[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.

                          ____________________