benefits and accessed Medicaid assistance. At a cost
averaging $50,000 per year for long-term care services, the savings for
State Medicaid budgets can be significant.
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. 2199
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 ``Long-Term Care Insurance
Partnership Program Act of 2002''.
[[Page S2957]]
SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL STATES TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM
CARE PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE USE OF LONG-TERM
CARE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 1917(b)(1)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``shall seek adjustment''
and inserting ``may seek adjustment''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``had a State plan
amendment approved as of May 14, 1993, which provided'' and
inserting ``has a State plan amendment approved which
provides''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2200. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
that the parsonage allowance exclusion is limited to the fair rental
value of the property; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today I introduce legislation, along
with Senator Grassley, to clarify the tax treatment of the clergy
housing allowance. It is a very simple bill that confirms established
Internal Revenue Service policy that has lacked the force of law.
Without this clarification, we risk losing a long-standing benefit that
is terribly important to hundreds of thousands of ministers, priests,
rabbis and other clergy all across America.
Since 1921, the Tax Code has allowed clergy to exclude from their
taxable income the value of housing provided to them, and since the
1950's they have also been able to exclude a housing allowance provided
for the same purpose. This section of the Code is similar to one for
employer-provided housing for other taxpayers. The one for clergy is
much simpler, in order to minimize the involvement of the Government in
the affairs of churches, that is, to keep the separation between Church
and State.
The IRS has always interpreted this exclusion to be limited to the
fair market rental value of the housing. They clearly stated that
position in 1971, but their statement lacked the force of law. Their
position has been challenged in Court, and the Court has said that it
was not clear that Congress meant to impose this limit. That is why we
must act.
The vast majority of clergy across America work very hard for very
modest pay. Especially in rural areas like we have in Montana, many
congregations are small, pay is low, and ministers are very dependent
upon their churches providing or paying for their housing. A dispute
over this issue has led to a controversial attempt by a panel of court
of appeals judges to call into question the constitutionality of the
exclusion. If the exclusion is lost, it will cost America's clergy $500
million each year. That may seem like a small amount of money compared
to many of our tax bills that add up to billions, but it is a lot of
money to those who are directly affected, and to the millions of
Americans in the congregations that they serve.
The House has passed similar legislation by a vote of 408 to 0.
Senator Grassley and I will try to expedite passage of the legislation
here in the Senate.
It is good tax policy to keep a reasonable limit on the amount of
this deduction, as the IRS has done for decades. And it is good policy
to make our intent crystal clear so that government involvement with
religious affairs is kept to a minimum. This bill will do both.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, and Mrs. Carnahan):
S. 2201. A bill to protect the online privacy of individuals who use
the Internet; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today I rise to introduce bipartisan
legislation that will establish baseline requirements for the
protection of personal information collected from individuals over the
Internet. This bill, the Online Personal Privacy Act, represents the
work of many months and important input from consumer groups, affected
individuals, and most importantly, many Senators on the Commerce
Committee. The origin of this emerging consensus position began to take
shape at a Commerce committee hearing last summer that focused
generally on whether there was a need for online privacy legislation.
At that time, members of the committee began to articulate the notion
that not all personal information is created equal. I agree. Some,
highly sensitive personal information, such as personal financial or
medical information or a person's religious beliefs are clearly more
sensitive than other garden-variety types of information, such as a
pair of slacks that an individual may purchase. Since that hearing, and
in numerous meetings with members of the Committee, we have worked hard
to develop a balanced approach to Internet privacy regulation that
recognizes and builds upon best practices in the online community while
establishing a federal baseline standard for the protection of
individuals' privacy on the Internet.
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to Senators Rockefeller,
Inouye, Breaux, and Cleland, who worked closely with me during the last
Congress to advocate the need for strong online privacy protections and
who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation. In
addition, I would also like to particularly thank Senators Kerry,
Stevens, and Burns for their invaluable contributions throughout this
process and their willingness to join with us in working to craft a
workable, bipartisan, consensus position on legislation that will
provide individuals with better controls over the use of their personal
information while fueling the growth of e-commerce as consumer
confidence in the Internet spurs a significant increase in online
activity.
Some have argued that Americans' concerns about privacy no loner
exist in the aftermath of September 11. But poll after poll
consistently demonstrates that the American people want companies they
patronize to seek their permission prior to using their personal
information for commercial profit. These concerns are heightened with
respect to the Internet, which, in a digital age, enables the seamless
compilation of highly detailed personal profiles of Internet users.
Accordingly, fears about privacy have had palpable effects on the
willingness of consumers to embrace the full potential of the Internet
and e-commerce.
Distrust of false privacy promises has sparked a rage of online self-
defense, especially the providing of false information by individuals.
Industry analysts estimate that between one-fifth to one-third of all
individuals provide false personal information on the Internet. This
response is understandable given that consumers have few tools to
discover whether their personal information is being disclosed. sold,
or otherwise misused, and they have virtually no recourse.
Privacy fears are stifling the development and expansion of the
Internet as an engine of economic growth. Because of consumer distrust,
online companies and services are losing potential business and
collecting bad data, blocking the Internet and its wide range of
services from reaching its full potential. The lack of enforceable
privacy protections is a significant barrier to the full embrace by
consumers of the Internet marketplace. According to a recent Harris/
Business Week poll, almost two-thirds of non-Internet users would be
more likely to use the Net if the privacy of their ``personal
information and communications were protected.''
Moreover, according to a recent Forrester study, online businesses
lost nearly $15 billion, or 27 percent of e-commerce revenues, due to
consumer privacy concerns. Those numbers are significant in light of
the economic downturn and its disproportionate impact on the high-tech
Internet sectors. Good privacy means good business and the Internet
economy could use a healthy dose of that right now.
Accordingly, our legislation offers a win-win proposition for
consumers and business: it will protect the privacy of individuals
online and provide online businesses with a new market of willing
customers. While protecting the necessary business certainty of a
single Federal standard.
Online companies have long argued that privacy regulations would
hamper their ability to efficiently conduct business on-line and give
consumers the tailored buying experience they now expect from the
Internet. Online
[[Page S2958]]
merchants also touted self-regulation as sufficient privacy protection.
We know otherwise.
Privacy violations continue to make headlines: a major outcry erupted
last year after Eli Lilly disclosed a list of hundreds of customers
suffering from depression, bulimia, and obsessive compulsive disorder
over the Internet. Moreover, just last week, a New York Times article,
``Seeking Profits, Internet Companies Alter Privacy Policy,'' recounted
how Internet companies such as Yahoo had changed their privacy policies
in order to require consumers to restate their privacy preferences even
if they had previously withheld consent for the use and
commercialization of their personal information. Accordingly, these
companies expanded their ability to use an individual's personal
information for online and offline marketing purposes notwithstanding
that individual's prior policy preferences. Still other businesses
confound consumers with opaque privacy policies that begin with, ``Your
privacy is important to us,'' but in the subsequent legalese, outline a
series of exceptions crafted with double-negative verbs that allow
virtually any use of a consumer's information. Still other commercial
web sites fail to pass any privacy policy at all, safe in the knowledge
that they face virtually no legal jeopardy for selling personal
information.
To be fair, some companies have taken consumer privacy seriously.
Earthink launched a national television advertising campaign touting
its policy of not selling customer information. U-Haul's web site
simply says: ``We will never sell or share our information with anyone,
or send you junk mail, we hate that stuff, too.'' Companies like
Hewlett Packard, Intel, and Microsoft, giants of the high tech
industry, already provide individuals opt-in protection with respect to
their personal information. But, in the final analysis, despite the
best of intentions and some successful efforts, reliance on self-
regulation alone has not proven to provide sufficient protection. In
its May 2000 Report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission clearly
recognized this shortcoming having studied this issue diligently for 5
years: ``Because self-regulatory initiatives to date fall short of
broad-based implementation of effective self-regulatory programs, the
Commission has concluded that such efforts alone cannot ensure that the
online marketplace as a whole will emulate the standards adopted by
industry leaders. The Commission recommends that Congress enact
legislation that, in conjunction with continuing self-regulatory
programs, will ensure adequate protection of consumer privacy online.''
Our legislation aims to do just that.
Fundamentally, our legislation is built upon the five core principles
of privacy protection identified by the Federal Trade Commission in its
1995 report to Congress regarding online privacy: 1. Notice, 2.
Consent, 3. Access, 4. Security and 5. Enforcement. Those principles
are tried and true and formed the framework for the bipartisan
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. Which was hailed by
industry far and wide as a template for protecting children's personal
information that is collected on the Internet.
The bill we introduce today takes a singular approach. It divides
online personal information into two categories: sensitive information
and nonsensitive information. Sensitive information is narrowly
tailored to include actual information about specific financial data,
health information, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual
orientation, and political affiliation, or someone's social security
number. Non-sensitive information is all other personally identifiable
information collected online.
In this respect, the legislation is also similar to the two-tiered
approach taken by the European Union in which companies are required to
provide baseline protections governing the use of nonsensitive
information, and stronger consent protections governing the use of
sensitive data. More than 180 American companies, including Staples,
Marriott, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett Packard, DoubleClick Kodak, and
Acxiom, doing business in Europe have agreed to provide such
protections with respect to the personal data of European citizens.
They have signed up for the EU Safe Harbor and their names are listed
on the Department of Commerce's web site. Our bill simply asks these
and other companies to provide similar protections for U.S. citizens.
First, with respect to notice and consent, the bill would require web
sites and online services to post clear and conspicuous notice of its
information practices. In other words, plainly state to individuals
what you plan to do with their personal information. To the extent that
a web site collects sensitive information, it would also be required to
obtain a consumer's affirmative consent, so-called ``opt-in'' consent,
prior to the collection of such data. To the extent that a web site
collects only non-sensitive personal data, it would be able to collect
such data for other uses as long as it provides individuals with an
ability to ``opt out'' of such uses and provides the consumer with
actual notice at the point of collection, so-called ``robust notice'',
which briefly and succinctly describes how the information may be used
or disclosed.
Many Internet companies are doing this already. For example, on the
same page where an individual provides his or her personal information,
the web site for 1-800 Flowers states: ``You will be receiving
promotional offers and materials from our sites and companies we own.
Please check the box below if you do not want to receive such materials
in the future and do not wish us to provide personal information
collected from you to third parties.'' Similarly, NBC's website says
the following on the webpage where individuals register their personal
information: ``As our customer, you will occasionally receive email
from shopnbc.com about new services, features, and special offers we
believe would interest you. If you'd rather not receive these updates,
please uncheck this box.'' It's as simple as that. And it provides the
individual the ability to make an informed choice at the critical point
at which he or she is providing a company with personally identifiable
information.
Next, our legislation requires companies to provide individuals with
the ability to find out what personal information a web site has
collected about them. While important, this right of reasonable access
is not unqualified. Rather, it considers a variety of factors including
the sensitivity of the information sought by the consumer and the
burden and expense on the provider in giving consumers access to their
personal information. In addition, the bill would permit online
companies to charge individuals a reasonable fee to access their
personal data, as is similarly provided under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
In addition, our bill requires that web sites adopt reasonable
security procedures to protect the security, confidentiality, and
integrity of personally identifiable information, just as Congress
required in the Children's privacy legislation.
Moreover, the bill grants consumers important rights of redress.
First, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are
empowered to take action. If the FTC collects civil penalties, the bill
creates a mechanism whereby those injured can petition to receive up to
$200 of the award. For more serious violations involving sensitive
information, the bill would additionally permit individuals on their
own to pursue redress for damages in federal court.
Finally, in addition to following these fair information principles,
the legislation also takes the critical step of establishing a uniform
federal standard for online privacy protection by preempting State
Internet laws. Inconsistent state regulation of privacy is already
causing problems for online businesses. Vermont has adopted ``opt-in
laws'' governing financial and medical privacy. In Minnesota, the state
Senate has adopted ``opt-in'' online privacy legislation by a vote of
96-0. In California, state privacy legislation is again moving through
the state legislature, offering the very real possibility that online
businesses will sooner rather than later face the prospect of trying to
bring their online operation into compliance with inconsistent state
laws.
Because new technologies make privacy protection a constantly
evolving issue, the bill requires the FTC not only to implement the
requirements of the law, but further, to issue periodic reports about
how the law is working;
[[Page S2959]]
whether similar privacy protections should apply offline or to pre-
existing data; whether standardized online privacy notices should be
developed; if a meaningful safe harbor should be constructed; and
whether privacy protection technologies in the marketplace such as P3P
can help facilitate the administration of the Act.
Consumer participation in cyberspace should not be conditioned on a
willingness to relinquish control over one's personal information.
Rather, for the medium to truly flourish, we must establish baseline
consumer protections that will eliminate the tyranny of convenience in
which consumers are forced to choose between disclosing private,
personal information, or not using the Internet at all. Congress has a
moral obligation to protect American individual liberties, including
the right to better control the commercialization of one's own
personal, private information.
This bill is an important first step. The privacy protections in this
legislation will instill more confidence in people to use the Internet
and create a consistent legal framework for online businesses. It will
provide better online privacy protections for consumers, better
commercial opportunities for businesses who respond to consumer privacy
concerns, and a better future for Americans who will embrace the
Internet rather than fear it.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2201
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 ``Online Personal Privacy
Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Preemption of State law or regulations.
Title I--Online Privacy Protection
Sec. 101. Collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable
information.
Sec. 102. Notice and consent requirements.
Sec. 103. Policy changes; privacy breach.
Sec. 104. Exceptions.
Sec. 105. Access.
Sec. 106. Security.
Title II--Enforcement
Sec. 201. Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.
Sec. 202. Violation is unfair or deceptive act or practice.
Sec. 203. Private right of action.
Sec. 204. Actions by States.
Sec. 205. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 206. No effect on other remedies.
Title III--Application to Congress and Federal Agencies
Sec. 301. Exercise of rulemaking power.
Sec. 302. Senate.
Sec. 303. Application to Federal agencies.
Title IV--Miscellaneous
Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. FTC rulemaking.
Sec. 404. FTC report.
Sec. 405. Development of automated privacy controls.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The right to privacy is a personal and fundamental
right worthy of protection through appropriate legislation.
(2) Individuals engaging in and interacting with companies
engaged in interstate commerce have a significant interest in
their personal information, as well as a right to control how
that information is collected, used, or transferred.
(3) Absent the recognition of these rights and the
establishment of consequent industry responsibilities to
safeguard those rights, the privacy of individuals who use
the Internet will soon be more gravely threatened.
(4) To extent that States regulate, their efforts to
address Internet privacy will lead to a patchwork of
inconsistent standards and protections.
(5) Existing State, local, and Federal laws provide minimal
privacy protection for Internet users.
(6) With the exception of Federal Trade Commission
enforcement of laws against unfair and deceptive practices,
the Federal Government thus far has eschewed general Internet
privacy laws in favor of industry self-regulation, which has
led to several self-policing schemes, none of which are
enforceable in any meaningful way or provide sufficient
privacy protection to individuals.
(7) State governments have been reluctant to enter the
field of Internet privacy regulation because use of the
Internet often crosses State, or even national, boundaries.
(8) States are nonetheless interested in providing greater
privacy protection to their citizens as evidenced by recent
lawsuits brought against offline and online companies by
State attorneys general to protect the privacy of individuals
using the Internet.
(9) The ease of gathering and compiling personal
information on the Internet, both overtly and
surreptitiously, is becoming increasingly efficient and
effortless due to advances in digital communications
technology which have provided information gatherers the
ability to compile seamlessly highly detailed personal
histories of Internet users.
(10) Personal information flowing over the Internet
requires greater privacy protection than is currently
available today. Vast amounts of personal information,
including sensitive information, about individual Internet
users are collected on the Internet and sold or otherwise
transferred to third parties.
(11) Poll after poll consistently demonstrates that
individual Internet users are highly troubled over their lack
of control over their personal information.
(12) Market research demonstrates that tens of billions of
dollars in e-commerce are lost due to individual fears about
a lack of privacy protection on the Internet.
(13) Market research demonstrates that as many as one-third
of all Internet users give false information about themselves
to protect their privacy, due to fears about a lack of
privacy protection on the Internet.
(14) Notwithstanding these concerns, the Internet is
becoming a major part of the personal and commercial lives of
millions of Americans, providing increased access to
information, as well as communications and commercial
opportunities.
(15) It is important to establish personal privacy rights
and industry obligations now so that individuals have
confidence that their personal privacy is fully protected on
the Internet.
(16) The social and economic costs of establishing baseline
privacy standards now will be lower than if Congress waits
until the Internet becomes more prevalent in our everyday
lives in coming years.
(17) Whatever costs may be borne by industry will be
significantly offset by the economic benefits to the
commercial Internet created by increased consumer confidence
occasioned by greater privacy protection.
(18) Toward the close of the 20th Century, as individuals'
personal information was increasingly collected, profiled,
and shared for commercial purposes, and as technology
advanced to facilitate these practices, the Congress enacted
numerous statutes to protect privacy.
(19) Those statutes apply to the government, telephones,
cable television, e-mail, video tape rentals, and the
Internet (but only with respect to children).
(20) Those statutes all provide significant privacy
protections, but neither limit technology nor stifle
business.
(21) Those statutes ensure that the collection and
commercialization of individuals' personal information is
fair, transparent, and subject to law.
SEC. 4. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW OR REGULATIONS.
This Act supersedes any State statute, regulation, or rule
regulating Internet privacy to the extent that it relates to
the collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable
information obtained through the Internet.
TITLE I--ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION
SEC. 101. COLLECTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--An internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website on the
Internet may not collect personally identifiable information
from a user, or use or disclose personally identifiable
information about a user, of that service or website except
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(b) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The
provisions of this Act applicable to internet service
providers, online service providers, and commercial website
operators apply to any third party, including an advertising
network, that uses an internet service provider, online
service provider, or commercial website operator to collect
information about users of that service or website.
SEC. 102. NOTICE AND CONSENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Notice.--Except as provided in section 104, an internet
service provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website may not collect personally identifiable
information from a user of that service or website online
unless that provider or operator provides clear and
conspicuous notice to the user in the manner required by this
section for the kind of personally identifiable information
to be collected. The notice shall disclose--
(1) the specific types of information that will be
collected;
(2) the methods of collecting and using the information
collected; and
(3) all disclosure practices of that provider or operator
for personally identifiable information so collected,
including whether it will be disclosed to third parties.
(b) Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Requires
Opt-in Consent.--An internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website may not--
(1) collect sensitive personally identifiable information
online, or
[[Page S2960]]
(2) disclose or otherwise use such information collected
online, from a user of that service or website,
unless the provider or operator obtains that user's
affirmative consent to the collection and disclosure or use
of that information before, or at the time, the information
is collected.
(c) Nonsensitive Personally Identifiable Information
Requires Robust Notice and Opt-out Consent.--An internet
service provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website may not--
(1) collect personally identifiable information not
described in subsection (b) online, or
(2) disclose or otherwise use such information collected
online, from a user of that service or website,
unless the provider or operator provides robust
notice to the user, in addition to clear and conspicuous
notice, and has given the user an opportunity to decline
consent for such collection and use by the provider or
operator before, or at the time, the information is
collected.
(d) Initial Notice Only for Robust Notice.--An internet
service provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website shall provide robust notice under
subsection (c) of this section to a user only upon its first
collection of non-sensitive personally identifiable
information from that user, except that a subsequent
collection of additional or materially different non-
sensitive personally identifiable information from that user
shall be treated as a first collection of such information
from that user.
(e) Permanence of Consent.--
(1) In general.--The consent or denial of consent by a user
of permission to an internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website to collect,
disclose, or otherwise use any information about that user
for which consent is required under this Act--
(A) shall remain in effect until changed by the user; and
(B) shall apply to the collection, disclosure, or other use
of that information by any entity that is a commercial
successor of, or legal successor-in-interest to, that
provider or operator, without regard to the legal form in
which such succession was accomplished (including any entity
that collects, discloses, or uses such information as a
result of a proceeding under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of title
11, United States Code, with respect to the provider or
operator).
(2) Exception.--The consent by a user to the collection,
disclosure, or other use of information about that user for
which consent is required under this Act does not apply to
the collection, disclosure, or use of that information by a
successor entity under paragraph (1)(B) if--
(A) the kind of information collected by the successor
entity about the user is materially different from the kind
of information collected by the predecessor entity;
(B) the methods of collecting and using the information
employed by the successor entity are materially different
from the methods employed by the predecessor entity; or
(C) the disclosure practices of the successor entity are
materially different from the practices of the predecessor
entity.
SEC. 103. POLICY CHANGES; BREACH OF PRIVACY.
(a) Notice of Policy Change.--Whenever an internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website makes a material change in its policy for
the collection, use, or disclosure of sensitive or
nonsensitive personally identifiable information, it--
(1) shall notify all users of that service or website of
the change in policy; and
(2) may not collect, disclose, or otherwise use any
sensitive or nonsensitive personally identifiable information
in accordance with the changed policy unless the user has
been afforded an opportunity to consent, or withhold consent,
to its collection, disclosure, or use in accordance with the
requirements of section 102(b) or (c), whichever is
applicable.
(b) Notice of Breach of Privacy.--
(1) In general.--If the sensitive or nonsensitive
personally identifiable information of a user of an internet
service provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website--
(A) is collected, disclosed, or otherwise used by the
provider or operator in violation of any provision of this
Act, or
(B) the security, confidentiality, or integrity of such
information is compromised by a hacker or other third party,
or by any act or failure to act of the provider or operator,
then the provider or operator shall notify all users whose
sensitive or nonsensitive personally identifiable information
was affected by the unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or
compromise. The notice shall describe the nature of the
unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or compromise and the
steps taken by the provider or operator to remedy it.
(2) Delay of notification.--
(A) Action taken by individuals.--If the compromise of the
security, confidentiality, or integrity of the information is
caused by a hacker or other external interference with the
service or website, or by an employee of the service or
website, the provider or operator may postpone issuing the
notice required by paragraph (1) for a reasonable period of
time in order to--
(i) facilitate the detection and apprehension of the person
responsible for the compromise; and
(ii) take such measures as may be necessary to restore the
integrity of the service or website and prevent any further
compromise of the security, confidentiality, and integrity of
such information.
(B) System failures and other functional causes.--If the
unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or compromise of the
security, confidentiality, and integrity of the information
is the result of a system failure, a problem with the
operating system, software, or program used by the internet
service provider, online service provider, or operator of the
commercial website, or other non-external interference with
the service or website, the provider or operator may postpone
issuing the notice required by paragraph (1) for a reasonable
period of time in order to--
(i) restore the system's functionality or fix the problem;
and
(ii) take such measures as may be necessary to restore the
integrity of the service or website and prevent any further
compromise of the security, confidentiality, and integrity of
the information after the failure or problem has been fixed
and the integrity of the service or website has been
restored.
SEC. 104. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 102 does not apply to the
collection, disclosure, or use by an internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website of information about a user of that
service or website necessary--
(1) to protect the security or integrity of the service or
website or to ensure the safety of other people or property;
(2) to conduct a transaction, deliver a product or service,
or complete an arrangement for which the user provided the
information; or
(3) to provide other products and services integrally
related to the transaction, service, product, or arrangement
for which the user provided the information.
(b) Protected Disclosures.--An internet service provider,
online service provider, or operator of a commercial website
may not be held liable under this Act, any other Federal law,
or any State law for any disclosure made in good faith and
following reasonable procedures in responding to--
(1) a request for disclosure of personal information under
section 1302(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) to the parent
of a child; or
(2) a request for access to, or correction or deletion of,
personally identifiable information under section 105 of this
Act.
(c) Disclosure to Law Enforcement Agency or under Court
Order.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, an internet service provider, online service
provider, operator of a commercial website, or third party
that uses such a service or website to collect information
about users of that service or website may disclose
personally identifiable information about a user of that
service or website--
(A) to a law enforcement, investigatory, national security,
or regulatory agency or department of the United States in
response to a request or demand made under authority granted
to that agency or department, including a warrant issued
under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent
State warrant, a court order, or a properly executed
administrative compulsory process; and
(B) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding
granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information
that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
(i) the user to whom the information relates is given
reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of
the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
(ii) that user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to
appear and contest the issuance of requested order or to
narrow its scope.
(2) Safeguards against further disclosure.--A court that
issues an order described in paragraph (1) shall impose
appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to
protect against its unauthorized disclosure.
SEC. 105. ACCESS.
(a) In General.--An internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website shall--
(1) upon request provide reasonable access to a user to
personally identifiable information that the provider or
operator has collected from the user online, or that the
provider or operator has combined with personally
identifiable information collected from the user online after
the effective date of this Act;
(2) provide a reasonable opportunity for a user to suggest
a correction or deletion of any such information maintained
by that provider or operator to which the user was granted
access; and
(3) make the correction a part of that user's sensitive
personally identifiable information or nonsensitive
personally identifiable information (whichever is
appropriate), or make the deletion, for all future disclosure
and other use purposes.
(b) Exception.--An internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website may
decline to make a suggested correction a part of that user's
sensitive personally identifiable information or nonsensitive
personally identifiable information (whichever is
appropriate), or to make a suggested deletion if the provider
or operator--
(1) reasonably believes that the suggested correction or
deletion is inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate;
[[Page S2961]]
(2) notifies the user in writing, or in digital or other
electronic form, of the reasons the provider or operator
believes the suggested correction or deletion is inaccurate
or otherwise inappropriate; and
(3) provides a reasonable opportunity for the user to
refute the reasons given by the provider or operator for
declining to make the suggested correction or deletion.
(c) Reasonableness Test.--The reasonableness of the access
or opportunity provided under subsection (a) or (b) by an
internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website shall be determined by
taking into account such factors as the sensitivity of the
information requested and the burden or expense on the
provider or operator of complying with the request,
correction, or deletion.
(d) Reasonable Access Fee.--
(1) In general.--An internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website may
impose a reasonable charge for access under subsection (a).
(2) Amount.--The amount of the fee shall not exceed $3,
except that upon request of a user, a provider or operator
shall provide such access without charge to that user if the
user certifies in writing that the user--
(A) is unemployed and intends to apply for employment in
the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the
certification is made;
(B) is a recipient of public welfare assistance; or
(C) has reason to believe that the incorrect information is
due to fraud.
SEC. 106. SECURITY.
An internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website shall establish and maintain
reasonable procedures necessary to protect the security,
confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable
information maintained by that provider or operator.
TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 201. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Except as provided in section 202(b) of this Act and
section 2710(d) of title 18, United States Code, this Act
shall be enforced by the Commission.
SEC. 202. VIOLATION IS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE.
(a) In General.--The violation of any provision of title I
is an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed under
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with
title I of this Act shall be enforced under--
(1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
(A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal
agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency;
(B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than
national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks
(other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured
State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending
companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and
organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the
Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 and 611), by the Board;
and
(C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve
System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the
Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation;
(2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift
Supervision, in the case of a savings association the
deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation;
(3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
by the National Credit Union Administration Board with
respect to any Federal credit union;
(4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air
carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
(5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with
respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
(6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) by
the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal
land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal
intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
(c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the
exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its
powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a
violation of title I is deemed to be a violation of a
requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers
under any provision of law specifically referred to in
subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that
subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing
compliance with any requirement imposed under title I, any
other authority conferred on it by law.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
prevent any person from violating title I in the same manner,
by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers,
and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of
the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were
incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any entity
that violates any provision of that subtitle is subject to
the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities
provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in the same
manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction,
power, and duties as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of that subtitle.
(e) Disposition of Civil Penalties Obtained by FTC
Enforcement Action Involving Nonsensitive Personally
Identifiable Information.--
(1) In general.--If a civil penalty is imposed on an
internet service provider, online service provider, or
commercial website operator in an enforcement action brought
by the Commission for a violation of title I with respect to
nonsensitive personally identifiable information of users of
the service or website, the penalty shall be--
(A) paid to the Commission;
(B) held by the Commission in trust for distribution under
paragraph (2); and
(C) distributed in accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) Distribution to users.--Under procedures to be
established by the Commission, the Commission shall hold any
amount received as a civil penalty for violation of title I
for a period of not less than 180 days for distribution under
those procedures to users--
(A) whose nonsensitive personally identifiable information
was the subject of the violation; and
(B) who file claims with the Commission for compensation
for loss or damage from the violation at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Commission may
require.
(3) Amount of payment.--The amount a user may receive under
paragraph (2)--
(i) shall not exceed $200; and
(ii) may be limited by the Commission as necessary to
afford each such user a reasonable opportunity to secure that
user's appropriate portion of the amount available for
distribution.
(4) Remainder.--If the amount of any such penalty held by
the Commission exceeds the sum of the amounts distributed
under paragraph (2) attributable to that penalty, the excess
shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts no later than 12 months after it was
paid to the Commission.
(f) Effect on Other Laws.--
(1) Preservation of commission authority.--Nothing
contained in this subtitle shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
(2) Relation to title ii of communications act.--Nothing in
title I requires an operator of a website or online service
to take any action that is inconsistent with the requirements
of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
222).
(3) Relation to title vi of communications act.--Section
631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) To the extent that the application of any provision
of this title to a cable operator as an internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website (as those terms are defined in section 401
of the Online Personal Privacy Act) with respect to the
provision of Internet service or online service, or the
operation of a commercial website, conflicts with the
application of any provision of that Act to such provision or
operation, the Act shall be applied in lieu of the
conflicting provision of this title.''.
SEC. 203. ACTIONS BY USERS.
(a) Private Right of Action for Sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information.--If an internet service provider,
online service provider, or commercial website operator
collects, discloses, or uses the sensitive personally
identifiable information of any person or fails to provide
reasonable access to or reasonable security for such
sensitive personally identifiable information in violation of
any provision of title I then that person may bring an action
in a district court of the United States of appropriate
jurisdiction--
(1) to enjoin or restrain a violation of title I or to
obtain other appropriate relief; and
(2) upon a showing of actual harm to that person caused by
the violation, to recover the greater of--
(A) the actual monetary loss from the violation; or
(B) $5,000.
(b) Repeated Violations.--If the court finds, in an action
brought under subsection (a) to recover damages, that the
defendant repeatedly and knowingly violated title I, the
court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the
award available under subsection (a)(2)(B) to an amount not
in excess of $100,000.
(c) Exception.--Neither an action to enjoin or restrain a
violation, nor an action to recover for loss or damage, may
be brought under this section for the accidental disclosure
of information if the disclosure was caused by an Act of God,
unforeseeable network or systems failure, or other event
beyond the control of the Internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website.
SEC. 204. ACTIONS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a
practice that violates title I, the State, as
[[Page S2962]]
parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the
residents of the State in a district court of the United
States of appropriate jurisdiction--
(A) to enjoin that practice;
(B) to enforce compliance with the rule;
(C) to obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on
behalf of residents of the State; or
(D) to obtain such other relief as the court may consider
to be appropriate.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Commission--
(i) written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exemption.--
(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in that subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
(ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i),
the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a
copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as
the attorney general files the action.
(b) Intervention.--
(1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection
(a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in
the action that is the subject of the notice.
(2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes
in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
(A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in
that action; and
(B) to file a petition for appeal.
(c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this subtitle shall
be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an
action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for
violation of title I, no State may, during the pendency of
that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against
any defendant named in the complaint in that action for
violation of that rule.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--
(1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(2) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(A) is an inhabitant; or
(B) may be found.
SEC. 205. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--No internet service provider, online
service provider, or commercial website operator may
discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with
respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because the employee (or any person acting
pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information
to any Federal or State agency or to the Attorney General of
the United States or of any State regarding a violation of
any provision of title I.
(b) Enforcement.--Any employee or former employee who
believes he has been discharged or discriminated against in
violation of subsection (a) may file a civil action in the
appropriate United States district court before the close of
the 2-year period beginning on the date of such discharge or
discrimination. The complainant shall also file a copy of the
complaint initiating such action with the appropriate Federal
agency.
(c) Remedies.--If the district court determines that a
violation of subsection (a) has occurred, it may order the
Internet service provider, online service provider, or
commercial website operator that committed the violation--
(1) to reinstate the employee to his former position;
(2) to pay compensatory damages; or
(3) to take other appropriate actions to remedy any past
discrimination.
(d) Limitation.--The protections of this section shall not
apply to any employee who--
(1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged
violation; or
(2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false
information to such an agency or the Attorney General.
(e) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof that
prevail under subchapter III of chapter 12 of title 5, United
States Code (5 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) shall govern adjudication
of protected activities under this section.
SEC. 206. NO EFFECT ON OTHER REMEDIES.
The remedies provided by sections 203 and 204 are in
addition to any other remedy available under any provision of
law.
TITLE III--APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
SEC. 301. SENATE.
The Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate shall
develop regulations setting forth an information security and
electronic privacy policy governing use of the Internet by
officers and employees of the Senate that meets the
requirements of title I.
SEC. 302. APPLICATION TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act applies to each Federal agency that is an internet
service provider or an online service provider, or that
operates a website, to the extent provided by section 2674 of
title 28, United States Code.
(b) Exceptions.--This Act does not apply to any Federal
agency to the extent that the application of this Act would
compromise law enforcement activities or the administration
of any investigative, security, or safety operation conducted
in accordance with Federal law.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of
personally identifiable information about a user of an
Internal service, online service, or commercial website by or
on behalf of the provider or operator of that service or
website by any means, direct or indirect, active or passive,
including--
(A) an online request for such information by the provider
or operator, regardless of how the information is transmitted
to the provider or operator;
(B) the use of a chat room, message board, or other online
service to gather the information; or
(C) tracking or use of any identifying code linked to a
user of such a service or website, including the use of
cookies or other tracking technology.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(3) Cookie.--The term ``cookie'' means any program,
function, or device, commonly known as a ``cookie'', that
makes a record on the user's computer (or other electronic
device) of that user's access to an internet service, online
service, or commercial website.
(4) Disclose.--The term ``disclose'' means the release of
personally identifiable information about a user of an
Internet service, online service, or commercial website by an
internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website for any purpose, except
where such information is provided to a person who provides
support for the internal operations of the service or website
and who does not disclose or use that information for any
other purpose.
(5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5,
United States Code.
(6) Internal operations support.--The term ``support for
the internal operations of a service or website'' means any
activity necessary to maintain the technical functionality of
that service or website.
(7) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the
myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities,
including equipment and operating software, which comprise
the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ
the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to
communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(8) Internet service provider; online service provider;
website.--The Commission shall by rule define the terms
``internet service provider'', ``online service provider'',
and ``website'', and shall revise or amend such rule to take
into account changes in technology, practice, or procedure
with respect to the collection of personal information over
the Internet.
(9) Online.--The term ``online'' refers to any activity
regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United
States Code, that is effected by active or passive use of an
Internet connection, regardless of the medium by or through
which that connection is established.
(10) Operator of a commercial website.--The term ``operator
of a commercial website''--
(A) means any person who operates a website located on the
Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains
personal information from or about the users of or visitors
to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such
information is collected or maintained, where such website or
online service is operated for commercial purposes, including
any person offering products or services for sale through
that website or online service, involving commerce--
(i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign
nations;
(ii) in any territory of the United States or in the
District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--
(I) another such territory; or
(II) any State or foreign nation; or
(iii) between the District of Columbia and any State,
territory, or foreign nation; but
(B) does not include any nonprofit entity that would
otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(11) Personally identifiable information.--
(A) In general.--The term ``personally identifiable
information'' means individually identifiable information
about an individual collected online, including--
(i) a first and last name, whether given at birth or
adoption, assumed, or legally changed;
[[Page S2963]]
(ii) a home or other physical address including street name
and name of a city or town;
(iii) an e-mail address;
(iv) a telephone number;
(v) a birth certificate number;
(vi) any other identifier for which the Commission finds
there is a substantial likelihood that the identifier would
permit the physical or online contacting of a specific
individual; or
(vii) information that an Internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website
collects and combines with an identifier described in clauses
(i) through (vi) of this subparagraph.
(B) Inferential information excluded.--Information about an
individual derived or inferred from data collected online but
not actually collected online is not personally identifiable
information.
(12) Release.--The term ``release of personally
identifiable information'' means the direct or indirect,
sharing, selling, renting, or other provision of personally
identifiable information of a user of an internet service,
online service, or commercial website to any other person
other than the user.
(13) Robust notice.--The term ``robust notice'' means
actual notice at the point of collection of the personally
identifiable information describing briefly and succinctly
the intent of the Internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website to use or
disclose that information for marketing or other purposes.
(14) Sensitive financial information.--The term ``sensitive
financial information'' means--
(A) the amount of income earned or losses suffered by an
individual;
(B) an individual's account number or balance information
for a savings, checking, money market, credit card,
brokerage, or other financial services account;
(C) the access code, security password, or similar
mechanism that permits access to an individual's financial
services account;
(D) an individual's insurance policy information, including
the existence, premium, face amount, or coverage limits of an
insurance policy held by or for the benefit of an individual;
or
(E) an individual's outstanding credit card, debt, or loan
obligations.
(15) Sensitive personally identifiable information.--The
term ``sensitive personally identifiable information'' means
personally identifiable information about an individual's--
(A) individually identifiable health information (as
defined in section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal
Regulations);
(B) race or ethnicity;
(C) political party affiliation;
(D) religious beliefs;
(E) sexual orientation;
(F) a Social Security number; or
(G) sensitive financial information.
SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TITLE I.
Title I of this Act takes effect on the day after the date
on which the Commission publishes a final rule under section
403.
SEC. 403. FTC RULEMAKING.
The Commission shall--
(1) initiate a rulemaking within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act for regulations to implement the
provisions of title I; and
(2) complete that rulemaking within 270 days after
initiating it.
SEC. 404. FTC REPORT.
(a) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce 18 months
after the effective date of title I, and annually thereafter,
on--
(1) whether this Act is accomplishing the purposes for
which it was enacted;
(2) whether technology that protects privacy is being
utilized in the marketplace in such a manner as to facilitate
administration of and compliance with title I;
(3) whether additional legislation is required to
accomplish those purposes or improve the administrability or
effectiveness of this Act;
(4) whether legislation is appropriate or necessary to
regulate the collection, use, and distribution of personally
identifiable information collected other than via the
Internet;
(5) whether and how the government might assist industry in
developing standard online privacy notices that substantially
comply with the requirements of section 102(a);
(6) whether and how the creation of a set of self-
regulatory guidelines established by independent safe harbor
organizations and approved by the Commission would facilitate
administration of and compliance with title I; and
(7) whether additional legislation is necessary or
appropriate to regulate the collection, use, and disclosure
of personally identifiable information collected online
before the effective date of title I.
(b) FTC Notice of Inquiry.--The Commission shall initiate a
notice of inquiry within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act to request comment on the matter described in
paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a).
SEC. 405. DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATED PRIVACY CONTROLS.
Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Development of Internet Privacy Program.--The
Institute shall encourage and support the development of one
or more computer programs, protocols, or other software, such
as the World Wide Web Consortium's P3P program, capable of
being installed on computers, or computer networks, with
Internet access that would reflect the user's preferences for
protecting personally-identifiable or other sensitive,
privacy-related information, and automatically execute the
program, once activated, without requiring user
intervention.''.
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, just last week I read an article that
described the practice of online companies placing prices on people's
personal information in order to raise revenue. When the Internet
revolution began, I do not believe anyone thought the buying and
selling of our personal information would be where these companies
would turn when they began to experience difficulties in the financial
markets. My constituents have expressed to me their concerns over such
practices, and I have responded by co-sponsoring Senator Hollings' bi-
partisan legislation to enact reasonable privacy standards on personal
information gathered on-line.
In May 2000, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, issued its third
report to Congress on the state of online privacy. Due to the fact that
there remained a great deal of concern by consumers over how their
information is used by online companies, so much so that some consumers
provided false information or did not utilize the commercial aspects of
the Internet altogether, the FTC recommended legislation to establish
online privacy guidelines. Introduction of this legislation is a step
in the right direction, and a step closer to the FTC's recommendation.
This bill calls for sensitive, personally identifiable information,
such as health information, race, religion, and social security number,
to be protected by requiring consumers to provide affirmative consent
for this information to be shared; in other words, they must ``opt
in.'' Under our proposal, the treatment of non-sensitive, personally
identifiable information must be described through strict, robust
notice in plain English. After some consumers received their privacy
policies required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, they thought it would
be easier to understand the tax code.
An important provision in the Hollings measure modeled on allowing
consumers to access their credit report information would allow online
consumers to access and correct any incorrect information companies may
be listing. Additionally, to monitor the effectiveness of this
legislation, the bill calls for the FTC to report to Congress on this
matter and to recommend any needed changes in its provisions.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which I
believe moves us in the right direction to actually grow the Internet
and its capability for commerce by easing people's fears over how their
names, addresses, social security numbers and other important
information will be secured. The Internet's possibilities are only
beginning to be realized. In the business world, it creates an easy way
to share information and conduct transactions. However, if the
information is personal in nature, I, along with many of my colleagues,
believe people deserve and are indeed entitled to expect the
opportunity to elect whether to have that information shared or not,
and in all cases for it to be securely monitored. I am proud to lend my
support to this important bill.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2205. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the
entitlement to disability compensation of women veterans who have
service-connected mastectomies, to provide permanent authority for
counseling and treatment for sexual trauma, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I introduce legislation today that
would help VA continue to meet the needs of veterans who experienced
sexual trauma while serving in the military. This legislation would
also extend special compensation to women veterans whose service led to
the loss of all or part of a breast, and would help us understand
better how well VA is meeting the health care needs of women veterans.
Almost a decade ago, the Committee on Veterans Affairs took a hard
look at
[[Page S2964]]
the growing needs of women veterans in a hearing that helped VA improve
its women's health care and services. Many studies grew from this
hearing, including investigations that showed that women veterans are
eight times more likely to report having experienced sexual assault
during military service than women civilians of the same age.
In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who
experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years
later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress
expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment to victims of
sexual harassment or sexual assault without regard to gender. The
Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's
responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even farther,
strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through
December 2004.
VA has worked, internally and with the Department of Defense, to
educate health care professionals about the physical and emotional
legacies of military sexual trauma. Those who have endured such trauma
need counseling and appropriate treatment, both during and following
service. Although we must hope that education will eliminate sexual
violence from our forces, the sad reality is that the programs that VA
has established will continue to be needed. The legislation I introduce
today would authorize VA to continue its counseling and treatment
programs for veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma
beyond 2004, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend
upon these critical services.
The Committee on Veterans Affairs continues to await VA's report on
rates of military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reservists,
mandated in the Millennium Act and due in March 2001, to make a sound
decision on the need for counseling services among these forces who
might have experienced sexual trauma while on active duty for training.
Last year, Congress authorized VA to offer special monthly
compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts, including
through surgical treatment, as a result of their military service. VA
recently issued regulations addressing this, which would require
complete loss of a breast through simple or radical mastectomy in order
to make a woman eligible for benefits. The intent of Congress in
passing this legislation was to acknowledge that women who undergo such
procedures face physical, emotional, and financial challenges in
returning to health. The need for increased medical attention, and
concomitant impairment in daily activities, remains consistent, whether
the loss of a breast is complete or partial. Therefore, the legislation
that I offer here would extend benefits to women veterans who have lost
half or more of a breast's tissue as a result of military service,
rather than drawing an arbitrary clinical line for compensation.
According to the Veterans Health Administration, women veterans now
make up about 5 percent of enrolled veterans, a percentage that is
expected to double over the next two decades. We must ensure that women
veterans enjoy access to the best possible health care, including for
gender-specific medical conditions, in the most appropriate setting.
One of the challenges that Congress and VA face in assessing how well
the needs of women veterans are being met is understanding exactly what
services women veterans require, and whether these are being offered by
VA's medical facilities.
Many of the advances VA has made in improving women's care and
services has resulted from the hard work of the Women Veterans
Coordinators who work within VA's medical centers. These coordinators
assist women veterans who seek VA medical care, and help VA understand
which needs still go unmet, frequently as a collateral portion of their
jobs, while facing many competing demands on their time. As VA health
care evolves from a primarily hospital-based system to a network of
outpatient clinics, women veterans coordinators face an even more
complex set of tasks and a shifting geography of care.
Women veterans increasingly receive care within general outpatient
clinics rather than in women's clinics, an issue of special concern as
women may comprise only a tiny part of the caseload for VA's general
practitioners, unlike the private sector where women make up half or
more of a doctor's patients, resulting in less expertise in women's
health. The legislation I offer here would request a report on how many
clinics and health care teams remain dedicated specifically to the
needs of women veterans, and how many hours per week Women Veterans
Coordinators can allocate to serving women veterans.
In 1983, Congress responded to the needs of the growing number of
women veterans by establishing the Advisory Committee on Women
Veterans. This committee advises the Secretary of VA on the adequacy of
programs for women veterans, and helps ensure that women veterans have
the same access to services and benefits as their male counterparts.
Early this year, the Secretary renewed the charter for the Advisory
Committee on Women Veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in
acknowledging both the Secretary's decision to foster this essential
voice, and the service of the men and women who share their time and
experience with VA on behalf of all women veterans. Together, VA and
the advisory committee have worked to be sure that VA can offer women
veterans the services they need and the respect they have earned.
I ask that the text of the bill and a list of the membership of the
Advisory Committee on Women Veterans be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2205
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO WARTIME DISABILITY
COMPENSATION FOR WOMEN VETERANS WHO HAVE
SERVICE-CONNECTED MASTECTOMIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1114(k) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``of half or more of the
tissue'' after ``anatomical loss'' the second place it
appears.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to months that begin on or after
that date.
SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR
SEXUAL TRAUMA.
Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``During the period
through December 31, 2004, the Secretary'' and inserting
``The Secretary''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, during the period
through December 31, 2004,''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``establishment and'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``establishing a
program'' and inserting ``operating a program''.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON FURNISHING OF HEALTH CARE TO WOMEN VETERANS
BY VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on
the furnishing by the Veterans Health Administration of
health care for women veterans.
(b) Report Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
set forth the following:
(1) A list of each Women Veterans' Comprehensive Health
Center within the Veterans Health Administration, including
whether such Center is located in a Department of Veterans
Affairs medical center or outpatient clinic.
(2) For each Center listed under paragraph (1)--
(A) the staffing level of such Center, expressed in terms
of number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs);
(B) the health care services furnished by such Center to
women veterans, including the health care services (including
breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening) that
are furnished only for women; and
(C) the number of women veterans furnished health care
services by such Center during the last fiscal year ending
before the date of the report.
(3) A list of each facility without a Women Veterans'
Comprehensive Health Center that furnishes health care
services to women veterans through a full-service womens'
primary care team, including whether such facility is located
in a Department medical center or outpatient clinic.
(4) For each facility listed under paragraph (3)--
(A) the staffing level of such facility for the furnishing
of health care services to women veterans, expressed in terms
of number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs);
[[Page S2965]]
(B) the health care services furnished by such facility to
women veterans, including the health care services (including
breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening) that
are furnished only for women; and
(C) the number of women veterans furnished health care
services by such facility during the last fiscal year ending
before the date of the report.
(5) For each Veterans Integrated Service Network and
Department medical center, the number of hours per week that
the Women Veterans' Coordinator of such network or medical
center, as the case may be, is authorized to perform duties
relating to the furnishing of health care services to women
veterans.
____
Current Membership of the VA Advisory Committee on Women Veterans (as
of January 2002)
Karen L. Ray, RN, MSN, Chair 2000-2002, Colonel, USA
(Retired).
Constance G. Evans, RN, ARNP, Co-Chair 2000-2002,
Commander, USPHS (Retired).
Marsha Tansey Four, USA.
Bertha Cruz Hall, USAF.
Marcelite J. Harris, Major General, USAF (Retired).
Edward E. Hartman, USA.
Consuelo C. Kickbusch, Lieutenant Colonel, USA (Retired).
Kathy LaSauce, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Retired).
M Joy Mann, Captain, US Air Force Reserve.
Lory Manning, Captain, USN (Retired).
Michele (Mitzi) Manning, Colonel, USMC (Retired).
Kahleen A. Morrissey, RN, BSN, Colonel, NJ. Army National
Guard.
Joan O'Connor, Commander, Naval Reserve (Retired).
Sheryl Schmidt, USAF.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2207. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last year I introduced S. 1378, the
Access to Medical Treatment Act of 2001. This bill would allow patients
to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by
the FDA.
Alternative therapies constitute an increasingly accepted part of
medicine. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative
Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative
therapies and their safe and effective use. Additionally, more
Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating
instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in
combating illness and disease.
The Access to Medical Treatment Act support patient choice while
maintaining important patient safeguards. It allows individuals,
especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which
conventional treatments have proven ineffective, to try an alternative
treatment. This is a choice rightly made by patients.
Treatments covered under the Access to Medical Treatment Act must be
prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner. The practitioner
must fully disclose all available information about the safety and
effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain
unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The
bill includes detailed informed consent requirements.
The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to
advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit
financially from prescribing alternative treatments. This provision was
included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of
patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval.
The bill also protects patients by requiring practitioners to report
any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an
unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported,
manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an
investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused
by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer
have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug
or medical device has been provided.
While I believe that S. 1378 would give patients important new
choices in health care while maintaining strong consumer protections,
there has been little discussion or attention given to the issue.
Meanwhile, some advocates of greater access to alternative therapies
have urged me to reintroduce a version of the Access to Medical
Treatment Act similar to the one I and 13 other senators introduced
during the 105th Congress in an effort to stimulate further discussion
of this important policy issue. This measure includes less detail than
S. 1378 but embodies the same goal of making alternative treatments
more available to patients who want them.
I continue to believe that S. 1378, with its detailed informed
consent and practitioner reporting requirements, is the version of the
Access to Medical Treatment Act that provides the appropriate vehicle
for legislative debate, and I am hopeful that the bill Senators Harkin,
Grassley, and I are introducing today will generate momentum to get
that debate started.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2209. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide an
additional program of service disabled veterans' insurance for
veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am tremendously pleased to
introduce legislation that would establish a new service-disabled
veterans life insurance program. Named in honor of Robert Carey, former
Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance Center until
his untimely death in 1990, this bill will improve enormously the life
insurance options available to those veterans who are unable to
purchase commercial policies because they became disabled in service to
our Nation. I look forward to its swift passage.
Since 1919, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided life
insurance for servicemembers and veterans in various amounts and with
varying degrees of success, but with the overarching purpose of
providing them with an insurance benefit comparable to the commercial
coverage that they are unable to purchase due to their service in the
Armed Forces. Unfortunately, as described in the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with
Service-connected Disabilities, which was released last May, the
current Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, or SDVI, program does not
sufficiently fulfill this purpose. .
The SDVI program insures service-disabled veterans who, but for their
service-connected disability, would be eligible for commercial life
insurance. The basic policy currently provides up to $10,000 in
coverage. Veterans who are deemed totally disabled are eligible for an
additional $20,000 in supplemental coverage and may apply to have the
premium on their initial $10,000 policy waived.
However, according to VA's report, the current SDVI program uses
mortality tables from 1941 to determine the premiums paid by its
policyholders. This has led to premiums nearly four times greater than
those paid by non-veterans. While SDVI policyholders would generally
expect to pay somewhat higher premiums, many veterans still cited this
extremely high cost as a major reason for not purchasing an SDVI
policy. In light of this fact, it is not difficult to understand why
only 3.5 percent of those eligible actually take advantage of the
current SDVI program.
Also cited as a reason for non-participation was the limited benefit
available under the current SDVI program. According to VA's report, the
typical private sector employee possesses a life insurance policy two
to three times his or her annual income, and most financial planners
recommend even more coverage than that. However, half of all SDVI
beneficiaries report receiving less than $15,000 in total insurance
benefits from the loss of a loved one. On average, only $9,000 of this
comes from their SDVI policy. Forty percent of all SDVI beneficiaries
sole source of income are the benefits provided by VA. Their lack of
other coverage, combined with the very limited benefit currently
available through the current SDVI program, leaves disabled veterans
woefully under-insured. We simply cannot accept this situation.
This bill would create a new life insurance program for service-
disabled veterans offering as much as $50,000 in coverage at a price
comparable to that
[[Page S2966]]
of commercial coverage. It would also bring the premiums charged under
the current SDVI program more in line with commercial policies by
updating the mortality tables VA uses to set its rates.
The motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs is ``To care for him
that has borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' By
introducing the ``Robert Carey Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance Act
of 2002,'' I propose that we take yet another step toward fulfilling
the obligation embodied in those words, and I encourage my colleagues
to join with me in supporting this very important bill.
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. 2209
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 ``Robert Carey Service
Disabled Veterans' Insurance Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM OF SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS'
INSURANCE FOR VETERANS.
(a) In General.--(1) Subchapter I of chapter 19 of title
38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
1922A the following new section:
``Sec. 1922B. Service disabled veterans' insurance: level
premium term insurance
``(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person
described in subsection (b) shall, upon payment of premiums
as provided in subsection (f), be granted insurance by the
United States against the death of such person occurring
while such insurance is in force.
``(b) A person described in this subsection is any person
as follows:
``(1) A person insured under section 1922(a) of this title
if such person applies for insurance under this section
within the times provided for under paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (e).
``(2) A person (other than a person described in paragraph
(1)) who--
``(A) is released from active military, naval, or air
service, under other than dishonorable conditions;
``(B) is found by the Secretary to be suffering from a
disability or disabilities for which compensation would be
payable if 10 per cent or more in degree;
``(C) except for the disability or disabilities referred to
in subparagraph (B), would be insurable according to
standards of good health established by the Secretary; and
``(D) has not attained the age of 65 years as of the date
of application for insurance under this section.
``(c)(1) Insurance under this section for a person
described in subsection (b)(1) is in addition to the
insurance of such person under section 1922(a) of this title
and the insurance, if any, of such person under section 1922A
of this title.
``(2) A person deemed insured under section 1922(b) of this
title is not eligible for or entitled to insurance under this
section.
``(d)(1)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and except as
provided in paragraph (3), the amount for which a person
described by subsection (b)(1) is insured under this section
shall, at the election of the person, be--
``(i) $45,000; or
``(ii) an amount less than $45,000, but more than $5,000,
that is evenly divisible by $5,000.
``(B) The amount of insurance elected under this paragraph
by a person described by subsection (b)(1) may not cause the
aggregate amount of insurance of the person under this
section and sections 1922(a) and 1922A of this title to
exceed $50,000.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the amount for
which a person described by subsection (b)(2) is insured
under this section shall, at the election of the person, be--
``(A) $50,000; or
``(B) an amount less than $50,000, but more than $5,000,
that is evenly divisible by $5,000.
``(3) Upon attaining the age of 70 years, the amount for
which a person is insured under this section shall be the
amount equal to 20 percent of the amount otherwise elected by
the person under paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable.
``(e)(1) A person seeking insurance under this section
shall submit to the Secretary an application in writing for
such insurance.
``(2) The application of a person under paragraph (1) shall
be submitted not later than 10 years after the date of the
release of the person from active military, naval, or air
service.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
application of a person under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted not later than two years after the date on which
the Secretary finds the service-connection for the disability
or disabilities of the person on which the application is
based.
``(B) In the case of a person shown by evidence
satisfactory to the Secretary to have been mentally
incompetent during any part of the two-year period otherwise
applicable to the person under subparagraph (A), an
application for insurance under this section shall be filed
not later than the earlier of--
``(i) two years after a guardian for the person is
appointed; or
``(ii) two years after the removal of such disability or
disabilities, as determined by the Secretary.
``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a
person insured under this section shall pay premiums for such
insurance as determined under paragraph (4).
``(2) The provisions of section 1912 of this title shall
apply with respect to payment of premiums for insurance under
this section.
``(3) A person shall not be required to pay premiums for
insurance under this section after attaining the age of 70
years.
``(4) The premium rates for insurance under this section
shall be level, and shall be based on the Commissioners 1980
Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at
the rate of 5 per cent per annum.
``(5) All premiums and other collections for insurance
under this section shall be credited directly to a revolving
fund in the Treasury established for purposes of this
section, and any payments on such insurance shall be made
directly from such fund.
``(g)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
insurance under this section shall be issued on the same
terms and conditions as are contained in standard policies of
National Service Life Insurance, except that insurance issued
under this section shall have no loan value or extended
values.
``(2) All settlements on insurance under this section shall
be paid in a lump sum.
``(h) Insurance under this section may be referred to as
`Robert Carey Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance'.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 19 of
that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1922A the following new item:
``1922B. Service disabled veterans' insurance: level premium term
insurance.''.
(b) Coordination With Current Service Disabled Veterans'
Insurance Program.--Section 1922 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) A person deemed insured under this subsection is not
eligible for or entitled to insurance under section 1922B of
this title.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) A person insured under subsection (a) may also be
eligible for insurance under section 1922B of this title in
accordance with the provisions of that section.''.
(c) Other Amendments to Current Service Disabled Veterans'
Insurance Program.--Subsection (a) of such section 1922 is
amended by striking ``Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary
Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per
centum per annum'' each place it appears in paragraphs (1)
and (2) and inserting ``Commissioners 1980 Standard Ordinary
Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 5 per
cent per annum''.
(d) Review of Applicability of Mortality Tables.--(1) The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, from time to time,
evaluate the standard ordinary table of mortality being used
for purposes of service disabled veterans' insurance under
sections 1922 and 1922B of title 38, United States Code, in
order to determine whether such table of mortality continues
to be suitable for such purposes.
(2) If as the result of an evaluation under paragraph (1)
the Secretary determines that the standard ordinary table of
mortality being used for purposes of insurance referred to in
that paragraph is no longer suitable for such purposes, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report
setting forth that determination and including a
recommendation for an alternative standard ordinary table of
mortality to be used for such purposes.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
prescribe regulations for purposes of administering section
1922B of title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection
(a)), and for purposes of administering the amendments to
section 1922 of that title made by subsections (b) and (c).
Such regulations shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations for Revolving Fund.--
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the revolving fund
established pursuant to subsection (f)(5) of section 1922B of
title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection (a) of
this section), such sums as may be necessary for purposes of
that section.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
through (c) shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Chaffee, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2210. A bill to amend the International Financial Institutions Act
to provide for modification of the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) Initiative; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague,
Senator Santorum, to introduce legislation to reform the way we provide
debt relief for the poorest nations of the
[[Page S2967]]
world. We are joined in this effort by Senators Kerry, Frist, Sarbanes,
Chafee, and DeWine.
Earlier today, our friends from the House, Chris Smith, John LaFalce,
Spencer Baucus, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank met with us to announce the
introduction of companion legislation on their side of the Hill.
Looking around at that group of people, it would be fair to wonder
what we all have in common. Some days, not much. Today, however, what
we have in common is a shared concern about the fate of the men, women,
and children in the poorest countries of the world.
It is true that the war on terrorism has brought home to us more
clearly than before that conditions of grinding poverty in the rest of
the world are ignored at our peril. Common sense tells us that our
national security is at risk in a world where millions of people have
little to live for, and are ripe for the seductions of radical, even
violent action against the desperate conditions they face every day.
As Tom Friedman has said in another context, if you don't visit the
bad neighborhoods, they will visit you.
But that cannot be the only reason that we all share a concern about
poverty in the underdeveloped countries of the world. All of the
world's great religions charge us to look after each other, and show
special concern for those who need it most.
Common decency recoils at the conditions of disease and deprivation
faced by others while we are so blessed with abundance here.
Common sense, and common decency. That is what brought us all
together today.
Few things offend both common sense and common decency more than the
situations faced by the poor countries of the world who lack the
resources to provide the most basic public health care and the most
basic education, but yet still send money to the international
financial institutions established by the wealthiest nations of the
world.
They send two billion dollars a year here to Washington, home of the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and to the regional
development banks around the world, to pay interest on loans they have
taken out over the years, money that they desperately need for basic
human services.
We set up those institutions to promote conditions for global
economic growth and stability, and to promote economic development. And
they do many good things. But the blessings that came when those loans
went out to poor countries in many cases have turned into a curse. Now
many of those countries are stuck in a debt trap, where payments to
simply service the interest on those loans weaken their ability to
provide the kind of essential public services needed for basic human
existence, much less sustainable economic growth.
Tragically, most of the countries with the greatest debt burdens are
among the worst victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The resources needed
in African countries in the fight against HIV/AIDS are already beyond
their reach. The burden of debt makes that fight even harder.
Two years ago, the United States joined with the other members of the
IMF and the World Bank to reduce the debt burdens of the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries. The world's churches led that fight, the
Jubilee 2000 fight, to undo some of the harm done by this cycle of
debt. I was proud to be part of that effort.
The result was a real improvement in the debt situation of many
countries. Our experience with that program shows that the money we
free up with debt relief really does go for the important services the
poor citizens of these countries really need.
As a matter of fact, about 40 percent of the debt savings in those
countries is going for education, and 25 percent for health care.
But realistically, these countries will still be stuck in a debt trap
far into the future.
In fact, just this week the Bank and the Fund honestly admitted that
under the current formula, many countries will simply not reach a
sustainable level of debt. James Wolfenson, President of the World
Bank, has said that he is considering deeper debt relief to achieve the
goals of the existing HIPC program. The legislation I am introducing
today with Senator Santorum will make success under that HIPC program
more likely.
Specifically, for the many countries facing a public health crisis,
such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, we say that no more than five percent of
their budgets should go to service their debt to the international
financial institutions. For those who do not face such a crisis, debt
service should exceed no more than ten percent of their budget.
While the existing HIPC program sets a sustainable level of debt at
150 percent of a country's income from exports, our bill says that it
is also important to measure the debt burden against a country's
budget, as well. That's the best way to see the real impact on a
country's ability to meet its own pressing domestic needs.
In fact, given the deep problems the eligible nations have with
trade--most of them export basic commodities whose prices have been
declining--using export income should not be the sole basis for
determining their ability to pay. The HIPC program currently assumes
that the eligible countries will enjoy much higher growth in that
export income than they have ever been able to achieve. That is a
formula for disappointment.
Deeper debt relief, more sustainable debt levels, measured by a
country's actual ability to pay as a share of its budget, that is what
our legislation would establish as the U.S. negotiating position at the
Bank and the Fund. If those reforms are adopted, an additional billion
dollars a year of debt service will be lifted from the poorest nations.
This weekend, the Bank and the Fund will be meeting here in
Washington, and I expect those very issues will be under discussion.
The legislation we are introducing today offers a way to achieve the
original goals of debt relief, and the goals of our own foreign policy
in the developing world.
Common sense, and common decency, should help us find some common
ground to achieve those goals. The broad coalition of support this
legislation already enjoys tells me that we can succeed.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
S. 2211. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to apply the
additional retired pay percentage for extraordinary heroism to the
computation of the retired pay of enlisted members of the Armed Forces
who are retired for any reason, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the
Heroism Pay Equality Act. This legislation will restore fairness and
equality to our country's retired military reservists who have been
cited for extraordinary heroism, by affording them the same
entitlements offered to their active component counterparts. Current
law awards members with between 20 and 30 years of service who have
been cited for extraordinary heroism in the line of duty an additional
10 percent to their retirement pay for their heroic acts. Typically,
this equates to a service member who has received the Medal of Honor,
the Distinguished Service Cross, or the Navy Cross. Yet a service
member who has been awarded one of these medals, and whose retirement
eligibility was achieved in the Reserves, is not recognized with the
same benefit.
This bill erases this injustice, and is offered in the spirit of
fairness to the total force. The United States is increasingly reliant
on the Reserve component of the armed service to meet the challenges
that face our military. Reserve and National Guard units have served
with distinction in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Middle East, and are doing so
today in Afghanistan and countless locations across the United States
as part of our global war on terrorism. The additional pay for heroic
acts is awarded for the act itself and has nothing to do with the
component in which retirement eligibility was achieved. Thus, to honor
our Nation's military reservists, I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, which
Senator Cleland and I are introducing today, be printed in the Record.
[[Page S2968]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2211
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANDED APPLICABILITY OF ADDITIONAL RETIRED PAY
FOR EXTRAORDINARY HEROISM.
(a) Army.--Section 3991(a)(2) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``If a member who is retired under section
3914 of this title'' and inserting ``If an enlisted member
entitled to monthly retired pay under this subtitle''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``The first sentence does not apply with respect to
retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title.''.
(b) Navy and Marine Corps.--(1) Chapter 571 of such title
is amended by inserting after section 6334 the following new
section:
``Sec. 6334a. Computation of retired pay: additional 10
percent for enlisted members credited with extraordinary
heroism
``If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay
under this subtitle has been credited by the Secretary of the
Navy with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the
member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the
amount determined under section 6333 or 6334 of this title,
as the case may be, but to not more than 75 percent of the
retired pay base upon which the computation of such retired
pay is based. The first sentence does not apply with respect
to retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title.
The Secretary's determination as to extraordinary heroism is
conclusive for all purposes.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``6334a. Computation of retired pay: additional 10 percent for enlisted
members credited with extraordinary heroism.''.
(c) Air Force.--Section 8991(a)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``If a member who is retired under section
8914 of this title'' and inserting ``If an enlisted member
entitled to monthly retired pay under this subtitle''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``The first sentence does not apply with respect to
retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title.''.
(d) Disability Retirement.--(1) Section 1201 of such title
is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``, with retired pay
computed under section 1401 of this title,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) The retired pay to
which a member is entitled under this section shall be
computed under section 1401 of this title.
``(2) If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay
under this section has been credited by the Secretary
concerned with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the
member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the
amount determined under section 1401 of this title (but to
not more than 75 percent of the retired pay base upon which
the computation of such retired pay is based).''.
(2) Section 1202 of such title is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) Retirement.--'' before the text of
such section;
(B) by striking ``with retired pay computed under section
1401 of this title'' and inserting ``and pay retired pay to
the member.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) The retired pay to
which a member is entitled under this section shall be
computed under section 1401 of this title.
``(2) If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay
under this section has been credited by the Secretary
concerned with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the
member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the
amount determined under section 1401 of this title (but to
not more than 75 percent of the retired pay base upon which
the computation of such retired pay is based).''.
(e) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply with respect to months beginning on or before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2212. A bill to establish a direct line of authority for the
Office of Trust Reform Implementations and Oversight to oversee the
management and reform of Indian trust funds and assets under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and to advance tribal
management of such funds and assets, pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determinations Act and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I am introducing a discussion bill
intended to provide the basis for further reform of the administration
and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in
trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians.
I'm pleased to be joined by my two distinguished colleagues from South
Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson.
As a result of over 300 treaties and an extensive course of dealings
between the United States and Indian tribes, the Federal Government
holds the legal title to lands held in trust for Indian tribes and
individual tribal members. The revenues derived from the use of these
lands and the resources found on trust lands, along with the proceeds
from claims that have arisen from the wrongful taking or the loss of
use of the assets, comprise the funds that are held in trust by the
United States for the benefit of individual Indians and Indian tribes.
Today, the United States maintains approximately 1,400 trust fund
accounts for 315 Indian tribes with funds in excess of $2.6 billion,
and over 260,000 individual Indian money, IIM, accounts with about $400
million in funds. Approximately 45 million acres of land are held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes and about
11 million acres are held in trust for individual Indians. These lands
contain vast amounts of minerals, coal, oil and gas, water, forest
resources, and agricultural resources.
These funds, lands, and resources comprise the trust estate held by
the United States for the benefit of tribes and individual Indians. The
Interior Department distributes leasing and sales revenues of $300
million per year to more than 225,000 individual Indian money accounts
and about $800 million a year to the 1,400 tribal accounts. It manages
income from more than 100,000 active leases for tribes and individual
Indians.
Indian tribes depend on the revenues from these trust assets to
provide basic governmental services. IIM account holders are often
living at, or near, the poverty level, and they rely on these revenues
for basic essentials such as housing, food, and transportation. The
manner in which trust assets and trust funds are managed by the
Department has very real impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands
of Indian people every day. All too often, those impacts are not
positive.
The administration and management of individual Indian trust assets
and funds are extremely difficult due to the problem of fractionated
heirship of lands that are a continuing legacy of the misguided and
discredited allotment policies of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. Today, the Department and individual Indians are
left with the nightmare of 1.4 million fractional interests of two
percent or less involving 58,000 tracts of individually owned trust and
restricted lands, each of which requires administration and often
provides nothing but frustration in return for all involved. For some
of these accounts, it may cost more to print and mail statements
annually than the assets themselves are worth. A lasting solution needs
to be found that reconsolidates these assets under Indian ownership.
Many of my colleagues are familiar with the never-ending stream of
GAO reports, news accounts, and hearings detailing the deplorable
history of the Federal effort to manage these trust funds. Far less is
known about the condition of trust assets and the history of their
management. However, it doesn't take very long to recognize that the
problem of mismanagement extends far beyond trust funds to the lands
and resources that generate most of the funds. The Interior Department
cannot provide accurate information on the number of leases on Indian
lands for any purpose or the amount of revenues that should be
attributed to any parcel of trust land despite repeated attempts to
develop the necessary database and record keeping systems. In addition,
the records for some lands and trust accounts have been lost or
destroyed for entire time periods.
In 1994, the Congress enacted the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act. This law was intended to bring about a series of
major reforms in the management of Indian trust funds and assets under
the auspices of a Special Trustee in the Interior Department. Some
positive changes have occurred. Most trust account holders now receive
regular statements on their accounts. Most of the revenues derived from
Indian trust assets are now posted to the correct account in a
reasonable period of time.
However, the major structural reforms that were called for in the
1994
[[Page S2969]]
Act have not been achieved. It is still not possible to tell with
complete certainty what tribal lands and resources are leased and what
revenues are generated from all tribal lands and resources. The
original intent of the 1994 Act was for the Special Trustee to go out
of business after completing a plan for the restructuring of the day-
to-day management of tribal and individual trust funds and assets.
The Special Trustee did develop a plan that called for the creation
of a government sponsored enterprise to take control of the entire
Indian trust estate and manage it. The tribes and individual
beneficiaries of the trust were nearly unanimous in their condemnation
and rejection of this plan.
The 1994 Act also established a procedure through which tribes can
withdraw their trust funds from federal trust and manage them directly.
Only a few tribes have taken this course. The Interior Department has
not encouraged tribes to withdraw their funds and the tribes have been
reluctant to do so for the simple reason that the federal trust is
terminated by the act of withdrawing the funds. Anyone who is familiar
with the devastation brought about by the various efforts over the
years to terminate the unique relationship between the tribes and the
Federal Government will not be surprised by the lack of success in the
implementation of this part of the 1994 Act.
The 1994 Act also called for the completion of audits of all
individual and tribal trust fund accounts. After years of effort and
the expenditure of millions of dollars, in 1997, the Interior
Department finally provided the tribal account holders with a
``reconciliation'' of their accounts. These reconciliation reports only
covered a small fraction of the years the accounts have been maintained
and the reports were not audits as was required by the 1994 Act. Some
tribes accepted the results of the reconciliation of their accounts.
Most did not. None of the IIM accounts were reconciled and have not
been to this day, despite the requirements of the 1994 Act. There are
no plans to comply with the mandate of the 1994 Act for an actual
accounting for any of the trust fund accounts. Conducting such an
accounting would be difficult due to the lack of records. But it can be
accomplished and every reasonable effort should be made to make sure
this important work gets done soon.
Last fall, Secretary Norton unveiled a proposal to take all of the
trust fund and asset management functions out of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, in order to vest them in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset
Management, BITAM. This proposal is estimated to have a price tag of
about $300 million in its first year or two.
Secretary Norton's proposal was intended to respond to the short-
comings of the 1994 Act and the orders of Judge Lamberth in the Cobell
v. Norton litigation that has been in the Federal District Court for
the District of Columbia since 1997. This litigation involves the
individual trust accounts and seeks an accounting of the funds managed
by the Departments of the Interior and Treasury since 1887. Past
failures to reconcile accounts led to contempt orders against former
Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin. Judge Lamberth is currently considering
contempt orders against Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary
McCaleb for actions they have taken or have failed to take with regard
to these trust funds and for misleading the court about what is
actually being done.
Indian leaders across the country have condemned Secretary Norton's
proposal to establish BITAM and have since offered a variety of
alternative proposals. As I understand it, while the Secretary is
working with tribal leaders to evaluate different options proposed by
the tribes, the BITAM proposal remains the Department's preferred
option.
Representatives of the Tribes have been working on a range of
possible reforms through a special Task Force established by Secretary
Norton at their request. We have been in contact with members of the
Task Force and am somewhat heartened by the fact that they believe they
are making real progress toward meaningful reforms. The bill we are
introducing is not intended to undermine that process, but will
hopefully assist it. In any event, we must give careful consideration
to the recommendations the Task force ultimately develops and try to
act on them at the appropriate time. I believe Senators Daschle and
Johnson would join me in urging the Department to continue to work with
the Task Force as it completes its work in the months ahead.
Even as we monitor these developments, I, and many others in
Congress, continue to be concerned about the future management of trust
funds and assets. We believe that further reform is necessary and that
it must comport with the Interior Department's trust responsibility at
the same time that it advances the self-determination policies that
have been so successful in the past 30 years. The status quo is simply
not acceptable.
Just to reinforce our intent, the bill we are introducing today is
not intended to be the ultimate solution to the problems that have been
revealed in the management of the trust funds and trust assets.
However, we believe it critical to the on-going reform process to
introduce a bill that focuses on two elements that are important to
achieving a lasting reform in the management of these funds and assets.
First, the bill will establish a direct line-of-authority over the
management of the trust funds and trust assets at the highest levels
within the Department. Judge Lamberth, and other oversight agencies
such as the General Accounting Office, have lamented the lack of
accountability in the Interior Department and strongly recommended the
designation of one official who will ultimately be responsible for the
management of the trust funds and assets.
This bill addresses this issue by establishing the Office of Trust
Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. This office
will be under the authority of a Deputy Secretary who will report
directly to the Secretary and who will oversee the work of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the special Trustee, the
Director of the Minerals Management Service and the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management with regard to trust funds and trust assets.
I am certain that many of my colleagues who are concerned about this
issue will join me in ensuring that candidates nominated by the
President for the Deputy Secretary position are not only qualified in
financial management, natural resource management, and federal Indian
policy, but also are widely supported by the tribal community.
The new Deputy Secretary will be the person ultimately responsible
for the overall management of these funds and assets. The Deputy
Secretary will have the authority to require the Special Trustee and
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, along with the Directors of
the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, to
take the steps necessary to put into place the changes needed to ensure
the proper administration and management of the trust funds and assets.
The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, subject to the
advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years and may only
be removed for cause. This should give the Deputy Secretary the
independence necessary to bring about meaningful reform, while still
ensuring accountability.
The current Tribal task force working with the Secretary is
considering a structure for the management of Indian affairs that would
elevate all of the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, and the Deputy Commissioner,
to the Deputy Secretary level in the Department. We look forward to
learning more about the scope of the Task Force proposal and its costs
or cost savings. As necessary, this bill can be modified to accommodate
such a proposal if the Task Force concludes that doing so would be
appropriate.
This Task Force has served an important role to the tribes in working
with the Department on these matters and many would like to see its
function continue as a collaborative component to the Department's
management. In order to ensure a continuing role for the tribes in the
day-to-day activities of the Department with respect to the management
of the trust funds and the trust assets, this bill amends the 1994 Act
to provide that the advisory board
[[Page S2970]]
that was established to assist the Special Trustee will be
reconstituted and continue as an advisory board for the Deputy
Secretary. The composition of the advisory board is broad enough to
enable the Deputy Secretary to include members with expertise in the
areas of trust fund management, investment, and related
responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary.
The other major feature of the bill is the focus on the successful
policy of self-determination. Any fair review of Federal Indian policy
over the course of the last century will point to the policies of
termination and assimilation through allotment as abject failures. Many
of the most intractable problems the tribes and federal policy makers
wrestle with today stem from the wreckage caused by these misguided
policies of the past.
On the other hand, the policy of self-determination, which was first
proposed by President Nixon in 1971, has shown itself to be the single
most successful Federal Indian policy in the history of our Nation. The
reasons for this success are many, but the core reason is one we can
all recognize and relate to: self-determination involves Indian people
directly in identifying and defining the problems facing the tribes,
and more importantly, it empowers them to implement the solutions they
know will work best. Putting it in slightly different terms, the self-
determination policy recognizes the fact that the government closest to
the people is the best government to recognize and resolve local
problems. Indian policy made by the Federal Government for the Federal
Government has never worked and never will work. Indian policy made by
the tribal governments with appropriate Federal assistance has shown
that it does work.
Portions of the 1994 Act and Secretary Norton's BITAM proposal have
some things in common. In varying degrees, both are attempts by the
Federal Government to make Indian policy for the federal government.
Neither provides a proper role for tribal governments. This bill
provides a framework by which tribes can become more involved in the
day-to-day management of their trust assets and trust funds through the
Indian Self-Determination Act. It does not dismantle the BIA. It does
provide a foundation for the tribes, the Department, and the Congress
to develop and implement meaningful reform over the next several years.
Every major provision of this bill is based on solutions that have been
proposed by the tribes.
The bill builds on the concept of beneficiary co-management of trust
funds and assets. This is not a new idea. It was advanced by the tribes
in the 1980's and 1990's. It is embodied in the Indian Forest Resources
Management Act that Congress enacted in 1990 and the Indian
Agricultural Resources Management Act enacted in 1994. It is implicit
in the Indian Self-Determination Act and it is a proven formula for
progress.
This bill does not deal with the issues of the past. It does not
address concerns about claims for past mismanagement. It does not deal
with the need for an accounting of tribal and individual trust funds.
It does not deal with the condition of the trust lands and assets.
These are all very serious matters.
My purpose is not to avoid these issues or indicate any disregard for
them. Rather, we are simply trying to find a way to move forward on a
more constructive basis. Representatives of the tribes have been
working on a way to move forward on these issues a more constructive
basis. We must give careful consideration to the recommendations they
develop and try to act on them at the appropriate time.
Both the House and the Senate recently passed S. 1857 to deal with
the statute of limitations on past claims for mismanagement of the
tribal trust funds. Judge Lamberth is considering remedies for
mismanagement of the individual Indian trust funds. Secretary Norton
has established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to try to
produce an accounting for the individual funds. We need to monitor all
of these efforts and be prepared to enact additional legislation if
necessary and if sought by the tribes.
We are hopeful that we can build on the modest successes realized
under the 1994 Act by providing greater accountability in the
Department of the Interior and recognizing the fact that the tribes
must be involved as active participants in the management and
administration of the trust funds and assets without the threat of
termination of the trust responsibility. It took over 100 years to
create the problems we now confront with the Indian trust funds and
assets. The Indian people did not create these problems. The Federal
Government did. It is going to take many more years to resolve the
problems. The 1994 Act was a step in the right direction. We believe
this bill can lead to further progress through greater accountability
and direct involvement of those who have the most at stake, the tribes
and Indian people.
Once again, Senators Daschle, Johnson and I propose this legislation
as a vehicle for discussion for all those concerned with ending decades
of mismanagement of Indian trust funds and trust assets. We look
forward to receiving comments on this legislation and call on our
friend, the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to use this
bill as the basis for hearings on these matters when the committee is
prepared to do so.
I ask that the bill and a section-by-section summary of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2212
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 ``Indian Trust Asset and Trust
Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.
(a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the American Indian Trust
Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(8) Special trustee.--The term'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(4) Indian tribe.--The term'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(3) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(7) Secretary.--The term'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(4) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(5) Office.--The term'';
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(5) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Bureau.--The term'';
(6) in paragraph (6), by striking ``(6) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Department.--The term'';
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Deputy secretary.--The term `Deputy Secretary' means
the Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform
appointed under section 307(a)(2).
``(6) Reform office.--The term `Reform Office' means the
Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight
established by section 307(e).'';
(8) by moving paragraphs (1) through (8) (as redesignated
by this subsection) so as to appear in numerical order; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Trust assets.--The term `trust assets' means all
tangible property including land, minerals, coal, oil and
gas, forest resources, agricultural resources, water and
water sources, and fish and wildlife held by the Secretary
for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual member of
an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal law.
``(10) Trust funds.--The term `trust funds' means all funds
held by the Secretary for the benefit of an Indian tribe or
and individual member of an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal
law.''.
(b) Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform.--
Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform
Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4041 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 307. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established within the
Department the position of Deputy Secretary for Trust
Management and Reform.
``(2) Appointment and removal.--
``(A) Appointment.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
``(B) Term.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed for a
term of 6 years.
``(C) Removal.--The Deputy Secretary may be removed only
for good cause.
``(3) Administrative authority.--The Deputy Secretary shall
report directly to the Secretary.
``(4) Compensation.--The Deputy Secretary shall be paid at
a rate determined by the Secretary to be appropriate for the
position, but not less than the rate of basic pay prescribed
for Level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Duties.--The Deputy Secretary shall--
``(1) oversee all trust fund and trust asset matters of the
Department, including--
[[Page S2971]]
``(A) administration and management of the Reform Office;
and
``(B) financial and human resource matters of the Reform
Office; and
``(2) engage in appropriate government-to-government
relations and consultations with Indian tribes and individual
trust asset and trust fund account holders on matters
involving trust asset and trust fund management and reform
within the Department.
``(c) Staff.--In carrying out this section, the Deputy
Secretary may hire such staff having expertise in trust asset
and trust fund management, financial organization and
management, and tribal policy as the Deputy Secretary
determines is necessary to carry out this section.
``(d) Effect on Duties of Other Officials.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish any
responsibility or duty of the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Indian Affairs or the Special Trustee relating
to any duty of the Assistant Secretary or Special Trustee
established under this Act or any other provision of law.
``(2) Trust asset and trust fund management and reform.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Deputy
Secretary shall have overall management and oversight
authority on matters of the Department relating to trust
asset and trust fund management and reform.
``(e) Office of Trust Reform Implementation and
Oversight.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Office of the Secretary the Office of Trust Reform
Implementation and Oversight.
``(2) Reform office head.--The Reform Office shall be
headed by the Deputy Secretary.
``(3) Duties.--The Reform Office shall--
``(A) supervise and direct the day-to-day activities of the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the
Special Trustee, the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Director of the Minerals Management
Service, to the extent they administer or manage any Indian
trust assets or funds;
``(B) administer, in accordance with title II, all trust
properties, funds, and other assets held by the United States
for the benefit of Indian tribes and individual members of
Indian tribes;
``(C) require the development and maintenance of an
accurate inventory of all trust funds and trust assets;
``(D) ensure the prompt posting of revenue derived from a
trust fund or trust asset for the benefit of each Indian
tribe (or individual member of each Indian tribe) that owns a
beneficial interest in the trust fund or trust asset;
``(E) ensure that monthly statements of accounts are
provided to all trust fund account holders;
``(F) ensure that all trust fund accounts are audited at
least annually, and more frequently as determined to be
necessary by the Deputy Secretary;
``(G) ensure that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Director of the Minerals
Management Service provide to the Secretary current and
accurate information relating to the administration and
management of trust funds and trust assets;
``(H) provide for regular consultation with trust fund
account holders on the administration of trust funds and
trust assets to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with applicable law, the greatest return on those
funds and assets for the trust fund account holders; and
``(I) enter into contracts and compacts under section 102
of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450f) or
section 403 of the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc) to provide for the
management of trust assets and trust funds by Indian tribes
pursuant to a Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and
Monitoring Plan developed under section 202 of this Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
(c) Advisory Board.--
(1) In general.--Section 306 of the American Indian Trust
Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4046) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 306. ADVISORY BOARD.
``(a) Establishment and Membership.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Deputy Secretary described in
section 307 shall establish an advisory board to provide
advice on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Office
of Trust Reform. The advisory board shall consist of 9
members, appointed by the Deputy Secretary after consultation
with Indian tribes and appropriate Indian organizations, of
which--
``(1) 5 members shall represent trust fund account holders,
including both tribal and Individual Indian Money accounts;
``(2) 2 members shall have practical experience in trust
fund and financial management;
``(3) 1 member shall have practical experience in fiduciary
investment management; and
``(4) 1 member, from academia, shall have knowledge of
general management of large organizations.
``(b) Term.--Each member shall serve a term of 2 years.
``(c) FACA.--The advisory board shall not be subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.''.
(2) Previous Advisory Board.--The advisory board authorized
under section 306 of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4046) as in effect
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act shall
terminate on the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 302 of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4042) is amended--
(A) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``who shall'' and inserting ``who, except as provided in
subsection (b)(3), shall''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Trust fund management.--The Special Trustee shall
report directly to the Deputy Secretary with respect to
matters relating to trust fund management and reform.''.
(2) Section 303 of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4043) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (a);
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``The Special
Trustee'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section
307(d), the Special Trustee'';
(C) in subsection (c)(5)(A), by striking ``or which is
charged with any responsibility under the comprehensive
strategic plan prepared under subsection (a) of this
section,'';
(D) by striking subsection (f); and
(E) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as
subsections (a) through (d), respectively.
SEC. 3. INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND ACTIVITIES.
Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking sections 202 and 203; and
(2) by inserting after section 201 the following:
``SEC. 202. PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND AND TRUST ASSET
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY INDIAN TRIBES.
``(a) Planning Program.--To meet the purposes of this
title, a 10-year Indian Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management
and Monitoring Plan (in this section referred to as the
`Plan') shall be developed and implemented as follows:
``(1) Pursuant to a self-determination contract or compact
under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25
U.S.C. 450f) or section 403 of the Indian Self Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc), an Indian
tribe may develop or implement a Plan. Subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), the tribe shall have
broad discretion in designing and carrying out the planning
process.
``(2) To include in a Plan particular trust funds or assets
held by multiple individuals, an Indian tribe shall obtain
the approval of a majority of the individuals who hold an
interest in any such trust funds or assets.
``(3) The Plan shall be submitted to the Secretary for
approval pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act (25
U.S.C. 450f et seq.).
``(4) If a tribe chooses not to develop or implement a
Plan, the Secretary shall develop or implement, as
appropriate, a Plan in close consultation with the affected
tribe.
``(5) Whether developed directly by the tribe or by the
Secretary, the Plan shall--
``(A) determine the amount and source of funds held in
trust;
``(B) identify and prepare an inventory of all trust
assets;
``(C) identify specific tribal goals and objectives;
``(D) establish management objectives for the funds and
assets held in trust;
``(E) define critical values of the Indian tribe and its
members and provide identified management objectives;
``(F) identify actions to be taken to reach established
objectives;
``(G) use existing survey documents, reports and other
research from Federal agencies, tribal community colleges,
and land grant universities; and
``(H) be completed within 3 years of the initiation of
activity to establish the Plan.
``(b) Management and Administration.--Plans developed and
approved under subsection (a) shall govern the management and
administration of funds and assets held in trust by the
Bureau and the Indian tribal government.
``(c) No Termination Requirement.--Indian tribes
implementing an approved Plan shall not be required to
terminate the trust relationship in order to implement such
Plan.
``(d) Plan Does Not Terminate Trust.--Developing or
implementing a Plan shall not be construed or deemed to
constitute a termination of the trust status of the assets or
funds that are included in, or subject to, the Plan.
``(e) Liability.--An Indian tribe managing and
administering trust funds and trust assets in a manner that
is consistent with a Plan shall not be liable for waste or
loss of an asset or funds that are included in such Plan.
``(f) Indian Participation in Management Activities.--
``(1) Tribal recognition.--The Secretary shall conduct all
management activities of
[[Page S2972]]
funds and assets held in trust in accordance with goals and
objectives set forth in a Plan approved pursuant to and in
accordance with all tribal laws and ordinances, except in
specific instances where such compliance would be contrary to
the trust responsibility of the United States.
``(2) Tribal laws.--
``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise prohibited by Federal
law, the Secretary shall comply with tribal law pertaining to
the management of funds and assets held in trust.
``(B) Duties.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) provide assistance in the enforcement of tribal laws
described in subparagraph (A);
``(ii) provide notice of such tribal laws to persons or
entities dealing with tribal funds and assets held in trust;
and
``(iii) upon the request of an Indian tribe, require
appropriate Federal officials to appear in tribal forums.
``(3) Waiver of regulations.--In any case in which a
regulation or administrative policy of the Department of the
Interior conflicts with the objectives of the Plan, or with a
tribal law, the Secretary may waive the application of such
regulation or administrative policy unless such waiver would
constitute a violation of a Federal statute or judicial
decision or would conflict with the Secretary's trust
responsibility under Federal law.
``(4) Sovereign immunity.--This section does not constitute
a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor
does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of
the Secretary.
``(5) Trust responsibility.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to diminish or expand the trust responsibility
of the United States toward Indian funds and assets held in
trust, or any legal obligation or remedy resulting from such
funds and assets.
``(g) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Indian
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives.
``(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall detail the following:
``(A) The efforts of the Department to implement this
section.
``(B) The nature and extent of consultation between the
Department, Tribes, and individual Indians with respect to
implementation of this section.
``(C) Any recommendations of the Department for further
changes to this Act, accompanied by a record of consultation
with Tribes and individual Indians regarding such
recommendations.''.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by
this Act.
(b) Active Participation.--All regulations promulgated in
accordance with subsection (a) shall be developed with the
full and active participation of Indian tribes that have
trust funds and assets held by the Secretary.
____
Section-by-Section Summary--Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund
Management and Reform Act of 2002
section 1. short title
This section provides that the Act may be cited as the
``Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act
of 2002.''
section 2. deputy secretary for trust management and reform
Paragraph (a) of this section provides that Section 2 of
the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 4001) is amended to add new definitions for the
terms ``Deputy Secretary,'' ``Reform Office,'' ``Trust
Assets,'' and ``Trust Funds,'' and to redesignate the
paragraphs of Section 2 of the 1994 Act.
Paragraph (b) of this section amends Title III of the 1994
Act by adding provisions to establish the position of Deputy
Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the Department
of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for
a term of six years and may only be removed for cause. The
Deputy Secretary will report directly to the Secretary and
will be responsible for the oversight of all trust fund and
trust asset administration and management, including
consultation with Indian tribes and individual Indian trust
asset and trust fund account holders.
This section authorizes the Deputy Secretary to hire staff
in the Reform Office with expertise in trust fund and asset
management, financial organization and management and tribal
policy. The existing responsibilities of the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee would
not be affected by the duties of the Deputy Secretary, except
that each will be required to report to the Deputy Secretary
on matters involving trust funds and trust assets.
This section also provides for the establishment of the
Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight which
shall be headed by the Deputy Secretary and which will be
responsible for the supervision of the day-to-day activities
of the Assistant Secretary, the Special Trustees, the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Director of
the Minerals Management Service in their administration of
management of any Indian trust funds or assets, consistent
with the provisions of Title II of the Act, as amended.
The duties of the Office of Trust Reform include:
authorization to require the development and maintenance of
an accurate inventory of all trust properties, funds and
other assets; ensure the prompt posting of revenues derived
from trust funds, properties and assets; ensure that trust
fund account holders receive monthly statements; ensure that
trust fund accounts are audited at least once a year or more
frequently if necessary; ensure that the Secretary receives
current and accurate information relating to
the administration and management of trust funds,
properties and assets; provide for regular consultation
with trust fund account holders to ensure the greatest
return on trust assets and properties for the trust
account holders; and enter into contracts and compacts
under the Indian Self-Determination Act to provide for the
management of trust assets and funds by Indian tribes.
Such sums as maybe necessary are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of Section 307 of
the Act.
Paragraph (c) of Section 2 amends Section 306 of the 1994
Act to reconstitute the Advisory Board for the Special
Trustee as the Advisory Board for the Deputy Secretary. The
Advisory Board will be comprised of nine members, five of
whom shall be representative of tribal and individual trust
fund account holders; two of the Board members shall have
experience in trust fund and financial management; one Board
member shall be experienced in fiduciary investment
managements and one member shall be from academia and shall
have knowledge of management of large organizations. Each
member of the Advisory Board will serve for a term of two
years. The Board will not be subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Paragraph (d) of Section 2 sets forth conforming amendments
to Section 302 and Section 303 of the 1994 Act.
Section 3. Indian Participation in Trust Fund Activities
Section 3 amends the 1994 Act by striking Sections 202 and
203 of the Act relating to the withdrawal of trust funds and
the termination of the trust responsibility. It inserts a new
Section 202 to provide for the development and implementation
of Indian Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and
Monitoring Plans by the Secretary and Indian tribes pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination Act. Indian tribes are to be
afforded broad discretion in designing and carrying out the
planning process. Funds and assets held in trust for multiple
individuals may be included in a Tribal Plan with the consent
of a majority of the individuals who hold an interest in any
such assets or funds.
If a Tribe chooses not to develop or implement a plan, the
Secretary is required to do so in close consultation with the
affected Tribe.
Each plan is required to: determine the amount and source
of funds held in trust; identify and prepare an inventory of
all trust assets; identify specific tribal goals and
objectives; establish management objectives for the funds and
assets held in trust; define the critical values of the
Indian tribe and provide identified management objectives;
use existing surveys, reports and other research from Federal
agencies, tribal community colleges and land grant
universities; and, be completed within three years after the
start of activity to establish a plan.
Approved plans will govern the management and
administration of funds and assets held in trust by the
Secretary and the Indian Tribes. The development and
implementation of a plan by an Indian Tribe or the Secretary
does not require the termination of the trust responsibility
and shall not be construed or deemed to constitute a
termination of the trust status of the assets or funds that
are included in or subject to the Plan. An Indian tribe shall
not be liable for waste or loss of a trust asset or trust
funds if it is acting in accordance with an approved plan.
The Secretary is required to conduct all trust fund and
trust asset management activities in accordance with tribal
law and to provide assistance in the enforcement of tribal
law unless doing so is prohibited by Federal law or would be
contrary to the trust responsibility of the United States.
The Secretary may waive any regulations or administrative
policies of the Department of the Interior that are in
conflict with Tribal law or an approved plan unless such a
waiver would constitute a violation of a Federal statute or
judicial decision or would conflict with the Secretary's
trust responsibility.
This Section of the Act does not constitute a waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the United States or authorize Tribal
justice systems to review actions of the Secretary. Nothing
in this Section shall be construed to diminish or expand the
trust responsibility of the United States toward Indian trust
funds and assets held in trust.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary is required to file a
report with the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
The report shall detail: the efforts of the Department to
implement this Section; the nature and extent of the
consultation between the Department, Tribes and individual
Indians with respect to the implementation of this section;
and, any recommendations of the Department for further
changes to the Act, along with a record of the Department's
consultation with Tribes and individual Indians regarding
such recommendations.
section 4. regulations
Section 4 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations
for the implementation
[[Page S2973]]
of the amendments to the Act within one year after enactment,
with the full and active participation of the Indian tribes
that have trust funds and assets held by the Secretary.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today I am joining with Senators John
McCain and Tim Johnson to introduce a legislation that is intended to
focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding
problem of inefficient management of the assets and funds held by the
United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and
individual American Indians.
Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few,
however, have been more important, or more difficult, than ending the
mismanagement of the Indian trust fund and restoring integrity to this
administrative process.
For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust
funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land, and mineral
rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe
as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.
To give some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South
Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust
lands representing over one-third of the trust accounts. Many enrolled
members of the nine South Dakota tribes have trust accounts.
How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being
litigated in Cobell versus Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit
will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian country. It is
impossible not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this
lawsuit.
There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current
administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question
has always been how to reform it.
Last fall, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled plans to reorganize
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA and segregate the oversight and
accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust
Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the U.S. District Court,
she acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly do have some missing data--and
we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some
information no longer exists.''
The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal was presented
to the court in a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court
with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account
holders, not to mention Congress. In South Dakota, tribal leaders
communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary's
solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful
participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They
felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without
further consultation with the tribes.
Earlier this year, in the face of administration assurances that its
reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department
requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the
Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single
organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant
Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in
Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton
by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action
should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan
administratively.
Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I felt that
Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussing about what role
Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian
account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our
hope that this bill will stimulate better dialogue among the Congress,
the Interior Department, and Indian Country on this problem.
With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives
of the Great Plains tribes at a meeting in Rapid City. Mike Jandreau,
chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been an effective advocate
and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all
Indian people. Mike and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal chairman and
Great Plains Tribal chairman's association president, Tom Ranfranz led
a very impressive and productive working session with tribal leaders
from South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming that
both raised awareness of the stakes of this issue and built support for
the bill that is being introduced today.
I commend the willingness of these participating tribal leaders to be
a part of a public process that will hopefully not stop until Indian
country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-
Johnson-Daschle bill is intended to be a starting point for promoting
greater understanding of what needs to occur to achieve meaningful
trust reform.
At this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some initial
observations on this proposal that were raised yesterday by
participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains
and Rocky Mountain regions. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully
Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect
that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill
moves through the committee process.
The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains
Tribal Chairman's Association.
Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure
that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent; They do
not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and
unified authority needed.
Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management
purposes.
Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation
and other related agencies within the Department of Interior and the
Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary.
Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereingnty by
interfeering with tribal involvement in the management of individual
trust assets or tribal assets, or both.
Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affair's role as an advocate for
tribe.
Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment.
Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the
legislation.
Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to
fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation.
Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding allow
reform to succeed.
Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed
for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional
levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resources
managers, from the various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the
advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform.
The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian
Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some well
intentioned and some clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve,
streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and its trust activities.
These efforts have been pursued in both Republican and Democratic
administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely sought meaningful
involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal
Government's treaty obligation to tribes.
Both meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status are
critical if we expect to find a workable solution to the very real
problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson, and I
are introducing today reflects this conviction.
There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their
representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and
efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the bedrock principles
of self-determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than
in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets.
This measure recognizes that the only effective long-term solution to
the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. I
[[Page S2974]]
believe the discussion the bill generates will not only provide the
catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions
but also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to
participating with tribal leaders in pursuit of this important
objective.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues,
Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Daschle, as sponsors of the Indian
Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002. This
legislation we are introducing today is intended as simply the first
step in the legislative process as we continue to work closely with
tribes to address the need for further reform of the management of the
trust funds and assets that have been mismanaged for decades. I am
hopeful that by taking this action today, we will begin to further the
discussion of this critical issue, knowing full well that there will be
ongoing consultation and input from tribal leaders and tribal members
all across the country.
As many of my colleagues are aware, the issue of trust fund
mismanagement is one of the most urgent problems we are faced with in
Indian Country. Of all the extraordinary circumstances we find in
Indian Country, and especially in South Dakota, I do not think there is
any more complex, more difficult and more shocking than the
circumstances we have surrounding trust fund mismanagement.
This problem has persisted literally for generations, and continues
today. Administrations of both political parties have been inadequate
in their response, and the level of direction and the resources
provided by Congresses over past decades has also been sadly
inadequate. The Federal Government, by law, is to be the trustee for
Native American people. When the Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 was
passed, I was hopeful that this accounting situation would at last be
remedied. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
Last year's attempt by Secretary Norton and the Department of the
Interior to address this ongoing problem has also fallen far short of
what is needed. In fact, Indian leaders all across the country widely
opposed the plan released by the Secretary last November to create a
new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. Unfortunately, the
Secretary released the Department's plan without seeking input and
consulting with the very people who are supposed to benefit from these
trust fund accounts.
Many tribal leaders have offered counter proposals to the
Department's plan, however, Secretary Norton continues to stand behind
and defend BITAM as the best alternative to addressing this problem. I
believe it is now time for Congress to attempt once again to make real
progress on this issue. As I stated earlier, the bill my colleagues and
I have introduced today is not intended to be a final product, but
rather the beginning of a process that will lead to further
improvements, revisions and refinements based on the continued input of
tribal leadership.
One of the main provisions of our legislation is to establish the
position of a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the
Department of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of
6 years and may only be removed for cause. The Deputy Secretary will
report directly to the Secretary and will be responsible for the
oversight of all trust fund and trust asset administration and
management, including consultation with Indian tribes. It is my hope
that the Deputy Secretary is provided the adequate authority to
administer the trust assets and to ensure that reform of the
administration of trust assets is permanent.
In addition, we must maintain and strengthen the integrity of
services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, as the primary agency
providing trust services directly to tribes. This reorganization should
not by any means diminish the BIA in it's role as advocate for tribes
and must include the necessary funding to allow for real trust reform
to be implemented at the regional and agency levels.
We have already benefitted from the input of the many tribal
officials in South Dakota, including the input of the Great Plains
Tribal Region and Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders' Council. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe and a member of the Interior Department's Tribal Task
Force, as well as Tom Ranfranz, president of the Flandreau Santee and
chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association for their
advice and counsel as we attempt to address the many challenges facing
trust reform. Their important insight into the trust fund management
issues and their leadership, along with the other tribal chairs in the
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions who have been very helpful to
me as we to address the shortcomings of the Department's plan and try
to find a legislative approach that will finally begin to improve this
situation,.
Madam President, I have high hopes that this issue may finally be
laid to rest. It is crucial that the first Americans of this proud
country be treated with the dignity and respect that has been so sadly
lacking for far too long. This legislation provides a new foundation
from which we may once again begin to rebuild the trust that the U.S.
Government has, in the eyes of the Indian people, let crumble into the
rubble of a bureaucratic maze.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2214. A bill to provide compensation and income tax relief for the
individuals who were victims of the terrorist-related bombing of the
World Trade Center in 1993 on the same basis as compensation and income
tax relief is provided to victims of the terrorist-related aircraft
crashes on September 11, 2001; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senators Torricelli,
Schumer and Clinton, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the
families of the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist
bombing receive the same compensation for their devastating losses as
those whose loved ones perished in the horrific attacks of September
11. They too deserve aid in rebuilding their lives and it is up to
Congress to make certain their needs are met and their losses
acknowledged. I am pleased to join my colleague Representative Robert
Menendez of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the
House of Representatives.
On February 26, 1993, a car bomb exploded on the second level of the
World Trade Center parking basement. The blast injured over 1,000
people working in the towers and left 6 individuals dead. Among those
lost was 57-year-old William Macko of Bayonne, NJ.
I recently met with the Macko family to discuss their loss and their
struggle for recovery. Though it has been nearly a decade since
William's death, it is clear that they are still suffering from the
unimaginable pain of his loss. And as though this tragedy is not enough
for them to bear, the family was dealt yet another blow when Carol,
William's widow, was diagnosed with cancer just nine months after
losing her husband.
Congress has responded with tremendous generosity to the tragedy of
September 11, creating a Victim Compensation Fund to compensate those
injured and the families of those deceased for economic and non-
economic losses, as well as providing substantial Federal income tax
relief.
These programs should also be made available to those who lost loved
ones in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. They too should be
compensated for the unbearable pain and sorrow they endured at the
hands of terrorists. That is why I am introducing the 1993 World Trade
Center Victims Compensation Act, which would include those injured or
killed in the 1993 bombing in both the Victim Compensation Fund and
Victims Tax Relief.
When I met with the Macko family, they asked that William's death not
be forgotten or dismissed. They asked for Congress to ensure that their
suffering and that of the other families who lost loved ones on that
cold February day be recognized as well. Their request was clear and
simple, and we must not let them down.
I urge my colleagues to show their support for these families and
cosponsor this legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Santorum):
[[Page S2975]]
S. 2215. A bill to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its
occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass
destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and by so doing
hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today Senator Santorum and I are proud
to introduce the Syria Accountability Act, a bill that will ensure that
Syria is held accountable for its actions in the Middle East and for
its support of international terrorism.
As a state-sponsor of terrorism, Syria has supported and provided
safe haven to several terrorist groups, such as Hizballah, Hamas, and
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This is in violation
of U.N. Security Council resolutions that call on U.N. member states to
refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to
entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.
Syria is also in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions that
call for the sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. More
than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel occupy much of the
sovereign territory of Lebanon and it is time for them to leave.
The legislation we are offering today would expand sanctions on Syria
until the President certifies that Syria has met four conditions.
First, that it does not support international terrorist groups;
Second, that it has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and other
security personnel from Lebanon;
Third, that it has stopped developing ballistic missiles and has
stopped the development and production of biological and chemical
weapons; and
Fourth, that it no longer in violation of relevant U.N. Security
Council Resolutions.
To give maximum flexibility to the President, we have included a
``menu'' of sanctions for the President to choose from and a provision
that would waive sanctions should the President find that it is in the
national security interest of the United States.
I hope my colleagues can support this legislation 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. 2215
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 ``Syria Accountability Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 20, 2001, President George Bush stated at
a joint session of Congress that ``[e]very nation, in every
region, now has a decision to make . . . [e]ither you are
with us, or you are with the terrorists . . . [f]rom this day
forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile
regime''.
(2) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373
(September 28, 2001) mandates that all states ``refrain from
providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities
or persons involved in terrorist acts'', take ``the necessary
steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts'', and
``deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or
commit terrorist acts''.
(3) The Government of Syria is currently prohibited by
United States law from receiving United States assistance
because it is listed as state sponsor of terrorism.
(4) Although the Department of State lists Syria as a state
sponsor of terrorism and reports that Syria provides ``safe
haven and support to several terrorist groups'', fewer United
States sanctions apply with respect to Syria than with
respect to any other country that is listed as a state
sponsor of terrorism.
(5) Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command
maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on
Syrian territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by
the Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran
through Syria.
(6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 520
(September 17, 1982) calls for ``strict respect of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political
independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese
Army throughout Lebanon''.
(7) More than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel
occupy much of the sovereign territory of Lebanon exerting
undue influence upon its government and undermining its
political independence.
(8) Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have
passed seven bills and resolutions which call for the
withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon.
(9) Large and increasing numbers of the Lebanese people
from across the political spectrum in Lebanon have mounted
peaceful and democratic calls for the withdrawal of the
Syrian Army from Lebanese soil.
(10) Israel has withdrawn all of its armed forces from
Lebanon in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 425 (March 19, 1978), as certified by the United
Nations Secretary General.
(11) Even in the face of this United Nations certification
that acknowledged Israel's full compliance with Resolution
425, Syria permits attacks by Hizballah and other militant
organizations on Israeli outposts at Shebaa Farms, under the
false guise that it remains Lebanese land, and is also
permitting attacks on civilian targets in Israel.
(12) Syria will not allow Lebanon--a sovereign country--to
fulfill its obligation in accordance with Security Council
Resolution 425 to deploy its troops to southern Lebanon.
(13) As a result, the Israeli-Lebanese border and much of
southern Lebanon is under the control of Hizballah which
continues to attack Israeli positions and allows Iranian
Revolutionary Guards and other militant groups to operate
freely in the area, destabilizing the entire region.
(14) The United States provides $40,000,000 in assistance
to the Lebanese people through private nongovernmental
organizations, $7,900,000 of which is provided to Lebanese-
American educational institutions.
(15) In the State of the Union address on January 29, 2002,
President Bush declared that the United States will ``work
closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state
sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and
deliver weapons of mass destruction''.
(16) The Government of Syria continues to develop and
deploy short and medium range ballistic missiles.
(17) The Government of Syria is pursuing the development
and production of biological and chemical weapons.
(18) United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 (August
6, 1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions restrict the
sale of oil and other commodities by Iraq, except to the
extent authorized by other relevant resolutions.
(19) Syria, a non-permanent United Nations Security Council
member, is receiving between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of
oil from Iraq in violation of Security Council Resolution 661
and subsequent relevant resolutions.
(20) Syrian President Bashar Assad promised Secretary of
State Powell in February 2001 to end violations of Security
Council Resolution 661 but this pledge has not been
fulfilled.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Syria should immediately and
unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and
openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of
terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in
Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command;
(2) the Government of Syria should immediately declare its
commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including
military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon,
and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal;
(3) the Government of Lebanon should deploy the Lebanese
armed forces to all areas of Lebanon, including South
Lebanon, in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982), in order to assert the
sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all of its territory,
and should evict all terrorist and foreign forces from
southern Lebanon, including Hizballah and the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards;
(4) the Government of Syria should halt the development and
deployment of short and medium range ballistic missiles and
cease the development and production of biological and
chemical weapons;
(5) the Government of Syria should halt illegal imports and
transshipments of Iraqi oil and come into full compliance
with United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 and
subsequent relevant resolutions;
(6) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into
serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the
Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent
peace; and
(7) the United States should continue to provide
humanitarian and educational assistance to the people of
Lebanon only through appropriate private, nongovernmental
organizations and appropriate international organizations,
until such time as the Government of Lebanon asserts
sovereignty and control over all of its territory and borders
and achieves full political independence, as called for in
United Nations Security Council Resolution 520.
SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It should be the policy of the United States that--
(1) Syria will be held responsible for all attacks
committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with
offices or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of
Lebanon occupied by Syria;
[[Page S2976]]
(2) the United States will work to deny Syria the ability
to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to
develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;
(3) the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a
state sponsor of terrorism until Syria ends its support for
terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other
terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist
groups in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with
United States law relating to terrorism and United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001);
(4) the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty,
political independence, and territorial integrity is in the
national security interest of the United States;
(5) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) through its
continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its
encroachment upon its political independence;
(6) Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not
conditioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-
Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation
under Security Council Resolution 520;
(7) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the
Middle East and the national interests of the United States;
(8) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 661 (August 6, 1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions through its continued purchase of oil
from Iraq; and
(9) the United States will not provide any assistance to
Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until
Syria withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts the
development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles, and complies with Security Council
Resolution 661 and subsequent relevant resolutions.
SEC. 5. SANCTIONS.
(a) Sanctions.--Until the President makes the determination
that Syria meets the requirements described in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of subsection (c) and certifies such
determination to Congress in accordance with such
subsection--
(1) the President shall prohibit the export to Syria of any
item, including the issuance of a license for the export of
any item on the United States Munitions List or Commerce
Control List of dual-use items in the Export Administration
Regulations (15 C.F.R. part 730 et seq.);
(2) the President shall prohibit United States Government
assistance, including loans, credits, or other financial
assistance, to United States businesses with respect to
investment or other activities in Syria;
(3) the President shall prohibit the conduct of programs of
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and
Development Agency in or with respect to Syria; and
(4) the President shall impose two or more of the following
sanctions:
(A) Prohibit the export of products of the United States
(other than food and medicine) to Syria.
(B) Prohibit United States businesses from investing or
operating in Syria.
(C) Restrict Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C., and at
the United Nations in New York City, to travel only within a
25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., or the United Nations
headquarters building, respectively.
(D) Reduce United States diplomatic contacts with Syria
(other than those contacts required to protect United States
interests or carry out the purposes of this Act).
(E) Block transactions in any property in which the
Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or with
respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of
either paragraph (2) or (3) (or both) of subsection (a) if
the President determines that it is in the national security
interest of the United States to do so.
(c) Certification.--A certification under this subsection
is a certification transmitted to the appropriate
congressional committees of a determination made by the
President that--
(1) the Government of Syria does not provide support for
international terrorist groups and does not allow terrorist
groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command to maintain
facilities in Syria;
(2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian
military, intelligence, and other security personnel from
Lebanon;
(3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and
deployment of ballistic missiles and has ceased the
development and production of biological and chemical
weapons; and
(4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 and subsequent
relevant resolutions.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
(a) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter until
the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
section 5(c) are satisfied, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on--
(1) Syria's progress toward meeting the conditions
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 5(c); and
(2) connections, if any, between individual terrorists and
terrorist groups which maintain offices, training camps, or
other facilities on Syrian territory, or operate in areas of
Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces, and the attacks
against the United States that occurred on September 11,
2001, and other terrorist attacks on the United States or its
citizens, installations, or allies.
(b) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall
be in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate.
____________________