Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4065-S4078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 2471. A bill to provide for the independent investigation of
Federal wildland firefighter fatalities; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

[[Page S4066]]

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would direct the Inspectors General of the Departments of Interior
and Agriculture to conduct independent investigations any time there is
a fatality within the ranks of our Federal wildland firefighters. I
believe this is a modest, but critical important, proposal that begins
to address the fundamental issue of accountability within our federal
wildland firefighting agencies.
This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I
serve, held a hearing on the Department of Interior's and Forest
Service's preparations for the 2002 fire season. I am glad we held this
hearing, because the importance of fire preparedness was driven home
for many of my constituents last year, when Washington State suffered a
particularly devastating fire season.
On July 10 near a town called Winthrop, in the midst of the worst
drought on record in our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of
control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names
were: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson,
19; and Devin Weaver, 21.
I believe we all must recognize the courage and commitment of the men
and women who fight wildland fires, and the important work the Forest
Service and Department of Interior do on our behalf. We know that
firefighting is a dangerous profession, or in the case of these young
people, summer jobs that they had taken to help pay for college. But
despite the inherent danger, I believe we owe it to the firefighters
who lost their lives, and to their families--to ensure that, when
planning for this year's fire season, our federal agencies have taken
meaningful actions to avoid a reoccurance of the Thirtymile tragedy.
Because in the words of the Forest Service's own report on the
Thirtymile incident, this tragedy ``could have been prevented.''
I want to again thank Chairman Bingaman, as well as Senator Wyden who
chairs the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, for holding an
oversight hearing last November on the Thirtymile tragedy, which
cemented in my mind the three areas in which the Forest Service needs
to improve its commitment to the safety of its employees:
accountability, from the firefighter on the line all the way up to the
Chief; training our firefighters to put safety first; and independent
and consistent review of incidents in which safety rules have been
broken, whether or not they result in fatalities.
I believe these observations were further reinforced by an OSHA
investigation released in February that found the Forest Service had
committed two serious and three willful violations of employee safety
policy during the Thirtymile Fire, even stronger citations than those
handed down after 1994's Storm King fire, in which 14 Federal
firefighters died.
One of the issues that came to our attention in our oversight of the
Thirtymile fire is that no one, not the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, not the families of the victims, not the public, is at all
satisfied with how firefighter fatalities are investigated. After the
Thirtymile Fire, the Forest Service basically investigated the incident
itself. When concerns were raised that the investigation's conclusions
were simply not fair to the victims, who, afterall, are no longer here
to tell their side of the story, the Forest Service saw fit to reopen
the investigation and modify some of its conclusions.
While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, did
conduct a subsequent investigation, OSHA simply doesn't have binding
authority over the Forest Service.
I believe this entire investigatory process is flawed. To inject
accountability into federal agencies' approach to firefighter safety, I
firmly believe these agencies and their chiefs must know that, if
employees under their command are injured or killed in the line of
duty, there is no question that there will be a thorough, independent
and balanced investigation of the incident. This investigation will
happen regardless of politics and regardless of whether a member of
Congress takes a particular interest in the incident.
I understand that after-the-fact investigations do not soothe the
pain of the families and communities involved in such incidents.
However, my hope is that a proactive system of accountability, which
includes a rational investigatory process, will help prevent these
tragedies from occurring time and time again.
As some of my colleagues may be aware, I added a provision to the
Forestry Title of the Senate's farm bill, with the help of Senator
Harkin and support of Senators on the Energy Committee, that was very
similar to this bill. It would have directed the Inspector General of
the Department of Agriculture to conduct an independent investigation
any time a Forest Service firefighter death occurs as a result of
entrapment or burnover.
Unfortunately, despite the fact a modified version of the forestry
title did survive the Farm Bill conference, this small yet crucial
provision was deleted. While my office worked very closely with Senate
conferees, this provision encountered a great deal of resistance from
House conferees, who tied it to the unrelated issue of stewardship
contracting authority.
On February 17, 2002, the Yakima Herald-Republic editorialized that
this measure would be ``a good start to change one of the biggest flaws
in last summer's investigations into the needless deaths of the four
local firefighters.'' On May 1, 2002, after it was killed in
conference, the paper wrote: ``In another disgusting display of
politics over principle, a move to stop federal agencies from
investigating themselves when people are killed fighting fires has been
scuttled. Incredibly, there was little disagreement about the value of
more oversight of the U.S. Forest service after its bungled handling of
both a fire and follow-up investigation of the deaths of four local
firefighters.''
On May 2, 2002 a Seattle Times editorial called the fight for
independent investigations ``. . . a cause worth fighting for.'' It
went on to say, ``The changes championed by Cantwell and Representative
Hastings are all about accountability and the difficulty of getting the
Forest Service to correct known training deficiencies and leadership
problems.''
During negotiations on the farm bill, the Department of Agriculture
did not oppose this language and it is my sincere hope that the
relevant agencies will support the legislation that I am introducing
today. I believe it is good policy, and it is ultimately in the best
interest of both the management of these agencies and their employees
who are out on the lines fighting fires.
Moreover, congressionally mandated IG investigations are not
unprecedented. Already, the Department of Agriculture's IG must conduct
automatic investigations for the proper disclosure of costs associated
with pesticide registration. The Department of Defense's IG must
conduct investigations for the effectiveness of voting assistance
programs. HUD, and the Department of Commerce's IGs have also been
directed to conduct investigations of this sort. And the list goes on.
I hope we will soon add to this list the investigations proposed in
this legislation.
There must be an automatic, independent investigation of any fire-
related fatality. The families who have lost loved ones are asking for
these independent investigations. The impacted communities are asking
for this. And editorials from major dailies across my home State of
Washington have cited the lack of investigatory independence as a
critical problem during the Thirtymile tragedy's aftermath.
I believe we can go a long way to begin addressing these concerns if
we were to enact the legislation I have introduced today.
______

By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 2473. A bill to enhance the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
for the National Park Service, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Recreation
Fee Authority Act of 2002. This legislation modifies the
congressionally created Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.
The issue of user fees on public lands is a difficult one. As you
know, our Nation's parks and recreation areas are in serious trouble
and have significant

[[Page S4067]]

maintenance and infrastructure needs. The National Park Service alone
has roughly an $8 billion blacklog in maintenance and infrastructure
repair. There are a number of reasons for this funding shortage,
including poor park management, congressional inaction and apathy from
the American public.
Currently, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program allows the
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S. Forest Service to collect and expend funds for
areas in need of additional financial support. Agencies collect fees
for admission to a unit or site for special uses such as boating and
back country camping fees and are able to use 80 percent of the
receipts for protection and enhancement of that area. Fees are
typically used for visitor services, maintenance and repair of
facilities as well as cultural and natural resource management. The
remaining 20 percent is used on an agency-wide basis for parts of the
system, which are precluded from participating in the Recreation Fee
Demonstration program.
The legislation I am introducing today allows permanent authorization
of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program for national parks, and
provides some new flexibility. For example, many visitors frequent
national and State parks, but are not allowed to use State and national
passes interchangeably. In cooperation with State-agencies, the
Secretary of the Interior will be authorized to enter into revenue
sharing agreements to accept State and national park passes at sites
within that State, providing cost savings and convenience for the
visitor.
In the past, concerns have been expressed about ``nickel and dime''
efforts where there appears to be a lack of planning and coordination
by agency officials. Fee programs under this legislation would be
established at fair and equitable rates. Each unit would perform a
market analysis to consider benefits and services provided to the
visitor, cumulative effect of fees, public policy and management
objectives and feasibility of fee collection. This review would serve
as a business plan for each site so that managers could utilize scarce
resources in the most efficient manner.
The Recreation Fee Demonstration program was an effort by Congress to
allow public land agencies to obtain funding in addition to their
annual appropriations. This legislation will help provide resources for
badly needed improvement projects and ensure an enhanced experience for
all visitors.
We need to guarantee our national treasures are available for
generations to come. I believe that Congress, the Park Service and
those interested in helping our parks should cooperate on initiatives
to protect resources, increase visitor services and improve management
throughout the system. Working together, we can ensure that these areas
will remain affordable and accessible for everyone.
Mr. 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. 2473

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Recreational Fee Authority
Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY.

(a) Definition of Secretary.--In this Act, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Definition of Agency.--In this Act, the term ``Agency''
means the National Park Service.
(c) In General.--Beginningin Fiscal Year 2003 and
thereafter, the Secretary is authorized to--
(1) establish, charge, and collect fees for the following:
(A) admission to a unit, area, or site administered by the
Agency, and
(B) the use of Agency administrated areas, lands, sites,
facilities, and services (including reservations) by
individuals and/or groups.
(2) establish fair and equitable fees that are a result of
a market analysis taking the following criteria into
consideration--
(A) the benefits and services provided to the visitor;
(B) the cumulative effect of fees charged to the public;
(C) the comparable fees charged on other units, areas,
sites, and other public agencies
(D) the comparable fees charged by nearby private sector
operators;
(E) the direct and indirect cost to the government;
(F) the revenue benefits to the government;
(G) the public policy or management objectives served;
(H) the economic and administrative feasibility of fee
collection, and
(I) any other pertinent factors or criteria deemed
necessary by the Secretary.
(3) The Secretary shall ensure that individual park units
assess only the minimum number of fees consistently on an
agency-wide basis in order to avoid the collection of
multiple or layered fees for a wide variety of uses,
activities and/or programs.
(4) The results of the market analysis, new fees, increases
or decreases in established fees, shall be published in the
Federal Register and any change in the amount of fees shall
not take place until at least 12 months after the date the
notice is published in the Federal Register.
(d) Additional Authorities.--Beginning in Fiscal Year 2003
and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized to--
(1) enter into agreements, including contracts, which
provide for reasonable commissions or reimbursements, with
any public or private entity to provide visitor reservation
services, fee collection and/or processing services;
(2) use National Park Service volunteers, as appropriate to
collect fees charged pursuant to Section 2(C);
(3) in establishing fees under this Act, the Secretary may
provide discounted or fee admission days or use as deemed
appropriate by the Secretary;
(4) the Secretary may modify the National Park Passport,
established pursuant to Public Law 105-391; and
(5) the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary
to provide information to the visitor concerning the various
fees programs available to them and the costs and benefits of
those programs.
(e) State Agency Admission and Special Use Passes.--
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2003 and thereafter--
(1) notwithstanding the Federal Grants Cooperative
Agreements Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into
revenue sharing agreements with State agencies to accept
their annual passes and convey the same privileges, terms and
conditions as offered under the auspices of the National Park
Passport, established pursuant to Public Law 105-391,
(hereinafter referred to as the ``National Park Passport'')
or as Public Law 105-391 may be amended.
(2) State agency annual passes shall only be accepted for
all of the units of the National Park System within the
boundaries of the State in which the specific revenue sharing
agreement is entered into;
(3) The Secretary may enter into revenue sharing agreements
with other Federal agencies and/or Tribal governments to
establish, charge and collect fees at areas, sites or
projects located on other areas under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture and/or the specific
Tribal government in which the agreement is made.

SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS.

(a) In General.--
(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish a special
account in the Treasury for the Agency.
(2) Amounts collected by the Agency under Section 2 shall
be deposited in its special account in the Treasury and shall
remain available for expenditure without further
appropriation until expended.
(3) Amounts collected from sales of the National Park
Passport, or from revenue sharing agreements entered into
under Section 2 of this Act shall be deposited in its special
account in the Treasury in accordance with guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Distribution of Fees.--The amounts deposited in the
special account established by subsection (a) shall be
distributed as follows:
(1) Not less than 80 percent of amounts collected pursuant
to the Act at a specific area, site, or project as determined
by the Secretary, shall remain available for use at the
specific area, site or project at which the fees were
collected, except that the Secretary may change the
allocation amount to not less than 60 percent of fees
collected to be returned to the area, site, or project when
the Secretary determines that site specific revenues in any
given Fiscal Year exceed that site's reasonable needs for
that year; except that for those units of the National Park
System which participate in an active revenue sharing
agreement with a State under Section 2(e) of this Act, not
less than 90 percent of amounts collected pursuant to this
Act at a specific area, site, or project as determined by the
Secretary shall remain for use at the specific area, site or
project at which the fees were collected.
(2) The balance of the amounts collected at a specific
area, site, or project not distributed in accordance with
paragraph (1), shall remain available for use by the Agency
on an agency-wide basis as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Monies generated as a result of revenue sharing
agreements established pursuant to Section 2(e) may provide
for a fee-sharing arraignment among the parties to the
revenue sharing agreement. Agency shares of fees collected
shall be deposited and distributed as described in subsection
(b) equally to all units of the National Park System in the
specific State that are parties to the revenue sharing
agreement.

[[Page S4068]]

(4) Monies generated as a result of the sale of the
National Park Passport shall be distributed as follows: not
less than 50 percent of the amounts collected pursuant this
Act, as determined by the Secretary shall remain available
for use at the specific area, site, or project at which the
fees were collected, the balance of the monies generated
shall be distributed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this
Section.

SEC. 4. EXPENDITURES.

(a) Use of Fees at Specific Area, Site, or Project.--
Amounts available under Section 3 of this Act for expenditure
at a specific area, site or project shall be accounted for
separately and may be used for--
(1) repair, maintenance, facility enhancement, media
services and infrastructure including projects and expenses
relating to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, environmental
compliance, and health and safety;
(2) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service,
visitors needs assessments, monitoring, and signs;
(3) habitat enhancement, resource assessment, preservation,
protection, and restoration related to recreation use, and
(4) law enforcement relating to public use and recreation.
(b) The Secretary may use not more than fifteen percent of
the revenues derived under the authorities of this Act to
administer the recreation fee program including direct
operating or capital costs, cost of fee collection,
notification of fee requirements, direct infrastructure, fee
program management costs, bonding of volunteers, start-up
costs, and analysis and reporting on program accomplishments
and impacts.

SEC. 5. REPORTS.

(a) Once every three years after the enactment of this Act
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the United States House of
Representatives a report detailing the status of the
Recreation Fee Program conducted in units of the National
Park System.
(1) The report under this section shall contain an
evaluation of the Recreation Fee Program conducted at each
unit of the National Park System;
(2) with respect to each unit of the National Park System
where a fee is charged under the authorities granted by this
Act, a description of projects that were funded, work
accomplished, and a description of future projects and
programs identified for funding with monies expected to be
generated under the authorities granted by this Act, and
(3) any recommendations for changes in the overall fee
system along with any justification as appropriate.

SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary may promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to implement this Act.
______

By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2474. A bill to provide to the Federal land management agencies
the authority and capability to manage effectively the Federal lands,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today represents
a significant modification to S. 1320, which I introduced in the last
Congress. This modification represents a large body of work that
reflects my belief that forest planning and public land management
continues to evolve and that underlaying law needs to be updated. It is
also represents thousands of hours of hearings and working with a
variety of interests to modernize the laws governing our stewardship
over federally-managed, multiple-use lands.
I first undertook an effort to improve our National Forest lands'
forest planning process in the 104th Congress with the introduction of
S. 1253. I then refined that effort when I reintroduced the legislation
in S. 1320. Today, I am introducing legislation that represents a
refinement of earlier efforts in S. 1253 and S. 1320.
For those of you who have just tuned in, this bill is the result of
15 oversight hearings that my Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management held during the 104th Congress. These hearings involved more
than 200 witnesses, representing all points of view, and reviewing all
aspects of the management of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands. The overwhelming conclusion from all of these
witnesses, developers and environmentalists alike, public and private
sector employees alike, was that the statutes governing federal land
management, the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the
1976 National Forest Management Act, are antiquated, and in need of
updating. These statutes were passed by Congress in the mid-1970s to
help solve land management problems. Today, they are a large part of
the problem.
It also represents my continued frustration with the process
paralysis that grips the planning and implementation of much needed
land management activities on our National Forests. Our new Chief of
the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, tells me that it now takes up to ten
years to produce a forest plan that has a life expectancy of 15 years.
We have seen example after example of projects that require three to
five years to plan. In the case of many fire rehabilitation projects,
the financial viability of the project demands that NEPA be completed
in a matter of months, not years.
More importantly, we are spending months and sometimes years planning
and documenting the need for the rehabilitation of these burned areas,
and then failing to get the land management underway before natural
events over take the health of our forests. This is occurring to the
detriment of the environment.
While our current forest planning and project planning processes
stumble along, delaying important rehabilitation work, these burned
areas are assailed by the elements of wind and rain. Almost every
single person heard from agrees that the planning and environmental
documentation process are broken. If we leave the agency in utter
gridlock, we have done nothing to protect the environment. If during
all of our careful planning and environmental documentation, an area
suffers a series of thunder storms that washes thousands of tons of
soil into critical fish habitats, as occurred after the 1990 fires on
the Bitteroot National Forest, we and our system have failed the
forests, the environment, and the American Public.
By imposing a cumbersome, if not impossible, planning process on our
federal land managers we guarantee more fires, more destruction of
critical wildlife habitats, more water and air pollution, and the
increased likelihood of dangerous and destructive catastrophic fires.
We do nothing good for the environment by spending two or three years
to design, document, and plan salvage operations to halt the spread of
insects or disease as they rampage through our forests. We can see this
today in the Red River drainage of the Nez Perce National Forest.
I look at laws as ``tools'' for use by professional land managers and
resource scientists that help them to establish priorities and make
management decisions. These tools are as antiquated as the slide-rule
and computer punch cards that were the tools used by land managers at
the time that these statutes were passed.
As a consequence of oversight review during the 104th Congress, and
subsequent oversight hearings, I drafted and circulated S. 1253 at the
outset of the 105th Congress. That draft, and the subsequently-
introduced bill were, in turn, the subject of six informal workshops
and another eight legislative hearings to review the concepts embodied
in both the first draft and the introduced version of S. 1253. The
ideas that emanated from the oversight hearings were modified to
reflect the suggestions of witnesses, and in recognition of how
resource management problems have subsequently evolved. A similar
review was conducted upon the introduction of S. 1320 which has helped
me improve upon my previous efforts.
As you know I continued to hold hearings during both the 106th and
the beginning of the 107th Congress and enjoyed additional dialogue
about how to best modify the 1976 statutes. For instance, at one
hearing all four of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and one
former Bureau of Land Management Director shared their views about the
current state of Federal land management, and where legislative action
could assist their successors in discharging the public trust more
effectively.
During that time period there was at least one seminal decision from
the Supreme Court. In Ohio Forestry Association versus Glickman, the
Supreme Court, in my view, clarified the interrelationship between
forest plans and project level decisions. In that decision, the Court
denied standing to challenge resource management plans, essentially on
the basis that no real decisions were made. We now have several years
of court rulings that reflect that ruling. And we believe that the
Forest Service will soon be proposing forest planning regulations that
will reflect

[[Page S4069]]

the process certified by the Supreme Court.
The bill I am introducing today would refine current planning law,
rather than rewrite the law to alter our course. I believe this bill is
more of a refinement than a revision and that it will be complementary
to what we hope to see in the Forest Service's new forest planning
rules, rather than in conflict with those rules. In various other ways
of a less significant nature, the bill I am introducing today also
reflects the product of court decisions that have been rendered during
the period that we were reviewing these issues.

In many ways my frustration with the forest planning and project
planning process that our Federal land managers are saddled with, is a
lot like the Hubble Telescope when it was first launched into space in
1990. You'll recall that initially the Hubble telescope didn't work.
The pictures it sent back were fuzzy and useless. It had a design flaw,
a mirror was not ground correctly and as a result its images were
unclear. NASA has spent millions of dollars to design and launch this
marvel of technology and it didn't work.
Our National Forest planning process, the result of the 1979 Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, the 1976 National Forest Management Act
and subsequent Federal regulations, is broken. It has cost the public
several hundred million dollars, and we continue to get fuzzy images of
what the solution should be. The problem is that the public and land
managers do not believe or trust the results. Now we learn we are
spending up to ten years to complete plans that will remain in place
for only 15 years.
In the case of the Hubble Telescope, NASA identified the problem,
designed a fix, and went into space and corrected the problem, all
within a very short 3 year time period. In the case of the forest
planning process, most undertook the regulations would need periodic
updating. During the late 1980's and early 1990's the Forest Service
worked to develop and propose new forest planning regulations. Election
year politics prevented the agency from finalizing those regulations.
In the last two years of the Clinton years, the Forest Service again
made an effort to make changes to its planning regulations. Again
election year politics intervened and now the current Administration is
working toward some changes.
The bottom line here is that we can repolish the regulations over and
over again but it still produces fuzzy pictures. It is my estimation
that it is time to make some changes to the underlying law, so to speak
the design of our telescope. It is time to make the changes our Federal
managers need to assure reasonable, environmentally sound, and timely
land management.
It is my hope that we will now move forward with additional hearings
on this proposal, confident that we are on the correct path to improve
the quality of Federal land management, and through a variety of means,
increase public support for the future management of our Federal forest
lands.
I look forward to working with Senator Wyden, the chairman for the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, and to hold hearings to
further refine this regulation. It is my hope that Senator Wyden and I
can build on our efforts to end the Federal forest grid-lock that we
started with the passage of Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 1999.
I invite both the administration and Members on both sides of the
aisle to join us in this effort. We will move forward knowing that this
proposal, like any other, is a working draft that will by necessity
change, probably significantly.
We also move forward knowing that legislative change in this arena is
both inevitable and vital. It is clear to me that this area of public
discourse vitally needs a vibrant legislative debate and a new
legislative charter so that our Federal land managers can be provided
with tools a little more modern that the slide-rule and maniframe
computer punch cards.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 2478. A bill to promote enhanced non-proliferation cooperation
between the United States and the Russian Federation; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the United States Government and all of
us personally have conducted a serious reassessment of our priorities
in the months since the horrific events of September 11, 2001. The work
of this body has been radically reshaped as we work together to
effectively combat the menace of international terrorism. We have
appropriated billions of dollars so our military can wage war in
Afghanistan and prepare for the possibility of future military
operations. We have devoted billions of dollars to strengthening our
homeland defense capabilities, everything from beefing up border and
port security to manufacturing additional vaccines to prepare for the
possibility of a biological weapons attack. The time has also come to
reassess what needs to be done to ensure that nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction and the expertise to employ them do not
leak out of the former Soviet Union and find their way into the hands
of terrorist or terrorist states.
Last year, I sponsored the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001, S.
1117, which called for expanding and accelerating programs to prevent
diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear weapons, and fissile
materials; reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States
and Russian arsenals; and for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of
those two nations that are on high alert. The NTRA enjoyed success on a
number of fronts: U.S.-Russia threat reduction and non-proliferation
programs were expanded and accelerated; the Senate, working with the
Administration, paved the way for the deep cuts that Presidents Bush
and Putin generally agreed to in November 2001; and the possibility of
taking some weapons off high alert was studied as part of the Nuclear
Posture Review. Solid steps were taken, but we all know that more needs
to be done.
I rise today to introduce legislation that will help to address what
is probably the most serious threat to U.S. national security: the
possibility that terrorists or terrorist states will acquire nuclear
weapons and materials, and other weapons of mass destruction from the
massive and poorly secured former Soviet nuclear weapons complex.
The scope of the problem that we face is difficult to fathom, but I
will attempt to illuminate it by citing a few facts. Today, Russia
possesses approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade
material to fabricate over 60,000 more. Not including the United
States, Russia possesses approximately 95 percent of the world's
nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, a testimony to the great
resources and effort that both sides devoted in waging the cold war.
These weapons and material are stored in literally hundreds of sites
across Russia's 11 time zones. Making this problem even more
disconcerting is the fact that Russia is unable to reliably account for
its huge stock of warheads and materials, having inherited a sub-
standard accounting system from the totalitarian Soviet state.
Additionally, there are over 20,000 scientists and technicians in the
former Soviet Union that are considered proliferation risks.
As the Members of this Chamber will recall proudly, Senators Sam Nunn
and Richard Lugar, along with others, took the lead in the early 1990s
to put together a suite of programs that still work to address the
threat posed by the possible proliferation of former Soviet nuclear
weapons and other materials. As the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact fell
apart, there was a palpable fear that nuclear weapons and materials
would proliferate widely. In conjunction with the work in the Senate,
the first Bush administration also took up the challenge by backing the
Nunn-Lugar programs as well as supporting initiatives to help Soviet
Premier Gorbachev as he attempted to keep the Soviet Union from radical
collapse. The events of September 11 serve as another wake-up call.
There is a growing realization that Russia desperately needs our help.
But more remains to be done--much, much more.
Fortunately, the Bush Administration has devoted considerable time
and effort to working to increase cooperation between the United States
and Russia on these matters, as exemplified by U.S.-Russian cooperation
in the war

[[Page S4070]]

against terrorism, the Bush-Putin summit in November 2001, and the May
2002 U.S.-Russia summit in Russia. The administration wisely realizes
that only through greater cooperation with Russia can we deal
effectively with this problem.
As I mentioned, Russian nuclear weapons and materials are stored in
hundreds of sites. While helping to improve the security of these sites
is a daunting task, we should ponder how much more difficult preventing
an attack would become if even a miniscule portion of these warheads or
materials were to proliferate. As members of this body know, the
warning signs are growing. It is well known that groups such as al
Qaeda and states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea wish to develop or
acquire WMD. Even more disconcerting are reports that members of al
Qaeda have attempted to break into Russian nuclear weapon facilities.
We would do well to meditate on these reports and ask ourselves if the
United States is doing enough to prevent the myriad groups and states
that wish to acquire WMD from Russia from being able to do so.
Mindful of this serious challenge to U.S. and global security I am
introducing the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002,
NTTRA. The NTTRA would promote policies that will greatly reduce the
likelihood of nuclear terrorism.
First, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to
work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the
diversion of weapons of mass destruction and material, including
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, as well scientific and
technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass
destruction. As a review by the Bush administration found last year,
``most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and
nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well
managed,'' The NTTRA proposals complement the increases that the Bush
administration has proposed for these programs.
The NTTRA also calls for the President to deliver to Congress, no
later than six months after the enactment of the NTTRA, a series of
recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of U.S.-Russia
non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, including suggestions
on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement
practices of these programs and a listing of impediments to the
efficient and effective implementation of these programs.

Second, recognizing the shortcomings in the Russian system for
accounting for nuclear warheads and weapons-grade material, the NTTRA
states that it is the policy of the United States to establish
cooperatively with Russia comprehensive inventories and data exchanges
of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade material and assembled warheads with
particular attention to tactical, or ``non-strategic,'' warheads--one
of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or state would
attempt to acquire--and with particular attention focused on weapons
which have been removed from deployment.
Only through such an accounting system will we be able to reliably
say that Russian warheads and materials are sufficiently secure.
Third, the NTTRA calls upon the President to deliver to Congress a
plan laying out progress toward irreversibility involving the
elimination of launchers and transparency measures involving warheads.
As the Bush administration works to lock in the gains that the United
States and Russia have generally agreed to, this plan will help keep
the Senate fully apprised.
Fourth, the NTTRA calls for the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russia
Commission on the Transition from Mutually Assured Destruction to
Mutually Assured Security. The U.S. side of the Commission would be
composed of private citizens who are experts in the field of U.S.-
Russia strategic stability. The NTTRA also calls upon the President to
make every effort to encourage the Russian Government to establish a
complementary Commission that would jointly meet and discuss how to
preserve strategic stability during this time of rapid and positive
change in the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Working with Russia to address the many serious issues which still
exist over 10 years after the end of the cold war should be one of the
top U.S. priorities in the overall battle against global terrorism.
Allow me to be frank and to say that this work will not be easy and
there will certainly be testing times as the United States and Russia
work to fully put the cold war to rest and to reach a level of foreign
and defense policy cooperation which was unfathomable only a few years
ago. But we are faced with few other options. We must shore up our
first line of defense against the possibility of terrorism turning
nuclear.
I call upon the members of this body to collectively redouble our
efforts to prevent the unthinkable from happening by supporting the
Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002.
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. 2478

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 ``Nuclear and Terrorism Threat
Reduction Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCING THREAT REDUCTION.

(a) Statement of Policy.--
(1) It is the policy of the United States to work
cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent
the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and materials
relating thereto, including nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons, as well as the scientific and technical expertise
necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction.
(2) With respect to enhancing threat reduction, there
should be three primary objectives, as stated in the
President's review of 30 different United States-Russia
cooperative programs, as follows:
(A) To ensure that existing United States cooperative non-
proliferation programs with the Russian Federation are
focused on priority threat reduction and non-proliferation
goals, and are conducted as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
(B) To examine what new initiatives might be undertaken to
further United States threat reduction and non-proliferation
goals.
(C) To consider organizational and procedural changes
designed to ensure a consistent and coordinated United States
Government approach to cooperative programs with the Russian
Federation on the reduction of weapons of mass destruction
and prevention of their proliferation.
(3) The goal of United States programs to assist the
Russian Federation should be to have them work well, be
focused on priority tasks, and be well managed.
(4) In order to further cooperative efforts, the following
key programs should be expanded:
(A) The Department of Energy Material Protection, Control
and Accounting (MPC&A) program to assist the Russian
Federation secure and consolidate weapons-grade nuclear
material.
(B) The Department of Energy Warhead and Fissile Material
Transparency Program.
(C) The International Science and Technology Center (ISTC).
(D) The Redirection of Biotechnical Scientists program.
(E) The Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
project to construct a chemical weapons destruction facility
at Shchuch'ye, Russia, to enable its earliest completion at
no increased expense.
(5) Other programs should be adjusted, refocused, or
reexamined, including--
(A) approaches to the current plutonium disposition program
in the Russian Federation, in order to make the program less
costly and more effective;
(B) the project to end production by the Russian Federation
of weapons-grade plutonium, in order to transfer the project
from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy;
(C) consolidation of the Department of Energy's Nuclear
Cities Initiative (NCI) with the Initiative for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP), with a focus on projects to assist the
Russian Federation in reduction of its nuclear warheads
complex; and
(D) acceleration of the Department of Energy's Second Line
of Defense program to assist the Russian Federation install
nuclear detection equipment at border posts.
(b) Increased Funding of Certain Key Programs.--In order to
guarantee that the United States-Russia non-proliferation and
threat reduction efforts operate as efficiently as possible,
certain key programs should receive additional funding above
current levels, including--
(1) the United States-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium
Purchase Agreement;
(2) the Second Line of Defense program;
(3) the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention;
(4) the Fissile Materials Disposition program;
(5) the Redirection of Biotechnical Scientists program;

[[Page S4071]]

(6) the Department of Energy Material Protection, Control,
and Accounting (MPC&A) program;
(7) the International Science and Technology Center; and
(8) the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency program.
(c) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress
a report containing recommendations on how to enhance the
implementation of United States-Russia non-proliferation and
threat reduction programs, which shall include--
(1) recommendations on how to improve and streamline the
contracting and procurement practices of those programs; and
(2) a listing of impediments to the efficient and effective
implementation of those programs.

SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORIES AND DATA EXCHANGES BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON
WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that inventories of weapons-
grade material and warheads should be tracked in order, among
other things--
(1) to make it more likely that the Russian Federation can
fully account for its entire inventory of weapons-grade
material and assembled weapons; and
(2) to make it more likely that the sources of any material
or weapons possessed or used by any foreign state or
terrorist organization can be identified.
(b) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to establish jointly with the Russian Federation
comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and
United States weapons-grade material and assembled warheads,
with particular attention to tactical, or ``nonstrategic''
warheads, one of the most likely weapons a terrorist
organization or terrorist state would attempt to acquire, and
with particular attention focused on weapons that have been
removed from deployment.
(c) Assistance in Developing Comprehensive Inventories.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States
Government shall work with the Russian Federation to develop
comprehensive inventories of Russian weapons-grade plutonium
and highly enriched uranium programs and assembled warheads,
with special attention to be focused on tactical warheads and
warheads that have been removed from deployment.
(d) Data Exchanges.--As part of this process, to the
maximum extent practicable, without jeopardizing United
States national security interests, the United States is
authorized to enter into ongoing data exchanges with the
Russian Federation on categories of material and weapons
described in subsection (c).
(e) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until a
comprehensive inventory is created and the information
collected from the inventory exchanged between the
governments of the United States and the Russian Federation,
the President shall submit to Congress a report, in both an
unclassified and classified form as necessary, describing the
progress that has been made toward that objective.

SEC. 4. COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE TRANSITION FROM MUTUALLY
ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD) TO MUTUALLY ASSURED
SECURITY (MAS).

(a) Statement of Policy.--With the end of the Cold War more
than a decade ago, with the United States and the Russian
Federation fighting together against global terrorism, and
with the Presidents of the United States and the Russian
Federation agreeing to establish ``a new strategic framework
to ensure the mutual security of the United States and
Russia, and the world community'', the United States and the
Russian Federation should increase significantly their
efforts to put dangerous and unnecessary elements of the Cold
War to rest.
(b) Establishment.--In order to assist with the policy
expressed in subsection (a), the President is authorized to
conclude an agreement with the Russian Federation for the
establishment of a Joint United States-Russia Commission to
Assess the Transition from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
to Mutual Assured Security (MAS) (in this section referred to
as the ``Commission'').
(c) Composition.--The United States delegation of the
Commission shall consist of 13 members appointed by the
President, as follows:
(1) Three members, after consultation with the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
(2) Three members, after consultation with the Majority
Leader of the Senate.
(3) Two members, after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives.
(4) Two members, after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the Senate.
(5) Two members as the President may determine.
(d) Qualifications.--The United States members of the
Commission shall be appointed from among private United
States citizens with knowledge and expertise in United
States-Russia strategic stability issues.
(e) Chair.--The chair of the Commission should be chosen by
consensus from among the members of the Commission.
(f) Russian Commission.--The President should make every
effort to encourage the Government of the Russian Federation
to appoint a Russian Federation delegation of the Commission
that would jointly meet and discuss the issues described in
subsection (g).
(g) Duties of the Commission.--The duties of the Commission
should include consideration of how--
(1) to ensure that the reduction of strategic nuclear
weapons announced by the United States and the Russian
Federation in November 2001 take effect in a rapid, safe,
verifiable and irreversible manner;
(2) to preserve and enhance START I monitoring and
verification mechanisms;
(3) to develop additional monitoring and verification
mechanisms;
(4) to preserve the benefits of the unratified START II
agreement, especially those measures that affect strategic
stability;
(5) to ensure the safety of warheads removed from
deployment;
(6) to safely and verifiably dismantle warheads in excess
of the ceiling established by the President Bush at the
November 2001 United States-Russia summit;
(7) to begin a new high-level dialogue to discuss United
States and Russian Federation proposals for a global and
theater level missile defense systems;
(8) to extend presidential decision-making time as it
relates to nuclear weapons operations;
(9) to improve Russian-American cooperative efforts to
enhance strategic early warning, including but not limited to
the Joint Data Exchange Center and the Russian-American
Observation Satellite; and
(10) to increase cooperation between the United States and
the Russian Federation on the programs and activities
described in sections 2 and 3.
(e) Cooperation.--In carrying out its duties, the
Commission should receive the full and timely cooperation of
United States Government officials, including providing the
Commission with analyses, briefings, and other information
necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities.
(f) Report.--The Commission shall, not later than six
months after the date of its first meeting, submit to
Congress an interim report on its findings and, not later
than six months after submission of the interim report,
submit to Congress a final report containing its conclusions.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2479. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include
in the criteria for selecting any project for the low-income housing
credit whether such project has high-speed internet infrastructure; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce legislation
today with Senator Hatch that would amend the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit to make access to Internet and broadband technology one of the
criteria that State housing agencies must consider when awarding the
credits. This bill will help more low-income families gain access to
the new technologies and services that are driving today's modern
economy, and it will do so at very minimal cost to developers. The bill
will take effect for all new housing built with the credit beginning on
January 1 of next year.
My colleagues should understand that the Kerry-Hatch bill would not
require that new housing units have Internet or broadband capability;
it is not an unfunded mandate. Rather, our bill simply adds broadband
access to the list of things that State agencies would have to consider
when they award the credits each year. Our bill also does not specify
any particular technology, meaning that developers and providers can
decide for themselves which technology will work best for a given
community.
This bill has the support of many well-known companies and
associations from the technology and telecommunications industries,
including Corning, Nortel Networks, BellSouth, SmartForce, the
Telecommunications Industry Association, Siemens, and Cisco Systems.
This is just a partial list. A number of well-known national nonprofit
organizations and representatives of the housing industry, such as
Habitat for Humanity, the National Leased Housing Association, and the
National Housing Conference also support the bill. Senator Hatch and I
hope that the Finance Committee, of which we are both members, will
consider adding this provision when it marks up charity-related
legislation later this month. There is no revenue cost associated with
the bill, making it more likely that the committee will be able to
include it.
Several States are running ahead of the Federal Government and are
enacting their own local policies to do what the Kerry-Hatch
legislation will do nationally. To date, the States of Oregon and
Nebraska have re-written their

[[Page S4072]]

policies with technical assistance from One Economy Corporation, a
national nonprofit organization that works to bring technology to low-
income populations and make that technology a tool to help them build
assets and raise their standards of living. Oregon and Nebraska now
have an incentive for broadband in awarding the low-income credits.
Dialogues are currently underway with housing finance agencies from the
States of North Carolina, Michigan, Kentucky, and Minnesota, several of
which may change their policies very soon.
Understandably, there may be some Senators that believe that building
access to broadband technology into these new low-income housing units
will be prohibitively expensive. Well, I am happy to report that this
is not so. Engineers from Cisco Systems have evaluated the costs of
wiring buildings at the time of construction. When wiring a new
building, the baseline cost to run telecommunications infrastructure
into a unit, a fixed cost in new construction, is approximately $150.
When adding conduit for high-speed connectivity, the cost increases
anywhere between $1 and $25. So for a 50-unit building, that's an added
cost of about $1,250 if you assume the highest cost. This is likely to
be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of total construction costs, a
small increase that is more than offset by the increased value of the
property. The added cost is insignificant, and the added value is
great.

This legislation is critical because having access to and
understanding of technology is increasingly a prerequisite for
succeeding in today's knowledge-based economy. Technology can be a
significant tool to help low-income families move up and out of
poverty. I believe that this small change to section 42 of the tax code
will help to close the digital divide in the United States by getting
modern technology into the homes of more low-income Americans.
Recently, some influential opinion leaders in Washington and the
press have begun to ``debunk'' the digital divide. They claim that
since so many more people have access to technology in the workplace,
the percentage of families with incomes between $15,000 and $25,000
that now use computers at home or in the workplace is now close to 50
percent, concerns about the digital divide are overstated.
These statistics only tell part of the story, because there are key
Internet services that people will only feel comfortable using at home
due to privacy concerns, such as those related to one's health or
personal finance. Access to computers in the workplace is not
sufficient. Sure some people might check out Yahoo when they have a
free moment at work. They might perform an Internet search, check
driving directions on MapQuest, or bid on something on eBay. But they
are not going to seek financial advice, research their kids' health, or
do anything of a truly personal nature from the workplace. And in terms
of computer use in the home, there is still a huge digital divide: Even
with all of the technological advances and price reductions of the past
few years, less than 30 percent of households earning under $35,000 are
online at home. In fact, more than one-quarter of zip codes with median
incomes under $35,000 do not have a single high-speed Internet
subscriber, despite the fact that the services are available. In my
opinion, this is a real problem if we want these millions of Americans
to participate in the Information Economy and access the online
services that the rest of us take for granted.
Here are some real stories from the Columbia Heights neighborhood
here in Washington, brought to my attention by One Economy Corporation,
that speak to the power of access to technology in the home: A mother
of three young children uses her computer to take an online course to
get A+ Certification from the Department of Employment Services. Having
a computer at home means that she can take the classes online at night
when her kids are asleep. Once she has the certification she will
qualify for a better, higher-paying job; a young woman in her mid-20s
uses her home computer to look for jobs and pursue educational
opportunities. After September 11, she went online to find people to
talk to for support; and a 50-something grandmother has a three-year
old grandson who suffers from recurring ear infections. The doctor said
that the little boy needed to get an operation to put tubes in his
ears. His grandmother used the computer to research this treatment on
the Internet and ultimately decide that it was the best thing for her
grandson. When asked what she would have done without the Internet, she
said that she would have ``left it up to God.''
These are just a few examples. The central point is that access to
computers and Internet technology in the workplace is no substitute for
having similar access in the home.
Another important issue to consider is the amount of time that many
families of modest means spend interacting with public agencies. I've
been told that can often be as high as 10 hours a month, sometimes
more. Many of these services could undoubtedly be provided online,
which would allow parents to spend more time at work and less waiting
on line. Parents would also be able to spend more time with their
children. In other words, Internet access at home could alleviate some
of the stresses in these families' daily lives. I guess the best way to
put it is: Being online is far better than waiting on a line.
I look forward to promoting this important bill in the Finance
Committee.
I would like to take a moment to speak about the housing crisis in
the country more generally.
My colleagues know that I have spoken frequently on the Senate floor
about the lack of affordable housing throughout the country. Recent
changes in the housing market have further limited the availability of
housing, while the growth in our economy over the last decade has
dramatically increased the cost of the housing that remains. Many
working families have been unable to keep up with these increased
costs.
While the bill I am introducing today does not specifically address
the supply of housing, I want to reiterate my concern about and
dedication to this issue. The low-income housing tax credit is only one
tool, but is an effective one, generating about 85,000 new housing
units per year. It is an important program, but it only helps a small
fraction of the more than 5 million American households that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates to have ``worst
case'' housing needs, an increase of 12 percent since 1990. Many of
these families are spending more than half their income on housing, or
are living in severely substandard housing. On average, a person needs
to earn more than $11 per hour just to afford the median rent on a two-
bedroom apartment in the United States. This hourly figure is
dramatically higher in many metropolitan areas, an hourly wage of $22
is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 in Boston; $16 in
the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and, $13 in Atlanta. I have
mentioned these statistics before. In fact, there is not one
metropolitan area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford
to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. A person trying to live in
Boston would have to make more than $35,000 annually just to afford
such a home. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police
officers, and other full-time workers may have trouble affording even a
modest place to live, segregating our communities by class and
occupation.
We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing, and the
impact it is having on families and children around the country. It is
not clear to me why this crisis has not caused more concern here in
Congress. How many families need to be pushed out of their homes and
into the streets before action is taken? Do we not act because these
people vote less often, or because they don't give to political
campaigns? Do we not believe that most of these Americans would prefer
more affordable housing to the measly tax cut they received in last
year's tax bill?
I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path, one that
ensures that every American has the opportunity to live in decent and
safe housing. Everyone knows that decent housing plays an enormous role
in shaping young lives, and we need to do more to address this quiet,
but simmering, crisis. While the bill I am introducing today with
Senator Hatch will certainly help

[[Page S4073]]

bring more Americans of modest means into the Information Age, it won't
help those Americans with substandard housing, or no homes at all.
Addressing that problem requires a greater commitment from all of us,
and our mayors and Governors back home will all thank us.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Domenici,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2480. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation
to permit current and retired Federal, State and local law enforcement
officers to carry a concealed firearm, the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2002. I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Baucus, Domenici,
Cleland, McConnell, and Sessions are joining me as original cosponsors
in this effort to make our communities safer and to protect law
enforcement officers and their families.
I am introducing this companion measure to H.R. 218 at the request of
the Fraternal Order of Police, which strongly supports this legislation
to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to
permit officers to respond immediately to a crime when off duty. Many
of my friends in the law enforcement community believe that national
legislation is necessary due to the patchwork of conceal-carry laws in
State and local jurisdictions, and that off-duty and retired officers
should be permitted to carry their firearms across state and other
jurisdictional lines.
Our bipartisan bill will allow thousands of equipped, trained and
certified law enforcement officers continually to serve and protect our
communities, regardless of jurisdiction, at no cost to taxpayers. This
bill is designed to promote better law enforcement and improved public
safety.
Our legislation would permit qualified law enforcement officers and
qualified retired law enforcement officers across the nation to carry
concealed firearms in most situations. The bill, however, preserves any
State law that permits citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on
private property and preserves any State law that restricts the
possession of a firearm on State or local government property. While I
support this approach to strike a proper balance between providing law
enforcement officers with the uniformity in the law needed to protect
public safety, I still have some federalism concerns about the
legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill
moves through the legislative process to further preserve essential
rights of the states.
To qualify for the bill's uniform standards a law enforcement officer
must be authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where
he or she works, be in good standing with that agency, and meet any
standards established by that agency to regularly qualify to use a
firearm. A qualified retired law enforcement officer under the bill
must have retired in good standing, been employed at least five years
as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service-
related injury, have a non-forfeitable right to benefits under the law
enforcement agency's retirement plan, and annually complete a State-
approved firearms training course. As a result, our bipartisan
legislation maintains the State or local jurisdiction's power to
determine whether a law enforcement officer or retired law enforcement
officer is qualified in the use of a firearm.
Representative Randy Cunningham introduced a similar bill in the
House, H.R. 218, which has garnered more than 250 bipartisan
cosponsors. In 1999, the House of Representatives adopted similar
legislation, by a vote of 372-53, as a floor amendment during its gun
safety debate before the overall legislation was defeated. I applaud my
colleagues in the other legislative body for such strong bipartisan
showing of support for this legislation.
As a former state prosecutor, I know that law enforcement officers
are never ``off-duty.'' They are dedicated public servants trained to
uphold the law and keep the peace. When there is a threat to the peace
or to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer
that call. Our legislation enables law enforcement officers across the
country to be armed and prepared when they answer that call, no matter
where or when it comes.
I urge my colleagues to support the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act to make our communities safer and to protect law enforcement
officers and their families.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with Senator Leahy and
others to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002.
This bill, which exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement
officers from certain local and State prohibitions on the carrying of
concealed firearms, will help protect the American public, our Nation's
officers and their families.
Over the past several Congresses, Senator Campbell has been a leader
in this area. As a former deputy sheriff in Sacramento County,
California, he has a first-hand understanding of the challenges law
enforcement officers face as they cross state lines. Last March, he
introduced a similar bill, S. 442, the Law Enforcement Protection Act
of 2001, which I co-sponsored. I will continue to support S. 442 as we
seek to enact such legislation during this Congress.
Like S. 442, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 permits
qualified law enforcement officers and retired officers to carry, with
the appropriate identification, a concealed firearm that has been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of
State or local laws. However, like S. 442, this bill does not supersede
any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or restrict the
possession of concealed weapons on their properties, or prohibits or
restricts the possession of firearms on any State or local government
properties, installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally,
both bills clearly define what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement
officer'' and ``qualified retired [or former] law enforcement officer''
to ensure that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms
are highly trained professionals.
Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with
a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel
interstate, it will also provide added security to the American public.
By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers
to carry firearms while off-duty, retired or outside their own
jurisdictions, more trained law enforcement officers will be on our
streets to enforce the law and to respond to crises.
I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues in
both Houses to ensure that this legislation is enacted into law.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
______

By Mr. STEVENS:
S. 2481. A bill to amend the Communications Act and the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Act, 200, to require auction of 700 megahertz spectrum
in compliance with existing statutory deadlines and to give the Federal
Communications Commission discretion to set the auction date for all
other spectrum auctions in the future; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, several years ago, after a period had
gone by wherein spectrum available to the FCC to relicense had been
involved in a lottery process, I suggested that we auction spectrum.
And after some time passed, Congress did see fit to follow that
suggestion, and we have been having spectrum auctions by the FCC.
There is currently pending the auction of spectrum in the 747 to 762
megahertz and 777 to 792 megahertz bands. That has been postponed
several times now, and I think that is wrong.
I do believe spectrum should be made available, in a competitive
process, to those people who want to use it, and to improve our
economy, to put into effect new technologies. But it should not be used
just for speculation. And it should not be auctioned just because of
market demands for spectrum, per se, in order to get the Government the
highest level of return for the spectrum.
The highest level of return to the taxpayers, in the long run, comes
from

[[Page S4074]]

developing the spectrum, from enhancing the economy, and providing a
long period of development for new technologies and new income streams,
which will provide a new tax base for the Treasury. I believe we should
reiterate to the FCC that it has the authority to proceed.
I will send to the desk a bill which would create the Auction
Completion Timing Act, and it really is saying: Act now. The Commission
has its authority, and it should act within its own discretion.
In order that this situation may not develop again, my bill also
suggests future spectrum auction deadlines will be determined by the
Commission alone, unless Congress specifically passes a law that the
President signs that would interfere with that authority.
I believe the Federal Communications Act of 1934 should be amended to
make clear that notwithstanding any other provisions we put in any
bills to the contrary in the past, the Commission may determine the
date of any auction conducted pursuant to section 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
______

By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2482. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to grant to
Deschutes and Crook Counties in the State of Oregon a right-of-way to
West Butte Road; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation transferring
from Federal to county jurisdiction the West Butte Road, located in the
counties of Crook and Deschutes, Oregon. In exchange for the new right-
of-way for the West Butte Road, Crook and Deschutes counties will
transfer their right-of-way on the George Millican Road to the U.S.
Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, BLM.
The right-of-way exchange authorized by this legislation would clear
the way for a paved road, pursued for more than 30 years by Prineville,
in Crook County, OR, to connect their community with U.S. Highway 20.
Such a road would substantially enhance the economic development
potential for Prineville, a community suffering from 15 percent
unemployment, by providing an alternative route for passenger and
commercial traffic traveling between Portland and Boise, ID. It would
also encourage commerce in Prineville by efficiently directing traffic
to the Prineville/Crook County Industrial Parks, areas set aside for
the sole purpose of promoting industrial diversification within Crook
County. By increasing the traffic to these areas, the opportunity to
promote and increase their occupancy would be greatly improved.
In addition to economic advantages, the paved road would provide
important environmental benefits. It would reduce traffic congestion on
the overloaded highway 97 passing through Bend and Redmond, OR. It
would eliminate the prospect of major improvements to the Crooked River
Highway. The Crooked River Highway follows the meander of the Crooked
River, a tributary of the salmon-bearing Deschutes River. Improvement
of that road would entail substantial impacts to riparian areas,
expensive bridge maintenance, and likely adverse effects to the river.
In contrast, the proposed new road would reclaim a straight section of
the old Prineville-Lakeview highway, surveyed in 1915, which crosses
flat desert lands and no riparian zones. In addition, the legislation
directs the BLM to propose affirmative measures to protect wildlife and
game habitat in the area traversed by the new road.
Some suggest that this legislation is not necessary because the BLM
already has the authority to issue a right-of-way. That may be true,
but it is also true that the BLM decided it can make a decision on the
county right-of-way application only thought an extended process, which
close observers tell me could take anywhere from four to six years,
with no guarantee of success. I am not willing to stake Prineville's
economic or environmental future on such an uncertainty.
Improvement of the Millican/West Butte road is supported by the City
of Prineville, Crook County, Deschutes County, the City of Bend, the
City of Redmond, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the
Central Oregon Transportation Commission. They have identified the new
right-of-way as a means of reducing environmental impacts associated
with the existing road, reducing traffic congestion, improving the
northwest-southeast connections between the state's wealthiest and
poorest regions, and offering the community the chance to retain its
largest employers so as to address some of the economic woes of the
region.
______

By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2483. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a pilot
program to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small business
concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in order to provide regulatory compliance
assistance to small businesses, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the
Senate companion bill to H.R. 203, the ``National Small Business
Regulatory Assistance Act,'' which passed the House last year by voice
vote. I also want to thank Senators Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin,
Bingaman, Carnahan, Leahy, Lieberman, and Johnson for their co-
sponsorship.
In today's business environment, one of the greatest obstacles
blocking the path to prosperity for America's small businesses is
regulatory compliance. Small businesses regularly find themselves lost
in a maze of Federal regulations that are designed to create safer and
healthier workplaces. Chairman Kerry and I want all of our businesses
to comply with the regulations that preserve the health, environment,
and well-being of our workers and our communities. But, too often,
small businesses do not have access to the information they need in
order to comply with regulations in good faith.
The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act calls for the
establishment of a pilot project in which 20 selected Small Business
Development Centers, SBDCs, would provide regulatory compliance
assistance to small businesses. This pilot project would be
administered by the Small Business Administration, SBA, which would be
authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000 to selected
SBDCs. The bill also requires that the Congress receive a progress
report annually on the pilot program's accomplishments at each SBDC.
Under our legislation, SBDCs would need to form partnerships with
Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training
activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small
business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those
who receive compliance assistance. This privacy provision has also been
extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their
local SBDC.
The adoption of the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act
will provide small businesses with the support they need to navigate
the often complicated world of Federal regulations.
I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act of 2002.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished
colleague, Senator Max Cleland, and the cosponsors of our legislation
in introducing the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.
The bill we are introducing today is the Senate version of H.R. 203,
which bears the same name as our legislation. H.R. 203 passed the House
by voice vote in October of last year with the strong support of the
House Committee on Small Business. However, our version deals with
several issues that have been raised since House passage and will help
ensure that small businesses receive the regulatory compliance
assistance the legislation envisions.
I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association
of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely
with us since January of this year to draft the Senate version of this
legislation, correcting several issues with the House passed bill. I am
also pleased to say that we have kept Congressman

[[Page S4075]]

Sweeney, the House sponsor, and Congressman Manzullo, chairman of the
House Committee on Small Business, informed of our actions throughout
the process to ensure our changes would have the support of the House
committee, as should be the case.
Small businesses, especially small businesses with few employees,
often face a daunting task when seeking advice on how to comply with
Federal regulations, particularly when implementation varies for
different regions of the country, or from State to State. Many small
businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and
environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but
because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply.
Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from Federal
agencies for fear of exposing problems at their business.
One important way to help small business comply with Federal
regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside
of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory
agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business
Development Centers, SBDC, are in a unique position to provide this
type of assistance.
Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to
20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these
SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses.
The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and
$300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's State.
Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with
Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training
activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small
business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those
who receive compliance assistance. This privacy provision has also been
extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their
local SBDC.
The legislation we are introducing today uses only SBA funds and will
serve to complement current small business development assistance as
well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this
legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.
Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal
regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way
toward assisting our Nation's small businesses who want to comply with
Federal Regulations.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 2484. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to reauthorize and improve the operation of temporary assistance to
needy families programs operated by Indian tribes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the American
Indian Welfare Reform Act of 2002, an important step in improving the
lives of this country's Native Americans. I am glad to be joined by
Senators Johnson and Daschle in this effort.
In 1996 we enacted a sweeping welfare reform law. It was a long-past-
due fundamental change and ended a failed system for helping low-income
families in America. I was a strong supporter of that law. This year,
we are reauthorizing it. As we in the Finance Committee have reviewed
the evidence I have been struck by how successful it has been. The
ranks of those dependent on welfare in this country has been reduced by
half in just five years. There is more to be done, of course. Child
poverty has declined but not by as much as the fall in the welfare
caseload, for example. I am at work with my Finance Committee colleague
Senator Grassley on comprehensive legislation to renew and improve the
1996 law.
One important aspect of the 1996 law which is often overlooked is
that it didn't just devolve authority to States, it also permitted
Indian tribes to operate their own welfare programs for the first time.
The new welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF,
is very flexible. Tribes can take advantage of that flexibility to
design culturally-appropriate programs to move people from welfare to
work. This is smart policy and is consistent with the important value
of tribal sovereignty. I support it.
My own State of Montana is home to several tribes and I have given
much thought to how we can build upon the provisions of the 1996
welfare law to help them and their members. Too often in Montana, and
elsewhere, poverty has an Indian face. The numbers are cold and hard.
According to the Census Bureau, 25 percent of American Indians live in
poverty, more than twice the national poverty rate. The average
household income for Indians in 2000 was only 75 percent of that of the
rest of Americans. This is simply not right. We must do better. Welfare
reform needs to work for everyone.
Luckily, the provisions of the 1996 law provide a good start. Now we
must build upon them. The legislation I introduce today, the product of
extensive dialogue and consultation, does that in several important
ways.
First, more than 30 tribes, including the Confederated Salish-
Kootenai and Fort Belknap tribes of Montana, have taken advantage of
the opportunity to operate their own TANF programs. This bill contains
provisions to help those tribes improve their programs. For example,
tribes operating TANF are not eligible for the TANF high performance
bonus or the TANF contingency fund while state TANF programs are. This
oversight is rectified by this bill.

Second, there are many tribes interested in operating TANF programs
which do not believe the current set-up allows them to do so. They want
to exercise their sovereignty and adapt their program to better fit the
needs of their people. We should help them do so. To that end, I
proposed creating a new grant fund to improve tribal governmental
capacity. We have funded State administrative capacity for decades,
helping states buy computer systems and train workers. We should do the
same for tribal human services administration. Under this bill, a tribe
which wants to operate TANF but needs to upgrade its computers to do it
could receive the funding it needs, which will enable it to take over
TANF.
Third, there are some tribes not interested in running a TANF program
or a long time from being able to do it. Their low-income families will
continue to receive assistance from State programs. I have included
provisions to facilitate State-tribe dialogue in these cases so that
the state can better understand the unique circumstances of each Indian
reservation. We must ensure all Indian families are able to get help
when they need it.
Finally, there is the all-important issue of economic development. A
General Accounting Office review of Census Bureau data found that 25 of
the 26 counties in the U.S. with a majority of American Indians had
poverty rates ``significantly'' higher than average. Welfare reform is
about moving people to work. On most of our Indian reservations there
is simply far too little work to be had. Like everyone else, Indians
want to work. We need to do better in giving them the opportunity.
This legislation provides tribes with an expanded authority to issue
bonds, which will encourage additional economic activity on
reservations, such as housing construction. This means more jobs, as
well as a better quality of life. It also includes grants to help
tribes improve their own economic development strategies. Tribes with
uniform commercial codes and effective micro-enterprise programs can
see more business activity on their lands. This bill helps tribes helps
themselves. We need to let Indians find their own way to prosperity,
not impose top-down strategies. But we must make sure they have the
tools to get there.
This is an important bill. It includes other key provisions. One is a
fine bill originally introduced by Senators Daschle and McCain to allow
tribes to receive direct Federal reimbursement for operating foster
care programs. Another provision funds research on tribal welfare
reform programs so we can learn what works as well as providing funds
for ``peer-learning'' so that tribes can learn from one another. I am a

[[Page S4076]]

strong supporter of welfare reform. We need to make sure it works for
everyone. This bill does not.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The American Indian Welfare Reform Act of 2002--Summary

I. Findings

The Federal Government bears a unique trust responsibility
for American Indians. Despite this responsibility, Indians
remain remarkably impoverished. According to the Census
Bureau, 25.9 percent of American Indians live in poverty,
more than twice the national poverty rate. The average
household income for Indians in 2000 was only 75 percent of
that of the rest of Americans. In some States with
substantial Indian populations the welfare caseload has
become increasingly Indian because it has been harder for
Indians to leave welfare for work. A General Accounting
Office review of Census Bureau data found that 25 of the 26
counties in the U.S. with a majority of American Indians had
poverty rates ``significantly'' higher than average. Further,
many Indian tribes are located in isolated rural areas, far
from economic opportunity. Welfare reform has not brought
enough change to Indian Country.

II. The Tribal TANF Improvement Fund

The 1996 welfare reform law permits tribes to opt to
operate their own Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
TANF, programs. A new Tribal TANF Improvement Fund of $500
million, to be available for five years, would be created to
build upon these programs and allow more tribes to start
them. It would have four parts:
Tribal Capacity Grants.--State governments have benefitted
from decades of federal investment in their administrative
capacity, particularly in their information management
systems. $225 million of the Fund would be reserved for
grants to improve tribal human services program
infrastructure, with a priority for management information
systems and training. Tribes applying to operate TANF would
be given priority. Tribes already operating TANF or applying
to operate IV-E foster care programs with direct federal
funding would also be eligible for grants. HHS would be
required to assure that tribes of all sizes received funding
and to maximize the number of tribes which receive funding.
Tribes would be eligible for one grant per year.
Adjusted Tribal TANF Grants.--Tribes which take over
operation of TANF often experience significant increases in
caseload as poor families apply for help for the first time
because they are more comfortable asking assistance from the
tribe or simply because they are more able to access
services. Yet tribal TANF allocations are based on estimates
of Indians served by state programs in 1994, which can leave
the tribe facing funding levels which are too low. To better
support families in tribal TANF programs, $140 million of the
fund would be reserved for grants to tribal TANF programs
where the tribe can demonstrate it has a significantly higher
true caseload than originally estimated. Tribes with cash
assistance caseloads two years after beginning operation of a
TANF no program which are 20 percent higher than originally
estimated would be eligible for additional funding. The
funds would be allocated proportionate to a tribe's size
and service population as well as the caseload increase,
on the basis of a formula to be determined by HHS in
consultation with tribes. The funding level would be $35
million per year, from FY 2004-2007.
Tribal TANF MOE Incentive.--A key factor in tribes being
able to operate TANF programs has been the willingness and
ability of states to contribute funding as part of the
broader state maintenance of effort, MOE, requirement. To
encourage states to do this, up to an additional $120 million
would be available for ``rebates'' of TANF funds to states
which provide MOE support to tribal TANF programs. For each
$1 in MOE funds provided, the federal government would
provide an additional 30 cents in TANF funding to the state.
If funding is insufficient, HHS would provide pro-rata
funding to ensure each state contributing MOE receives a
share of the incentive funds.
Technical Assistance.--HHS would receive $15 million to
provide technical assistance to tribes. At least $5 million
on these funds would be reserved to support peer-learning
programs among tribal administrators and at least $7.5
million would be reserved for grants to tribes to conduct
feasibility studies of their capacity to operate TANF.

III. Tribal TANF High Performance Fund and Contingency Fund Access

There are separate sources of funding within TANF that
tribes do not have the ability to access. To better support
tribal TANF programs, three percent of the current TANF
``high performance'' bonus, or $6 million/year, would be
reserved for distribution to tribal TANF programs. The
criteria would be determined by HHS through consultation with
tribes, but should involve effectiveness in moving TANF
recipients into employment and self-sufficiency. In addition,
$25 million of the $2 billion TANF Contingency fund would be
reserved for tribal TANF programs operating in situations of
increased economic hardship. The criteria for tribal access
to the Contingency Fund would also be determined by HHS
through consultation with the tribes, but would include a
worsening economic condition and loss of reservation
employers. In addition, current restrictions on the use of
``carryover'' TANF funds would be eliminated, permitting
tribes to spend prior year TANF funds with just as much
flexibility as current year TANF funds.

IV. Economic Development

There are three elements in the bill to stimulate more
economic activity on economically-depressed reservations.
Expanded Tribal Authority To Issue Tax-Exempt Private
Activity Bonds.--Currently, tribes have a limited authority
to issue private activity bonds for ``essential''
governmental functions and for certain manufacturing-related
purposes. This provision would allow bonds to be used for
residential rental properties and qualified mortgage
bonds, spurring construction. In addition, tribes could
allocate authority for financing businesses that would
qualify as enterprise zone businesses if the reservation
were a zone. All property financed would have to be on the
reservation of the issuing tribal government and qualified
tribal governments would have to have an unemployment rate
of at least 20 percent. Casinos and certain other forms of
businesses could not be financed by the bonds. The
authority would be for calendar years 2003-2007, and up to
$10 million total would be available for each qualifying
tribe.
Tribal Development Grants.--A key part of tribal economic
development is the investment climate on the reservation.
Tribes with clear legal codes and which encourage micro-
enterprise activities are more likely to generate economic
growth. To facilitate this, the Administration for Native
Americans within HHS would receive $50 million to distribute
in grants to tribes, tribal organizations and non-profit
organizations to provide technical assistance to tribes in
the areas of: development and improvement of uniform
commercial codes; creating or expanding small business or
micro-enterprise programs; development and improvement of
tort liability codes; creating or expanding tribal marketing
efforts; for-profit collaborative business networks; and
telecommunications.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants.--A lack of
transportation often hinders tribal economic development. To
help address this need, tribes would be made directly
eligible to receive Job Access and Reverse Commute grants
from the federal Department of Transportation, which would
permit tribes to pursue innovative TANF strategies around
transportation. A tribal set-aside of 3 percent would be
established in the program. Matching funds could be provided
by tribes on an in-kind basis or with other federal funds,
such as TANF.

V. Tribal Job Training Programs

There are currently two tribal job training programs, the
NEW program and Welfare-to-Work grantees. To simplify and
better co-ordinate programs, a new Tribal Employment Services
Program, TESP, would be created in the Department of Labor by
combining the two programs. It would be funded at $37 million
annually and distributed to current Tribal NEW and Welfare-
to-Work grantees as well as new applicants. TESP funds could
be used for employment training efforts for those on, or at-
risk of being on, public assistance. Tribes could also use
the funds to assist non-custodial parents of children on, or
at risk of being on, public assistance. To encourage state-
tribal partnerships, TANF funds transferred to tribal TESP
programs would be governed by TESP rules, not TANF rules. The
bill also clarifies that the single plan, single budget, and
single reporting requirements of PL 102-477 should be
respected.

VI. Tribal Child Care

The availability and quality of child care is basic to the
success of welfare reform. Tribal welfare reform efforts are
no exception. The tribal set-aside within the Child Care
Development Block Grant, CCDBG, would be increased to 5
percent to better support tribal welfare reform programs. HHS
would be required to go through a negotiated rulemaking
process, in consultation with tribal representatives, to
determine an equitable allocation of funds among tribes. In
addition, each tribe receiving CCDBG funding would develop
their own health and safety standards, subject to approval of
HHS. Tribal child care programs would have additional
authority to use funds for construction and renovation.

VII. Equitable Access

Many American Indians are--and will continue to be--served
by state TANF programs. States will be required to consult
with tribes within their borders on TANF state plans. Under
current law, States are required to provide ``equitable
access'' to services for Indians. State and tribal TANF plans
would be required to describe how ``equitable access'' is
provided to encourage better state-tribal co-operation. HHS
would also be required to include in the annual TANF report
to Congress state-specific information on the demographics
and case load characteristics of Indians served by state TANF
programs.
In addition, HHS would be required to convene a new
advisory committee on the status of non-reservation Indians.
Too little is known about how these Indians are faring. The
committee is to make recommendations for ensuring these
Indians receive appropriate assistance. The committee would
include Federal, State, and tribal representatives as well as
representatives of Indians

[[Page S4077]]

not residing on reservations. A majority of those on the
committee should be representatives of Indians not residing
on reservations. GAO would also be required to conduct a
study of the demographics of Indians not residing on
reservations, including economic and health information, as
well as reviewing their access to public benefits.

VIII. Joblessness

As acknowledged by the 1996 welfare law, the federal time
limit on assistance is not an appropriate policy on Indian
reservations with severe unemployment. This provision would
be adjusted so that the time limit will not apply during
months where the joblessness is above 20 percent, provided
that TANF recipients are not in sanction status. In addition,
in these areas of high joblessness, states would have
flexibility to define work activities required for TANF
participants, provided the recipient is participating in
activities in accordance with an Individual Responsibility
Plan and the state has included information in its state plan
describing its policies in Indian Country areas of high
joblessness. Tribal TANF programs already have flexibility in
work activity definition.

IX. Alaska provisions

The 1996 provision limits the ability of tribes in Alaska
to design and operate programs. These provisions involving
differential treatment for Alaskan Natives, such as those
requiring tribal TANF programs to be ``comparable'' to the
state program, would be removed.

X. Tribal Foster Care Programs

Due to a long-standing oversight, tribes are not allowed to
receive direct federal reimbursement when they operate foster
care programs to take care of abused and neglected children.
The provisions of S. 550, the Daschle-McCain legislation to
rectify this oversight and allow tribes to receive direct
federal funding to operate foster care programs, are
included.

XI. Food Stamps, Medicaid, and SCHIP

Tribes operating TANF programs would be given clear
authority to perform eligibility determination for Food
Stamps, Medicaid, and SCHIP. Quality control measures in each
program would apply to tribes making such decisions, although
states and tribes may negotiate separate agreements on these
measures.

XII. Child Support Enforcement

HHS would be required to promulgate final regulations
concerning tribal child support programs within one year of
enactment.

XIII. Social Services Block Grant, SSBG

When funding for SSBG exceeds $2.4 billion in a year, $10
million plus 2 percent of all funds beyond $2.4 billion is
reserved for tribes. All tribes operating social service
programs would be eligible for a share. HHS is required to
develop a distribution formula through a consultation process
with the tribes.

XIV. Research

$2 million would be provided to HHS for research on tribal
welfare programs and efforts to reduce poverty among American
Indians in general. To expend the funds, HHS would first have
to issue a planned course of research and consultation with
the tribes. Research funding applicants which propose to
include tribal governments and tribal colleges in their work
would have priority.

XV. Faith-Based Initiative

The HHS Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
would be required to convene an advisory committee of Indians
expert in social services and the spiritual aspects of
traditional Indian cultures. This committee shall issue a
report within 18 months of enactment with ``best practices''
advice for tribal and state TANF administrators.
______

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Carnahan, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 2486. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit
the deduction for advertising of FDA approved prescription drugs by the
manufacturer of such drugs to the level of such manufacturer's research
and development expenditures, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Advertising
and Increased Research Act, the FAIR Act. The FAIR Act is designed to
lower prescription drug prices by limiting taxpayer subsidies to
pharmaceutical companies for advertising to those for research and
development. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators
Daschle, Miller, Durbin, Carnahan, and Wellstone.
American taxpayers contribute about $16 billion a year to drug
research through the National Institutes of Health. But what do they
get for their investment? They get the highest drug prices in the
world.
At the same time, drug companies spend nearly $16 billion a year on
advertising, marketing and promotion of prescription drugs. What does
this mean for Americans? It means life-saving drugs become
unaffordable. And unaffordable means unavailable or it means making
cruel choices. For seniors it can mean choosing between food and
medicine.
We need to do something to address excessive advertising that leads
to higher and higher prescription drug prices. The FAIR Act will help
do so. Simply, it will limit pharmaceutical companies' deduction of
annual expenditures for advertising, promoting or marketing--in any
medium--of any Food and Drug Administration approved prescription drug
to the amount of research and development expenditures in any taxable
year. For example, if a company spends $110 million on advertising,
promoting or marketing FDA approved prescription drugs and but spends
only $100 million on research and development in one year, the company
would not be able to deduct $10 million of advertising expenses in that
year. Any savings resulting from this legislation will be credited to
the Medicare Trust Fund.
This is necessary because recent evidence shows that advertising,
marketing and promotion of prescription drugs is out of control.
According to an analysis of company earnings reports, the top 11
pharmaceutical spend 30 percent of their revenues on advertising,
marketing, promotion, and administration and only 12 percent on
research and development. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have
dramatically increased their direct-to-consumer advertising by 300
percent from 1996 to 2000. Direct to consumer advertising includes all
of those television, radio and print ads you see and hear daily.
I would like to provide one example of excessive advertising to
demonstrate the need of this legislation. In the year 2000, Merck spent
$160 million advertising Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. This is more
than PepsiCo spent on promoting Pepsi--$125 million--and more than
Anheuser-Busch allocated to get the American people to buy Budweiser--
$136 million.
This bill does not prevent the pharmaceutical companies from
advertising as much as they want. Under our Constitution, they are free
to do so. All we are seeking to do is limit how much the taxpayers
should subsidize this advertising. We think the logical limit should be
the amount that companies spend on research in a given year.
While there is much compelling evidence that pharmaceutical companies
spend more on advertising, marketing, and promotion than research and
development, the trade association representing these businesses,
PhRMA, claims that they spend more on research than on advertising. If
this is true, then the pharmaceutical lobbyists should support this
measure because it will not affect them and would only set a reasonable
parameter for advertising in the future.
We have to do something about spiraling prescription drug prices.
This bill is a step in that direction. It will seek to stop taxpayer
subsidies for excessive advertising and lower the price we pay for
prescription drugs at our local pharmacy.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2486

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 ``Fair Advertising and
Increased Research (FAIR) Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING BY FDA
PRESCRIPTION DRUG MANUFACTURERS.

(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
items not deductible) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 280I. LIMITATION ON TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING BY
FDA PRESCRIPTION DRUG MANUFACTURERS.

``(a) In General.--No deduction shall be allowed under this
chapter for any taxable year for any expenditure relating to
the advertising, promoting, or marketing (in any medium) of
any FDA prescription drug manufactured by the taxpayer to the
extent the aggregate amount of such expenditures exceeds the
taxpayer's aggregate research and development expenditures
for such taxable year.
``(b) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) FDA prescription drugs.--The term `FDA prescription
drug' means any drug or biological approved by the Federal
Drug Administration which requires a prescription of a
physician for its use by an individual.

[[Page S4078]]

``(2) Research and development expenditures.--The term
`research and development expenditures' means any
expenditures which may be treated as expenses under section
174.
``(3) Aggregation rules.--All members of the same
controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of
section 52(a)) and all persons under common control (within
the meaning of section 52(b)) shall be treated as 1
person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
part IX is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 280H the following:

``Sec. 280I. Limitation on tax deductions for advertising by fda
prescription drug manufacturers.''

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
(d) Transfer to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
of Resulting Budgetary Savings.--There is appropriated to the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund established under
section 1817 of the Social Security Act amounts equal to the
increase in Federal revenues resulting from the amendment
made by subsection (a). Such appropriated amounts shall be
transferred from the general fund of the Treasury on the
basis of estimates of such revenues made by the Secretary of
the Treasury.

____________________