[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4705-S4726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 2539. A bill to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a
position that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent
with respect to the Second amendment; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position on the
meaning of the Second Amendment that is inconsistent with existing
Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in the Supreme Court case of
United States v. Miller.
This legislation responds to the Bush Administration's recent filing
of two unprecedented briefs to the United States Supreme Court, which
argued that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to
possess firearms. In taking this position, the Justice Department
directly contradicted the well-established precedents of the Supreme
Court, as expressed in the seminal case of United States v. Miller. In
that 1939 case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did
not establish a private right of individuals to possess firearms, but
rather was intended to ensure the effectiveness of groups of citizen-
soldiers known at the time as the Militia.
The Court in United States v. Miller explained the historical
background to the Second Amendment and issued its ruling clearly and
unambiguously. That ruling has never been reversed, and the Court has
followed it in every subsequent related case. Similarly, the precedent
in United States v. Miller has been followed by every Justice
Department over the past several decades, including the Justice
Departments of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W.
Bush.
The meaning of the Second Amendment should not be a partisan issue.
In fact, it should not be a political issue. It is a legal and
constitutional issue. And the law on this question has been clearly
established by the highest court in the land in case after case for a
period of many decades.
Unfortunately, instead of following the law, as Attorney General
promised to do during his confirmation hearing, the Bush Administration
and the Justice Department have used their authority to file briefs as
a means of pursuing a partisan political agenda that flies in the face
of established Supreme Court precedents. This is wrong. And, in my
view, it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Congress should not have to pass a law to ensure that the Executive
Branch follows the Constitution, as clearly interpreted by the Supreme
Court. Unfortunately, in light of the Bush's Administration's latest
actions, Congress must step in. After all, Congress's ultimate power is
the power of the purse. And we have a responsibility to use that power,
when necessary, to ensure that the Executive Branch complies with
constitutional law.
This responsibility flows from Congress's obligation to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution. It also flows from our obligation
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused. The American people
should not be forced to pay taxes to support an unreasonable
interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not only inconsistent
with constitutional law, but that threatens to undermine legislation
needed to reduce gun violence and to save lives.
In 1998, more than 30,000 Americans died from firearm-related deaths.
That is almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the
entire Korean War. In my view, there is much that Congress needs to do
to reduce these deaths, including enacting reasonable gun safety
legislation. Yet if the Bush Administration prevails in its effort to
radically revise the Second Amendment, such laws could well be
undermined. The end result would be more death and more families losing
loved ones to the scourge of gun violence.
In fact, I would note that one week after the Bush Administration
filed their briefs, lawyers for accused American Taliban terrorist John
Walker Lindh used the Administration's arguments to urge dismissal of
the gun charge filed against him. Now, I hope and trust that the courts
will quickly reject this line of argument. But why would the Bush
Administration want to strengthen the position of criminals and alleged
terrorists like John Walker Lindh in the first place?
I have asked the Congressional Research Service whether there are any
constitutional precedents that would bar the Congress from adopting
this legislation, and the answer was ``no.'' I also would note that
there is precedent for Congress prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars
to advocate positions with which Congress disagrees. For example,
Congress for many years prohibited the Justice Department from using
appropriated money to overturn certain rules under our antitrust laws.
This responded to the filing of a brief in the Supreme Court by the
Justice Department urging a revision of its precedents on resale price
maintenance, and the legislation effectively blocked the Department
from filing similar briefs.
In conclusion, we should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to
misrepresent the meaning of the Second Amendment on behalf of a
partisan, political agenda. We should defend the Constitution against
such ideological attacks. We should protect taxpayers from being forced
to subsidize ideological gambits. And we should ensure that the
Constitution is not misused to undermine gun safety legislation that
could save the lives of many innocent Americans.
I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record,
along with some related materials about this matter.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2539
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.
No funds appropriated to the Department of Justice or any
other agency may be used to file any brief or to otherwise
advocate before any judicial or administrative body any
position with respect to the meaning of the Second Amendment
to the Constitution that is inconsistent with existing
Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in United States v.
Miller (307 U.S. 174 (1939)).
____
[From the New York Times, May 12, 2002]
A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment
(By Jack Rakove)
Stanford, CA.--The Bush administration has found a
constitutional right it wants to expand. Attorney General
John D. Ashcroft attracted only mild interest a year ago when
he told the National Rifle Association, ``The text and
original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the
right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.''
Now, briefs just filed by Solicitor General Theodore Olson
in two cases currently being appealed to the Supreme Court
indicate that Mr. Ashcroft's personnel opinion has become
that of the United States government. This posture represents
an astonishing challenge to the long-settled doctrine that
the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is
closely tied to membership in the militia. It is no secret
that controversy about the meaning of the amendment has
escalated in recent years. As evidence grew that a
significant portion of the American electorate favored the
regulation of firearms, the N.R.A. and its allies insisted
ever more vehemently that the private right to possess arms
is a constitutional absolute. This opinion, once seen as
marginal, has become an article of faith on the right, and
Republican politicians have in turn had to acknowledge its
force.
The two cases under appeal do not offer an ideal test of
the administration's new views. One concerns a man charged
with violating a federal statute prohibiting individuals
under domestic violence restraining orders from carrying
guns; the other involves a man convicted of owning machine
guns, which is illegal under federal law. In both cases, the
defendants cite the Second Amendment as protecting their
right to have the firearms. The unsavory facts may explain
why Mr. Olson is using these cases as vehicles to announce
the administration's constitutional position while urging the
Supreme Court not to accept the appeals.
The court last examined this issue in 1939 in United States
v. Miller. There it held that
[[Page S4706]]
the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the effectiveness
of the militia, not to guarantee a private right to possess
firearms. The Miller case, though it did not fully explore
the entire constitutional history, has guided the
government's position on firearm issues for the past six
decades.
If the court were to take up the two cases on appeal, it is
far from clear that the Justice Department's new position
would prevail. The plain text of the Second Amendment--``A
well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed''--does not support the unequivocal
view that Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Olson have put forth. The
amendment refers to the right of the people, rather than the
individual person of the Fifth Amendment. And the phrase
``keep and bear arms'' is, as most commentators note, a
military reference.
Nor do the debates surrounding the adoption of the
amendment support the idea that the framers were thinking of
an individual right to own arms. The relevant proposals
offered by the state ratification conventions of 1787-88 all
dealt with the need to preserve the militia as an alternative
to a standing army. The only recorded discussion of the
amendment in the House of Representatives concerned whether
religious dissenters should be compelled to serve in the
militia. And in 1789, the Senate deleted one clause
explicitly defining the militia as ``composed of the body of
the people.'' In excising this phrase, the Senate gave
``militia'' a narrower meaning than it otherwise had, thereby
making the Ashcroft interpretation harder to sustain.
Advocates of the individual right respond to these
objections in three ways.
They argue, first that when Americans used the word
militia, they ordinarily meant the entire adult male
population capable of bearing arms. But Article I of the
Constitution defines the militia as an institution under the
joint regulation of the national and state governments, and
the debates of 1787-89 do not demonstrate that the framers
believed that the militia should forever by synonymous with
the entire population.
A second argument revolves around the definition of ``the
people.'' Those on the N.R.A. side believe ``the people''
means ``all persons.'' But in Article I we also read that the
people will elect the House of Representatives--and the
determination of who can vote will be left to state law, in
just the way that militia service would remain subject to
Congressional and state regulation.
The third argument addresses the critical phrase deleted in
the Senate. Rather than concede that the Senate knew what it
was doing, these commentators contend that the deletion was
more a matter of careless editing.
This argument is faulty because legal interpretation
generally assumes that lawmakers act with clear purpose. More
important, the Senate that made this critical deletion was
dominated by Federalists who were skeptical of the milita's
performance during the Revolutionary War and opposed to the
idea that the future of American defense lay with the militia
rather than a regular army. They had sound reasons not to
commit the national government to supporting a mass militia,
and thus to prefer a phrasing implying that the militia need
not embrace the entire adult male population if Congress had
good reason to require otherwise. The evidence of text and
history makes it very hard to argue for an expansive
individual right to keep arms.
There is one striking curiosity to the Bush
administration's advancing its position at this time.
Advocates of the individual-right interpretation typically
argue that an armed populace is the best defense against the
tyranny of our own government. And yet the Bush
administration seems quite willing to compromise essential
civil liberties in the name of security. It is sobering to
think that the constitutional right the administration values
so highly is the right to bear arms, that peculiar product of
an obsolete debate over the danger of standing armies--and
this at a time when our standing army is the most powerful
the world has known.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 10, 2002]
Guns and Justice
The U.S. Solicitor General has a duty to defend acts of
Congress before the Supreme Court. This week, Solicitor
General Ted Olson--and by extension his bosses, Attorney
General John Ashcroft and President Bush--took a position
regarding guns that will undermine that mission.
Historically, the Justice Department has adopted a narrow
reading of the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states
that ``a well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Along with nearly all
courts in the past century, it has read that as protecting
only the public's collective right to bear arms in the
context of militia service. Now the administration has
reversed this view. In a pair of appeals, Mr. Olson contends
that ``the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights
of individuals, including persons who are not members of any
militia . . . to possess and bear their own firearms.'' Mr.
Ashcroft insists the department remains prepared to defend
all federal gun laws. Having given away its strongest
argument, however, it will be doing so with its hands tied
behind its back.
Laws will now be defended not as presumptively valid but as
narrow exceptions to a broad constitutional right--one
subject, as Mr. Olson put it, only to ``reasonable
restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons
or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are
particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' This may sound like
a common-sense balancing act. But where exactly does the
Second Amendment, if it guarantees individual rights, permit
``reasonable restrictions''? And where does its protection
exempt firearms that might be well suited for crime?
Mr. Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the
First Amendment's protection of speech--which can be limited
only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling
state interests. If that's the model, most federal gun laws
would sooner or later fall. After all, it would not be
constitutional to subject someone to a background check
before permitting him to worship or to make a political
speech. If gun ownership is truly a parallel right, why would
the Brady background check be constitutional?
The Justice Department traditionally errs on the other
side--arguing for constitutional interpretations that
increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy
options. The great weight of judicial precedent holds that
there is no fundamental individual right to own a gun.
Staking out a contrary position may help ingratiate the Bush
administration to the gun lobby. But it greatly disserves the
interests of the United States.
____
[From the New York Times, May 14, 2002]
An Ominous Reversal on Gun Rights
Using a footnote in a set of Supreme Court briefs, Attorney
General John Ashcroft announced a radical shift last week in
six decades of government policy toward the rights of
Americans to own guns. Burying the change in fine print
cannot disguise the ominous implications for law enforcement
or Mr. Ashcroft's betrayal of his public duty.
The footnote declares that, contrary to longstanding and
bipartisan interpretation of the Second Amendment, the
Constitution ``broadly protects the rights of individuals''
to own firearms. This view and the accompanying legal
standard Mr. Ashcroft has suggested--equating gun ownership
with core free speech rights--could make it extremely
difficult for the government to regulate firearms, as it has
done for decades. That position comports with Mr. Ashcroft's
long-held personal opinion, which he expressed a year ago in
a letter to his close allies at the National Rifle
Association. But it is a position at odds with both history
and the Constitution's text. As the Supreme Court correctly
concluded in a 1939 decision that remains the key legal
precedent on the subject, the Second Amendment protects only
those rights that have ``some reasonable relationship to the
preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' By
not viewing the amendment as a basic, individual right, this
decision left room for broad gun ownership regulation. The
footnote is also at odds with Mr. Ashcroft's pledge at his
confirmation hearing that his personal ideology would not
drive Justice Department legal policies.
It is hard to take seriously Mr. Ashcroft's assertion that
the Bush administration remains committed to the vigorous
defense and enforcement of all federal gun laws. Mr.
Ashcroft, after all, is an official whose devotion to the gun
lobby extends to granting its request to immediately destroy
records of gun purchases amassed in the process of conducting
Brady law background checks even though they might be useful
for tracking weapons purchases by suspected terrorists.
The immediate effect of the Bush Justice Department's
expansive reading of the Second Amendment is to undermine law
enforcement by calling into question valuable state and
federal gun restrictions on the books, and by handing
dangerous criminals a potent new weapon for challenging their
convictions. What it all adds up to is a gift to pro-gun
extremists, and a shabby deal for everyone else.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 2540. A bill to amend the definition of low-income families for
purposes of the United States Housing Act of 1937; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to bring the Senate's
attention to a matter that is slowing Los Alamos County, NM, in its
efforts to fully recover from the Cerro Grande Fire of May 10, 2000.
It is an amazing irony to me that Los Alamos National Laboratory, in
recent years facing declines in personnel, is again in the national
news for its ability to help with counter-terrorism on many fronts.
Along with this national attention and the needs of our Homeland
Security Agency for advanced scientific means to detect and deter
nuclear and biological attacks, LANL is now in the process of filling
about 1,000 new positions.
The irony is that the Cerro Grande fire severely reduced available
housing in Los Alamos two years before our Nation turns once again to
Los Alamos for its scientific talents. A major deterrent to new hires
is the lack of housing
[[Page S4707]]
choices in Los Alamos. The housing market is even tighter because of
the loss of about 400 housing units through the devastating Cerro
Grande Fire. Los Alamos has a population of about 18,000 people.
While we have Federal programs to help low and moderate income
Americans find good housing, in Los Alamos these programs are
ineffective due to the current practice of averaging Los Alamos County
and Santa Fe County incomes into one Metropolitan Statistical Area,
MSA. This is harmful to Los Alamos residents, where the median income
is about $82,000 because the Federal programs use the MSA median income
of about $65,000 to determine participation. Eighty percent of median
income is a standard measure.
Santa Fe's median income of about $40,000 thus becomes a significant
factor for a Los Alamos teacher, fireman, or policeman seeking
subsidized Federal assistance. Their incomes in Los Alamos are deemed
to be too high to qualify for housing because 80 percent of $65,000 is
used as the maximum allowed for assistance. Thus, $52,000 becomes the
effective ceiling for assistance, when the actual 80 percent ceiling
figure for Los Alamos incomes is about $65,000. This makes a huge
difference in a high-priced and competitive market. The result is that
developers are discouraged from applying for tax credits and other
assistance programs because their applicants do not qualify to live in
their new or remodeled housing projects.
The Los Alamos County Manager reports that not a single County
employee is eligible for housing created by the Low Income Housing Tax
Credits. He, like many residents and the LANL recruiting effort, remain
concerned that the limited housing supply has raised rents and sales
prices. Los Alamos County is also landlocked by Federal government land
ownership.
There is a desperate need for affordable housing at a time when, once
again, our nation is calling upon LANL for helping to meet its internal
and international security needs.
This situation also exists around the New York City area, where
Westchester County incomes unfairly raise the metropolitan average to
the detriment of the metropolitan housing market. In that case,
Congress agreed to separate Westchester County to ease the housing
market situation. All I am asking in my bill is to accomplish the same
goal by allowing Los Alamos County to stand on its own in terms of HUD
median income requirements. My bill does not simultaneously lower the
Santa Fe County income to its actual median, but, rather, allows Santa
Fe County to continue to use the higher median, because the Santa Fe
housing market is also very unusual, and the two-county average helps
make more Santa Fe residents eligible for Federal assistance on many
fronts.
I appreciate my colleagues attention to this matter, and I know the
residents of Los Alamos County will be grateful for this assistance to
allow more of them to make use of available HUD and other affordable
housing assistance programs.
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. 2540
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOW-INCOME FAMILIES DEFINITION.
Section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and for Los Alamos County in the State
of New Mexico,'' after ``State of New York,'';
(2) by inserting ``, Los Alamos,'' after ``does not include
Westchester'';
(3) by inserting ``; Los Alamos,'' after ``portion included
Westchester''; and
(4) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico, in the
Santa Fe metropolitan area''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Grassley):
S. 2541. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish
penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft
Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002 along with my colleagues Senators Kyl,
Sessions, and Grassley.
This bill is the culmination of efforts by the Department of Justice
to craft legislation that will crack down on the most serious identity
thefts in the Nation, and I am pleased to be working with the Justice
Department on this legislation. In fact, Attorney General Ashcroft and
I announced this bill together earlier this month.
This legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to target those
identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for
the purpose of committing one or more other crimes.
Many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen
identifies.
For instance, According to a January article in the Baltimore Sun,
``six of the 19 hijackers from September 11 were using Social Security
numbers illegally. Another man linked to al-Qaida, Lofti Raissi, a 27-
year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained
four of the suicide hijackers, was identified in British court papers
as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired
factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.''
Attorney General Ashcroft last week cited the example of an Algerian
national now facing charges of identity theft who allegedly stole the
identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. The
Algerian national then transferred those stolen identities to one of
the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles
International Airport in 1999.
In another case, Michelle Brown of Los Angeles had her Social
Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 in
her name, including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation and
a year-long residential lease. Even worse, while assuming Michelle's
name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for
drug smuggling in Texas.
In another case recently announced by the Justice Department, Joseph
Kalady of Chicago was charged just last week with trying to fake his
own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial
on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards
and driver's licenses last December, allegedly suffocated a homeless
man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in
order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution.
The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the
legislation we introduce today so vital.
Let me just outline what this bill would do.
First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated
identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person
to commit certain serious, federal crimes.
Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two-
year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the
following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another
person: stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain
citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain
a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United
States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been
ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to
commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension
funds; and other serious federal crimes, all of them felonies.
Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five
year penalty for any individual that uses the stolen identity of
another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism
crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crime include: the
destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level
Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support
to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.
Aggravated Identity Theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing
enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated
identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the
underlying crime.
This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after
identity thieves and to provide their case.
[[Page S4708]]
First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order
to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity
documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current
Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents,
but does not specifically ban the possession of hose documents with the
intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of
identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to
commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now
be subject to prosecution.
Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a
person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal
crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then
the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not
be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor
easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and use a
false identity in collection with that Crime.
This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity
theft under current law from three years to five years.
And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the
current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of
international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation
of domestic terrorism as well.
Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime
with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the
identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution
as well.
Fraud losses at financial institutions are running well over one
billion dollars annually. VISA alone reported identity theft related
fraud losses of more than $114 million in 2000, a 43 percent increase
in just four years.
And for victims, the losses can be staggering. The average loss from
one identity theft now ranges about $18,000. Just imagine, somebody
takes a credit card receipt out of a trash-can, makes a few calls, and
before you know it you've lost $18,000.
And even though an individual victim may not be forced to pay in the
end, the credit card companies, financial institutions and other
businesses absorb the loss and pass it on to all consumers, the time
and effort required to regain your identity can be quite debilitating.
In fact, on average it takes a full year and a half to regain one's
identity once stolen. In many instances, it can take many more years
than that.
Additionally, some victims are even subject to criminal investigation
or even arrest because a criminal has taken their identity and used it
to commit a crime. In fact, the FTC tells us that they have received
1,300 complaints from victims alleging that they have been subject to
investigation, arrest or even conviction as a result of their identity
being stolen.
Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many
ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl
and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better
prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down
on identity thieves.
And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain
procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal
information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.
The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in
terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously
enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal
crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit
this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have
experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline
to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get
off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under
this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more
likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove.
Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal
organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose
of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even
our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill
is an important step in that process.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous
consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2541
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 ``Identity Theft Penalty
Enhancement Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1028, the following:
``Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, during and in relation to any
felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly
transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a
means of identification of another person shall, in addition
to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of 2 years.
``(2) Terrorism offense.--Whoever, during and in relation
to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B),
knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful
authority, a means of identification of another person shall,
in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
``(b) Consecutive Sentence.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
``(1) a court shall not place on probation any person
convicted of a violation of this section;
``(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of
imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on
the person under any other provision of law, including any
term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the
means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
``(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed
for the felony during which the means of identification was
transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way
reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to
compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate
term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation
of this section; and
``(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a
violation of this section may, in the discretion of the
court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with
another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at
the same time on that person for an additional violation of
this section, provided that such discretion shall be
exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)' means any
offense that is a felony violation of--
``(1) section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit
plans);
``(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of
citizenship);
``(3) section 922(a)(6) (relating to false statements in
connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
``(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to
fraud and false statements), other than this section or
section 1028(a)(7);
``(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to
mail, bank, and wire fraud);
``(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to
nationality and citizenship);
``(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to
passports and visas);
``(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C.
6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false
pretenses);
``(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing
to leave the United States after deportation and creating a
counterfeit alien registration card);
``(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)
(relating to various immigration offenses); or
``(11) section 208, 1107(b), or 1128B(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1307(b), and 1320a-7b(a))
(relating to false statements relating to programs under the
Act).''.
(b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections
for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 1028 the
following new item:
``1028A. Aggravated identity theft.''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING IDENTITY THEFT PROHIBITION.
Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(7)--
(A) by striking ``transfers'' and inserting ``transfers,
possesses,''; and
(B) by striking ``abet,'' and inserting ``abet, or in
connection with,'';
[[Page S4709]]
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ``transfer'' and
inserting ``transfer, possession,'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``three years'' and
inserting ``5 years''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting after ``facilitate''
the following: ``an act of domestic terrorism (as defined
under section 2331(5) of this title) or''.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 2542. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a medicare demonstration project under which incentive
payments are provided in certain areas in order to stabilize, maintain,
or increase access to primary care services for individuals enrolled
under part B of such title; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Incentive Access Act of 2002. I am pleased that Congressman Rick Larsen
will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
As my colleagues may be hearing, Medicare beneficiaries across the
country are reporting increasing difficulty finding a physician willing
to accept their Medicare coverage. In fact, according to the American
Medical Association, nearly 30 percent of family physicians nationwide
are not accepting new Medicare patients, and 57 percent of Washington
State physicians are limiting the number or dropping all Medicare
patients from their practices.
There is no doubt that we need to reform Medicare, and I am
particularly concerned with the Medicare physician fee schedule issued
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Although CMS
insists that physician payment rates will increase more than the
general rate of inflation, I am extremely concerned that any additional
physician payment reductions may dramatically affect the quality of
care offered to beneficiaries and further exacerbate the access
problems so many of our constituents are now facing.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a prevailing idea that government
programs should automatically pay less than private insurers for the
same quality care. I am especially concerned that providers serving a
disproportionate number of Medicare and Medicaid patients are facing
unsustainable fee reductions.
In its March 2002 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee,
MedPAC, the independent Federal body that advises Congress on Medicare
payment issues, weighed in on the current Medicare reimbursement rate
debate. MedPAC observes that ``provider entry and exit data provide
information regarding adequacy of the current level of payments.''
Keeping in mind that MedPAC's goal is to ensure that Medicare's
payment rates cover the costs that efficient providers would incur in
beneficiaries' care, it is especially important that MedPAC asserts
that ``evidence of widespread access or quality problems for
beneficiaries may indicate that Medicare's payment rates are too low.''
In fact, MedPAC surveyed physicians nationwide, and found that 45
percent said that reimbursement levels for their Medicare fee-for-
service patients are a very serious problem.
Every day I hear from my constituents that they are facing increasing
difficulty in getting primary care services, and from physicians who
can no longer afford to take on new Medicare patients.
One woman in Steilacoom, WA, contacted me about her son, a
quadriplegic, who was recently informed that the doctor who has been
treating him for a number of years will no longer be able to take
Medicare patients.
Another woman from Lynden, WA, told me that her doctor is leaving his
practice due to low Medicare reimbursements, her 89-year-old father has
also been going to this same doctor and now the family cannot find a
local doctor to take him.
When another constituent from Tacoma had to move into the city she
had to call numerous physicians before she found one who would take a
new Medicare patient.
One physician in Bellingham wrote me to say that one of his favorite
patients will no longer see her family practitioner because she has
Medicare. This doctor writes ``when our seniors feel bad and ashamed
about going in to see their physicians because their insurance''
coverage is Medicare, I think that reflects very poorly on Medicare,
our government, our government, that runs the program, and, to some
extent, the caregivers who feel it is a financial burden to take care
of our seniors. I couldn't agree more.
In fact, according to the Washington State Department of Health, in
Clallam and Kittitas counties in my home State, only 20 percent of
primary care physicians reported that they would take new Medicare
patients. Yet, at the same time, most practices are accepting new
patients with private employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests that
general physician shortages are not the major cause underlying the fact
that so many physician practices are closing or closed to Medicare
patients.
I understand that there are basic fairness issues involved in the
national debate over Medicare reimbursements. I am not pretending that
the Senate will comprehensively address geographic differences or
payment inequities this session. But I do believe we can look at more
targeted, limited solutions to address the Medicare reimbursement and
access issues on a demonstration level.
We already have a public health program in place, the primary care
health professional shortage area designation, HPSA, to determine
whether an area has a critical shortage of physicians available to
serve the people living there. In fact, this is the measurement used in
placing National Health Service Corps doctors in underserved areas.
A HPSA can be a distinct geographic area, such as a county, or a
specific population group within the area, such as the low-income.
However, in many shortage locations, access to care is a problem for
only part of the population. For example, while most residents in a
city may have adequate access to care, the elderly or poor may not. And
while population HPSA designations measure access problems for Medicaid
and low-income patients, migrant workers, and the homeless, there is no
designation that specifically identifies or addresses Medicare-related
demographics. My bill changes that.
The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Access Act,
will create a new Medicare Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA,
through a three-year, five-state HHS/Medicare demonstration project.
Primary care doctors in an area designated as a Medicare HPSA will
receive an automatic 40 percent bonus on all of their Medicare
billings.
I believe it is vitally important that the federal government
systematically examine different provider incentive programs in order
to stabilize, maintain, and increase quality, efficient primary care
services for Medicare beneficiaries. I want this demonstration program
to examine how we can specifically preserve beneficiary access to
primary care providers. The demonstration project will also examine
what level of incentive is necessary to prevent future access problems.
I want to point out that while current law prohibits multiple HPSA
designations, the demonstration project will not affect current HPSA
designations needed for other programs, such as Community Health
Centers. In addition, physicians in states participating in the
Medicare HPSA demonstration project will not be able also to receive
payments under the Medicare Incentive Payment program, which bases its
ten percent bonus on geographic shortage areas. As I mentioned earlier,
geographic shortage areas actually have nothing to do with measuring
Medicare-related access issues.
There is an abundance of excellent research currently underway at the
six Federal rural health research centers on all Medicare provider
reimbursement issues. These research centers are already set up for
demonstration analyses like the one required under my bill. I sincerely
appreciate the help Gary Hart, Ph.D. has provided me in developing this
proposal and discussing other, more comprehensive, means by which to
look at different Medicare payment and access issues. Dr. Hart is the
director of the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center at the University of
Washington, which is largely focusing on rural physician payments.
I also want to thank Vince Schueler and Laura Olexa of the Office of
Community and Rural Health and the Washington Department of Health, for
providing invaluable assistance in understanding rural health problems,
the
[[Page S4710]]
Federal HPSA designation, and access barriers for Medicare
beneficiaries, especially in rural areas of the State. After we began
discussing this problem, they went out of their way to do additional
surveys in rural counties to measure the most current access to primary
care physicians for both Medicaid and Medicare patients.
Finally, I want to thank the Washington State Medical Association and
Len Eddinger for their advice and assistance on this issue. I am
delighted that the WSMA has endorsed this legislation, and I ask
unanimous consent that its letter of support be added in the record at
the end of my statement.
The fact of the matter is that there is a crisis at hand regarding
Medicare benefits, and Medicare payments, and as a country, we simply
have not invested as we should in health care.
I sincerely believe that all individuals should have access to
quality and affordable medical care including the ability to visit
doctors whom they trust. It will do the country little good to provide
guaranteed health care for the elderly and disabled if physicians are
unwilling to work with Medicare patients because of inadequate payment
policies.
I believe the bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive
Act, is a good approach to examining these very important issues. I
encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bill, and to join me in
cosponsoring it.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Washington State Medical Association,
May 13, 2002.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of the 8,800 members of
the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA), please
accept my sincere thanks for all the work you are doing to
improve the Medicare program.
The financial condition of the health care delivery system
in Washington state is as poor as I have seen in my nearly 25
years of practice. As I travel the state and speak with my
colleagues, it has become clear that something dramatic and
sustainable must be done to ensure the long viability of
Medicare and Medicaid.
At our May Executive Committee meeting, we had an
opportunity to discuss the draft of your proposed legislation
to develop demonstration projects to enhance physician
reimbursement within established Medicare Health Professional
Shortage Areas. We view the approach as extremely creative
and well worth the time and effort of investigation. Our hope
is that successful implementation of this scenario will lead
to incentives across the entire physician community.
Senator, there is no doubt that declining reimbursements in
the Medicare and Medicaid programs are putting enormous
stress on medical practices and causing physicians to limit
patients who are eligible for these programs. We look forward
to working with you and your staff to alleviate this pressing
social problem.
Please let us know what we can do to help by contacting Len
Eddinger, WSMA's Director of Public Policy, in the Olympia
office of the WSMA at (360) 352-4848 or be email:
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Samuel W. Cullison, MD,
President.
______
By Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2544. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
make grants for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of
concern, to authorize assistance for research an development of
innovative technologies for such remediation, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has recently
completed a study on the cleanup of Contaminated Areas in the Great
Lakes. While it is no surprise to those of us who live in the Great
Lakes region, GAO found that there has been ``slow progress of cleanup
efforts''.
For those of you who live outside the Great Lakes region, Areas of
Concern are sites in the Great Lakes that do not meet the water quality
goals established by the United States and Canada in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. The primary reason that these areas fail to
meet water quality goals is the result of contaminated sediments, a
result of the industrialization of the mid-west. In order to meet the
water quality goals, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement binds us
to an identified cleanup process focused around Remdial Action Plans,
RAPs.
RAPs define the environmental problem, evaluate remedial measures,
and identify a process for moving forward with cleanup. The RAP process
relies on State and public involvement, and RAPs need the financial
support of the Federal Government.
The GAO reports that the RAP process is often disregarded by the
states and EPA. The progress that is being made to cleanup the Areas of
Concern is being made not under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
but under other laws such as Superfund. EPA has failed to provide
oversight responsibility for RAPs and does not provide nearly enough
financial resources for RAPs. In addition to these problems associated
with EPA, there is no way to implement RAPs because there is no pot of
money to do so and no established procedure to follow.
There are 13 areas of concern in the State of Michigan which result
in fish advisories, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, taste
and odor problems with drinking water, beach closures, and bird and
animal deformities or reproductive problems. These environmental
problems are too grave considering the fact that the Great Lakes holds
one-fifth of the world's freshwater, supplies drinking water to 33
million people, and provides a $2 billion fishery.
So today, with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, I am
introducing the Great Lakes Legacy Act to authorize $50 million per
year in grants to States to cleanup Areas of Concern and implement
RAPs. This legislation will also require EPA to report to Congress
within 1 year on how it plans to provide the oversight needed to make
sure that the Areas of Concern will meet water quality goals.
The problem of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes has been
known for decades, and I hope that my colleagues will support this
legislation to hopefully cleanup Areas of Concern.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important
environmental issue, not just to my home State of Ohio, but to our
entire Nation, and that issue is the protection of our Great Lakes.
These lakes are a natural treasure that hold one-fifth of the world's
freshwater, produce $2 billion per year in fish, and provide drinking
water to 33 million people.
Yesterday, the GAO released a report on the progress of cleanup in
polluted Areas of Concern. These Areas of Concern, or AOCs, are sites
in the Great Lakes that do not meet water quality goals. Many years
ago, the United States and Canada identified 44 AOCs in the Great Lakes
and agreed to a cleanup process.
In my home State of Ohio, there are four AOCs, the Maumee River, the
Ashtabula River, the Black River, and the Cuyahoga River. These areas
suffer fish and wildlife consumption restrictions, fish and wildlife
reproductive problems and deformities, algal blooms, restrictions on
drinking water consumption, and beach closings. These environmental
problems need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, cleanup has been very slow. The GAO report found that
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has failed to take oversight
responsibility, Federal funding has declined steadily over the years,
and States have abandoned the cleanup process.
These results are disturbing to say the least. This is why Senator
Levin and I, as Co-Chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, are
introducing a bill today that would authorize $50 million per year in
grants to States for the cleanup of Areas of Concern. Cleanup work
includes monitoring and evaluating sites, remediating sediment, and
preventing further contamination. This legislation would authorize the
EPA to conduct research and development of innovative approaches,
technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment in the
Great Lakes and would authorize the Great Lakes National Program Office
to carry out a public information grant program to provide information
about the contaminated sediments, as well as activities to clean-up the
site. Finally, as the GAO report recommends, our bill would require the
EPA to submit a report to
[[Page S4711]]
Congress on the actions, time periods, and resources that are necessary
for the EPA to oversee the Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and honor an
international commitment to protect a truly great natural resource. We
must honor our commitment to future generations and do all we can to
protect the Lakes for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to
them.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2545. A bill to extend and improve United States programs on the
proliferation of nuclear materials, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002. Senators Biden, Lugar, Landrieu,
Hagel, Murkowski and Bingaman--the junior Senator from my State--join
me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.
The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 started a chain of events, which
in the long term can lead to vastly improved global stability. Concerns
about global confrontations were greatly reduced after that event.
But with that event, the Soviet system of guards, guns, and a highly
regimented society that had effectively controlled their weapons of
mass destruction, along with the materials and expertise to create
them, was significantly weakened. Even today, with Russia's economy
well on the road to recovery, there's still plenty of room for concerns
about the security of these Russian assets.
The tragic events of September 11 brought the United States into the
world of international terrorism, a world from which we had been very
sheltered. Even with the successes of the subsequent war on terrorism,
there's still ample reason for concern that the forces of Al Qaeda and
other international terrorists are seeking other avenues to disrupt
peaceful societies around the world.
In some sense, the events of September 11 set a new gruesome standard
against which terrorists may measure their future successes. There
should be no question that these groups would use weapons of mass
destruction if they could acquire them and deliver them here or to
countless other international locations.
One of our strongest allies in the current war on terrorism has been
the Russian Federation. Assistance from the Russians and other states
of the former Soviet Union has been vital in many aspects of the
conflict in Afghanistan.
President Putin and President Bush have forged a strong working
relationship, and the current summit meeting is another measure of
interest in increased cooperation. As this new bill seeks to strengthen
our nonproliferation programs, it provides many options for actions to
be conducted through joint partnerships between the Russian Federation
and the United States that build on this increased cooperative spirit.
The Nunn-Lugar program of 1991 and the Nunn-Lugar Domenici
legislation of 1996 provided vital support for cooperative programs to
reduce the risks that weapons of mass destruction might become
available to terrorists. They established a framework for cooperative
progress that has served our nation and the world very well. But
despite their successes, there remain many actions that should be taken
to further reduce these threats.
The report by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler is one of the most
comprehensive calls for increased attention to these risks. That
report, which was written well before September 11, and many others
have suggested additional actions that could and should be taken beyond
the two original bills.
One of the most important realizations from September 11 concerns the
global reach of the forces of terrorism. It's now clear that our
nuclear nonproliferation programs should extend far beyond the states
of the former Soviet Union.
This new bill expands and strengthens many of the programs
established earlier, to further reduce threats to global peace. It
expands the scope of several programs to world-wide coverage. It
focuses on threats of a nuclear or radiological type, which fall within
the expertise of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the
Department of Energy.
It expands programs to include the safety and security of nuclear
facilities and radioactive materials around the world, wherever
countries are willing to enter into cooperative arrangements for threat
reduction. It recognizes that devices that disperse radioactive
materials, so-called ``dirty bombs,'' can represent a real threat to
modern societies.
Dirty bombs could be used as weapons of mass terror, property
contamination, and economic disaster. We need better detection systems
for the presence of dirty bombs that are appropriate to the wide range
of delivery systems for such a weapon, from trucks to boats to
containers. And we need to be far better prepared to deal with the
consequences of such an attack.
The new legislation includes provisions to accelerate and expand
existing programs for disposition of fissile materials. These
materials, of course, represent not only a concern with dirty bombs,
but also the even larger threat of use in crude nuclear weapons.
It includes a program that should help accelerate the conversion of
highly enriched uranium into forms unusable for weapons. It addresses
one of the major concerns associated with this material, that both the
United States in the Atoms for Peace program as well as the Soviet
Union, provided highly enriched uranium to many countries as fuel for
research reactors. That fuel represents a proliferation risk today.
It authorizes new programs for global management of nuclear
materials, in cooperation with other nations and with the International
Atomic Energy Agency. It recognizes that modern societies use
radioactive materials as essential tools in many ways, and offers
assistance in providing new controls on the most dangerous of these
materials.
It suggests that many of the program elements involve international
cooperation with the Russian Federation and with other nations. In
fact, it recognizes that the global nature of the current threats
requires such cooperation, and provides authorizations for the
Secretary of Energy and Secretary of State to offer significant help to
other nations. In many cases, we cannot accomplish these programs
without such cooperation.
This new bill includes provisions extending the first responder
training programs, originally created under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici. These
programs have already made real contributions. In fact, the training
provided under this program in New York City helped mitigate the
catastrophe there on September 11. That program was authorized for only
5 years in the original legislation. This bill extends that
authorization for another 10 years for first responder preparation in
various communities and cities of America.
The new bill requires annual reports demonstrating that all our
nonproliferation programs are well coordinated and integrated.
Countless reports have called for improved coordination of all federal
nonproliferation programs. The original call for this coordination in
the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation was completely ignored by the
Clinton administration.
The report requires an annual statement of the extent of coordination
between federally funded and private activities. That is very
important, because of the important work being done by private
organizations, like the Nuclear Threat Initiative, that are providing
critical assistance toward similar nonproliferation goals.
With this new bill, our programs to counter threats of nuclear and
radiological terrorism will be significantly strengthened and risks to
the United States and our international partners can be greatly
reduced.
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. 2545
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 Nonproliferation Act
of 2002''.
[[Page S4712]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Whereas the focus on the security of radioactive
materials before the events of September 11, 2001, was on
fissile materials, it is now widely recognized that the
United States must expand its concerns to the safety and
security of nuclear facilities, and the radioactive materials
in use or stored at such facilities, that may be attractive
to terrorists for use in radiological dispersal devices as
well as in crude nuclear weapons. Such materials include all
radioactive materials in the nuclear fuel cycle (such as
nuclear waste and spent fuel) as well as industrial and
medical radiation sources. Steps must be taken not only to
prevent the acquisition of such materials by terrorists, but
also to rapidly mitigate the consequences of the use of such
devices and weapons on public health and safety, facilities,
and the economy.
(2) The technical activities of United States efforts to
combat radiological terrorism should be centered in the
National Nuclear Security Administration because it has the
nuclear expertise and specialized facilities and activities
needed to develop new and improved protection and consequence
mitigation systems and technologies. New technologies and
systems should be developed by the Administration in
partnership with other agencies and first responders that
also have the operational responsibility to deal with the
threat of radiological terrorism.
(3) Fissile materials are a special class of materials that
present a range of threats, from utilization in improvised
nuclear devices to incorporation in radiological dispersal
devices. The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act
of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 50 U.S.C. 2301 et
seq.) focused on cooperative programs with the former Soviet
Union to control such materials. It is critical that these
efforts continue and that efforts commence to develop a
sustainable system by which improvements in such efforts are
retained far into the future. Development of such a
sustainable system must occur in partnership with the Russian
Federation and the other states of the former Soviet Union.
(4) The Russian Federation and the other states of the
former Soviet Union are not the only locations of fissile
materials around the world. Cooperative programs to control
potential threats from any of such materials should be
expanded to other international partners. Programs,
coordinated with the International Atomic Energy Agency and
other international partners, should be initiated to optimize
control of such materials.
(5) The Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Russian
Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched
Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, signed at Washington
on February 18, 1993 (the so-called ``HEU deal''), represents
an effective approach to reducing the stocks of the Russian
Federation of highly enriched uranium (HEU). However, such
stocks are much larger than contemplated in the Agreement,
and many other nations also possess quantities of highly
enriched uranium. Global stability would be enhanced by
modification of all available highly enriched uranium into
forms not suitable for weapons. Efforts toward such
modification of highly enriched uranium should include
expansion of programs to deal with research reactors fueled
by highly enriched uranium, which were provided by the United
States under the Atoms for Peace program and the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and similarly encouraged by the former
Soviet Union.
(6) Expansion of commercial nuclear power around the world
will lead to increasing global stocks of reactor grade
plutonium and fission products in spent fuel. If improperly
controlled, such materials can contribute to proliferation
and represent health and environmental risks. The
international safeguards on such materials established
through the International Atomic Energy Agency must be
strengthened to deal with such concerns. The National Nuclear
Security Administration is the appropriate Federal agent for
dealing with technical matters relating to the safeguard and
management of nuclear materials. The United States, in
cooperation with the Russian Federation and the International
Atomic Energy Agency, should lead the international community
in developing proliferation-resistant nuclear energy
technologies and strengthened international safeguards that
facilitate global management of all nuclear materials.
(7) Safety and security at nuclear facilities are
inextricably linked. Damage to such facilities by sabotage or
accident, or the theft or diversion of nuclear materials at
such facilities, will have substantial adverse consequences
worldwide. It is in the United States national interest to
assist countries that cannot afford proper safety and
security for their nuclear plants, facilities, and materials
in providing proper safety and security for such plants,
facilities, and materials, and in developing the sustainable
safety and security cultures that are required for the safe
and secure use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The
National Nuclear Security Administration is the appropriate
Federal agent for dealing with the technical aspects of
providing for international nuclear safety that must be
coordinated with safeguards of nuclear materials.
(8) The United States has provided sealed sources of
nuclear materials to many countries through the Atoms for
Peace program and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. These
sources remain property of the United States. A recent report
of the Inspector General of the Department of Energy,
entitled ``Accounting for Sealed Sources of Nuclear Material
Provided to Foreign Countries'', noted that a total of 2-3
kilograms of plutonium were in sources provided to 33 nations
and that the Department can not account fully for these
sources. Many of these sources are small enough to present
little risk, but a careful review of sources and recipients
could identify concerns requiring special attention. In
addition, the former Soviet Union supplied sealed sources of
nuclear materials for research and industrial purposes,
including some to other countries. These sources contain a
variety of radioactive materials and are often uncontrolled,
missing, or stolen. The problem of dangerous radiation
sources is international, and a solution to the problem will
require substantial cooperation between the United States,
the Russian Federation, and other countries of the former
Soviet Union, as well as international organizations such as
the International Atomic Energy Agency. The International
Nuclear Safety and Cooperation program and the Materials
Protection, Control, and Accounting program of the National
Nuclear Security Administration address such matters. However
those programs need to be strengthened.
(9) Authorization for domestic testing of preparedness for
emergencies involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, and
biological weapons provided by section 1415 of the Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C.
2315) has expired. These tests have been invaluable in
preparing first responders for a range of potential threats
and should be continued.
(10) Coordination of all Federal nonproliferation programs
should be improved to maximize efficiency and effectiveness
of programs in multiple agencies. Congress needs a
comprehensive annual report detailing the nonproliferation
policies, strategies, and budgets of the Federal Government.
Cooperation among Federal and private non-proliferation
programs is critical to maximize the benefits of such
programs.
(11) The United States response to terrorism must be as
rapid as possible. In carrying out their antiterrorism
activities, the departments and agencies of the Federal
Government, and State and local governments, need rapid
access to the specialized expertise and facilities at the
national laboratories and sites of the Department of Energy.
Multiple agency sponsorship of these important national
assets would help achieve this objective.
SEC. 3. TESTING OF PREPAREDNESS FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING
NUCLEAR, RADIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS.
(a) Extension of Testing.--Section 1415 of the Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of
Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2720; 50 U.S.C. 2315) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``of five successive
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1997'' and inserting
``of fiscal years 1997 through 2013''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``of five successive
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1997'' and inserting
``of fiscal years 1997 through 2013''.
(b) Construction of Extension with Designation of Attorney
General as Lead Official.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) may not be construed as modifying the designation of the
President entitled ``Designation of the Attorney General as
the Lead Official for the Emergency Response Assistance
Program Under Sections 1412 and 1415 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997'', dated April 6,
2000, designating the Attorney General to assume programmatic
and funding responsibilities for the Emergency Response
Assistance Program under sections 1412 and 1415 of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996.
SEC. 4. PROGRAM ON TECHNOLOGY FOR PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR OR
RADIOLOGICAL TERRORISM.
(a) Program Required.--(1) The Administrator for Nuclear
Security shall carry out a program on technology for
protection from nuclear or radiological terrorism, including
technology for the detection, identification, assessment,
control, disposition, consequence management, and consequence
mitigation of the dispersal of radiological materials or of
nuclear terrorism.
(2) The Administrator shall carry out the program as part
of the nonproliferation and verification research and
development programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
(b) Program Elements.--In carrying out the program required
by subsection (a), the Administrator shall--
(1) provide for the development of technologies to respond
to threats or incidents involving nuclear or radiological
terrorism in the United States;
(2) demonstrate applications of the technologies developed
under paragraph (1), including joint demonstrations with the
Office of Homeland Security and other appropriate Federal
agencies;
(3) provide, where feasible, for the development in
cooperation with the Russian Federation of technologies to
respond to nuclear or radiological terrorism in the former
states of the Soviet Union, including the
[[Page S4713]]
demonstration of technologies so developed; and
(4) provide, where feasible, assistance to other countries
on matters relating to nuclear or radiological terrorism,
including--
(A) the provision of technology and assistance on means of
addressing nuclear or radiological incidents;
(B) the provision of assistance in developing means for the
safe disposal of radioactive materials;
(C) in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
the provision of assistance in developing the regulatory
framework for licensing and developing programs for the
protection and control of radioactive sources; and
(D) the provision of assistance in evaluating the
radiological sources identified as not under current
accounting programs in the report of the Inspector General of
the Department of Energy entitled ``Accounting for Sealed
Sources of Nuclear Material Provided to Foreign Countries'',
and in identifying and controlling radiological sources that
represent significant risks.
(c) Requirements for International Elements of Program.--
(1) In carrying out activities in accordance with paragraphs
(3) and (4) of subsection (b), the Administrator shall
consult with--
(A) the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and
Secretary of Commerce; and
(B) the International Atomic Energy Agency.
(2) The Administrator shall encourage joint leadership
between the United States and the Russian Federation of
activities on the development of technologies under
subsection (b)(4).
(d) Incorporation of Results in Emergency Response
Assistance Program.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
technologies and information developed under the program
required by subsection (a) shall be incorporated into the
program on responses to emergencies involving nuclear and
radiological weapons carried out under section 1415 of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996
(title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 50 U.S.C. 2315).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Energy for the
National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out
activities under this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003, $40,000,000.
(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums
as may be necessary in such fiscal year.
SEC. 5. EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION,
CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING PROGRAM.
(a) Expansion of Program to Additional Countries
Authorized.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
(MPC&A) program of the Department of Energy to encompass
countries outside the Russian Federation and the independent
states of the former Soviet Union.
(b) Notice to Congress of Use of Funds for Additional
Countries.--Not later than 30 days after the Secretary
obligates funds for the International Materials Protection,
Control, and Accounting program, as expanded under subsection
(a), for activities in or with respect to a country outside
the Russian Federation and the independent states of the
former Soviet Union, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
notice of the obligation of such funds for such activities.
(c) Assistance to Department of State for Nuclear Materials
Safeguards Programs.--(1) As part of the International
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program, the
Secretary of Energy may provide technical assistance to the
Secretary of State in the efforts of the Secretary of State
to assist other nuclear weapons states to review and improve
their nuclear materials safeguards programs.
(2) The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1)
may include the sharing of technology or methodologies to the
states referred to in that paragraph. Any such sharing
shall--
(A) be consistent with the treaty obligations of the United
States; and
(B) take into account the sovereignty of the state
concerned and its weapons programs, as well the sensitivity
of any information involved regarding United States weapons
or weapons systems.
(3) The Secretary of Energy may include the Russian
Federation in activities under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
determines that the experience of the Russian Federation
under the International Materials Protection, Control, and
Accounting program with the Russian Federation would make the
participation of the Russian Federation in such activities
useful in providing technical assistance under that
paragraph.
(d) Plan for Accelerated Conversion or Return of Weapons-
Usable Nuclear Materials.--(1) The Secretary shall build on
efforts to accelerate the conversion or return to the country
of origin of all weapons-usable nuclear materials located in
research reactors and other facilities outside the country of
origin.
(2) The plan under paragraph (1) for nuclear materials of
origin in the Soviet Union shall be developed in consultation
with the Russian Federation.
(3) As part of the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall assist the research reactors and facilities referred to
in that paragraph in upgrading their materials protection,
control, and accounting procedures until the weapons-usable
nuclear materials in such reactors and facilities are
converted or returned in accordance with that paragraph.
(4) The provision of assistance under paragraph (3) shall
be closely coordinated with ongoing efforts of the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the same purpose.
(e) Radiological Dispersal Device Protection, Control, and
Accounting.--(1) The Secretary shall establish within the
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
program a program on the protection, control, and accounting
of materials usable in radiological dispersal devices.
(2) The program under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) an identification of vulnerabilities regarding
radiological materials worldwide;
(B) the mitigation of vulnerabilities so identified through
appropriate security enhancements; and
(C) an acceleration of efforts to recover and control so-
called ``orphaned'' radiological sources.
(3) The program under paragraph (1) shall be known as the
Radiological Dispersal Device Protection, Control, and
Accounting program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out
activities under this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003, $10,000,000.
(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums
as may be necessary in such fiscal year.
SEC. 6. ACCELERATED DISPOSITION OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM
AND PLUTONIUM.
(a) Program Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may
carry out a program to pursue with the Russian Federation,
and any other nation that possesses highly enriched uranium,
options for blending such uranium so that the concentration
of U-235 in such uranium is below 20 percent.
(2) The options pursued under paragraph (1) shall include
expansion of the Material Consolidation and Conversion
program of the Department of Energy to include--
(A) additional facilities for the blending of highly
enriched uranium; and
(B) additional centralized secure storage facilities for
highly enriched uranium, as so blended.
(b) Incentives Regarding Highly Enriched Uranium in
Russia.--As part of the options pursued under subsection (a)
with the Russian Federation, the Secretary may provide
financial and other incentives for the removal of all highly
enriched uranium from any particular facility in the Russian
Federation if the Secretary determines that such incentives
will facilitate the consolidation of highly enriched uranium
in the Russian Federation to the best-secured facilities.
(c) Construction with HEU Disposition Agreement.--Nothing
in this section may be construed as terminating, modifying,
or otherwise effecting requirements for the disposition of
highly enriched uranium under the Agreement Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government
of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition of
Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons,
signed at Washington on February 18, 1993.
(d) Priority in Blending Activities.--In pursuing options
under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to the
blending of highly enriched uranium from weapons, though
highly enriched uranium from sources other than weapons may
also be blended.
(e) Transfer of Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium to
United States.--(1) As part of the program under subsection
(a), the Secretary may, upon the request of any nation--
(A) purchase highly enriched uranium or weapons grade
plutonium from the nation at a price determined by the
Secretary;
(B) transport any uranium or plutonium so purchased to the
United States; and
(C) store any uranium or plutonium so transported in the
United States.
(2) The Secretary is not required to blend any highly
enriched uranium purchased under paragraph (1)(A) in order to
reduce the concentration of U-235 in such uranium to below 20
percent. Amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection
(m) may not be used for purposes of blending such uranium.
(f) Transfer of Highly Enriched Uranium to Russia.--(1) As
part of the program under subsection (a), the Secretary may
encourage nations with highly enriched uranium to transfer
such uranium to the Russian Federation for disposition under
this section.
(2) The Secretary shall pay any nation that transfers
highly enriched uranium to the Russian Federation under this
subsection an amount determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(3) The Secretary shall bear the cost of any blending and
storage of uranium transferred to the Russian Federation
under this subsection, including any costs of blending and
storage under a contract under subsection (g).
(g) Contracts for Blending and Storage of Highly Enriched
Uranium in Russia.--As part of the program under subsection
(a), the Secretary may enter into one or more contracts with
the Russian Federation--
(1) to blend in the Russian Federation highly enriched
uranium of the Russian Federation and highly enriched uranium
transferred to the Russian Federation under subsection (f);
or
[[Page S4714]]
(2) to store the blended material in the Russian
Federation.
(h) Limitation on Release for Sale of Blended Uranium.--
Uranium blended under this section may not be released for
sale until the earlier of--
(1) January 1, 2014; or
(2) the date on which the Secretary certifies that such
uranium can be absorbed into the global market without undue
disruption to the uranium mining industry in the United
States.
(i) Proceeds of Sale of Uranium Blended by Russia.--Upon
the sale by the Russian Federation of uranium blended under
this section by the Russian Federation, the Secretary may
elect to receive from the proceeds of such sale an amount not
to exceed 75 percent of the costs incurred by the Department
of Energy under subsections (b), (f), and (g).
(j) Report on Status of Program.--Not later than July 1,
2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the
status of the program carried out under the authority in
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(1) a description of international interest in the program;
(2) schedules and operational details of the program; and
(3) recommendations for future funding for the program.
(k) Disposition of Plutonium in Russia.--(1) The Secretary
may assist the Russian Federation in any fiscal year with the
plutonium disposition program of the Russian Federation (as
established under the agreement referred to in paragraph (2))
if the President certifies to Congress at the beginning of
such fiscal year that the United States and the Russian
Federation have entered into a binding agreement on the
disposition of the weapons grade plutonium of the Russian
Federation.
(2) The agreement referred to in this paragraph is the
Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Russian Federation
Concerning the Management and Disposition of Plutonium
Designated As No Longer Required For Defense Purposes and
Related Cooperation, signed August 29, 2000, and September 1,
2000.
(3) The program under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall include transparent verifiable steps;
(B) shall proceed at roughly the rate of the United States
program for the disposition of plutonium;
(C) shall provide for cost-sharing among a variety of
countries;
(D) shall provide for contributions by the Russian
Federation;
(E) shall include steps over the near term to provide high
confidence that the schedules for the disposition of
plutonium of the Russian Federation will be achieved; and
(F) may include research on more speculative long-term
options for the future disposition of the plutonium of the
Russian Federation in addition to the near-term steps under
subparagraph (E).
(l) Highly Enriched Uranium Defined.--In this section, the
term ``highly enriched uranium'' means uranium with a
concentration of U-235 of 20 percent or more.
(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out
activities under this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003--
(A) for activities under subsections (a) through (i),
$100,000,000; and
(B) for activities under subsection (k), $200,000,000.
(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums
as may be necessary in such fiscal year for activities under
subsection (a) through (i).
SEC. 7. STRENGTHENED INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR NUCLEAR
MATERIALS AND SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR OPERATIONS.
(a) Report on Options for International Program To
Strengthen Safeguards and Safety.--(1) Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to Congress a
report on options for an international program to develop
strengthened safeguards for all nuclear materials and safety
for nuclear operations.
(2) Each option for an international program under
paragraph (1) may provide that the program is jointly led by
the United States, the Russian Federation, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
(3) The Administrator shall include with the report on
options for an international program under paragraph (1) a
description and assessment of various management alternatives
for the international program. If any option requires Federal
funding or legislation to implement, the report shall also
include recommendations for such funding or legislation, as
the case may be.
(b) Joint Programs with Russia on Proliferation Resistant
Nuclear Technologies.--The Administrator shall pursue with
the Russian Federation joint programs between the United
States and the Russian Federation on proliferation resistant
nuclear technologies.
(c) Participation of Office of Nuclear Energy Science.--The
Administrator shall consult with the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology of the Department of Energy in the
development of options under subsection (a) and joint
programs under (b).
(d) Participation of International Technical Experts.--In
developing options under subsection (a), the Administrator
shall, in consultation with the Russian Federation and the
International Atomic Energy Agency, convene and consult with
an appropriate group of international technical experts on
the development of various options for technologies to
provide strengthened safeguards for nuclear materials and
safety for nuclear operations, including the implementation
of such options.
(e) Assistance Regarding Hostile Insiders and Aircraft
Impacts.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may, utilizing
appropriate expertise of the Department of Energy, provide
assistance to nuclear facilities abroad on the interdiction
of hostile insiders at such facilities in order to prevent
incidents arising from the disablement of the vital systems
of such facilities.
(2) The Secretary may carry out a joint program with the
Russian Federation and other countries to address and
mitigate concerns on the impact of aircraft with nuclear
facilities in such countries.
(f) Assistance to IAEA in Strengthening International
Nuclear Safeguards.--The Secretary may expand and accelerate
the programs of the Department of Energy to support the
International Atomic Energy Agency in strengthening
international nuclear safeguards.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to
carry out activities under this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003--
(A) for activities under subsections (a) through (e),
$20,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be available for
sabotage protection for nuclear power plants and other
nuclear facilities abroad; and
(B) for activities under subsection (f), $30,000,000.
(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums
as may be necessary in such fiscal year.
SEC. 8. EXPORT CONTROL PROGRAMS.
(a) Authority To Pursue Options for Strengthening Export
Control Programs.--The Secretary of Energy may pursue in the
former Soviet Union and other regions of concern, principally
in South Asia, the Middle East, and the Far East, options for
accelerating programs that assist countries in such regions
in improving their domestic export control programs for
materials, technologies, and expertise relevant to the
construction or use of a nuclear or radiological dispersal
device.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Energy to carry out
activities under this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003, $5,000,000.
(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, such sums
as may be necessary in such fiscal year.
SEC. 9. IMPROVEMENTS TO NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION,
CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION.
(a) Revised Focus for Program.--(1) The Secretary of Energy
shall work cooperatively with the Russian Federation to
update and improve the Joint Action Plan for the Materials
Protection, Control, and Accounting programs of the
Department and the Russian Federation Ministry of Atomic
Energy.
(2) The updated plan shall shift the focus of the upgrades
of the nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting
program of the Russian Federation in order to assist the
Russian Federation in achieving, as soon as practicable but
not later than January 1, 2012, a sustainable safeguards
system for the nuclear materials of the Russian Federation
that is supported solely by the Russian Federation.
(b) Pace of Program.--The Secretary shall work with the
Russian Federation, including applicable institutes in
Russia, to pursue acceleration of the nuclear materials
protection, control, and accounting programs at nuclear
defense facilities in the Russian Federation.
(c) Transparency of Program.--(1) The Secretary shall work
with the Russian Federation to identify various alternatives
to provide the United States adequate transparency in the
nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting program
of the Russian Federation to assure that such program is
meeting applicable goals for nuclear materials protection,
control, and accounting.
(2) The alternatives identified under paragraph (1) may not
include full intrusive access to sensitive facilities in the
Russian Federation.
(d) Sense of Congress.--In furtherance of the activities
required under this section, it is the sense of Congress the
Secretary should--
(1) improve the partnership with the Russian Ministry of
Atomic Energy in order to enhance the pace and effectiveness
of nuclear materials safeguards at facilities in the Russian
Federation, including serial production enterprises; and
(2) clearly identify the assistance required by the Russian
Federation, the contributions anticipated from the Russian
Federation, and the transparency milestones that can be used
to assess progress in meeting the requirements of this
section.
SEC. 10. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS OF ALL
UNITED STATES NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES.
Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public
[[Page S4715]]
Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1247) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(d) Annual Report on Implementation of Plan.--(1) Not
later than January 31, 2003, and each year thereafter, the
President shall submit to Congress a report on the
implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) during
the preceding year.
``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) a discussion of any progress made during the year
covered by such report in the matters of the plan required by
subsection (a);
``(B) a discussion of any consultations with foreign
nations, and in particular the Russian Federation, during
such year on joint programs to implement the plan;
``(C) a discussion of any cooperation and coordination
during such year in the implementation of the plan between
the United States and private entities that share objectives
similar to the objectives of the plan; and
``(D) any recommendations that the President considers
appropriate regarding modifications to law or regulations, or
to the administration or organization of any Federal
department or agency, in order to improve the effectiveness
of any programs carried out during such year in the
implementation of the plan.''.
SEC. 11. UTILIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
LABORATORIES AND SITES IN SUPPORT OF
ANTITERRORISM ACTIVITIES.
(a) Agencies as Joint Sponsors of Laboratories for Work on
Antiterrorism.--Each department or agency of the Federal
Government, or of a State or local government, that carries
out work on antiterrorism activities at a Department of
Energy national laboratory shall be a joint sponsor, under a
multiple agency sponsorship arrangement with the Department,
of such laboratory in the performance of such work.
(b) Agencies as Joint Sponsors of Sites for Work on
Antiterrorism.--Each department or agency of the Federal
Government, or of a State or local government, that carries
out work on antiterrorism activities at a Department site
shall be a joint sponsor of such site in the performance of
such work as if such site were a federally funded research
and development center and such work were performed under a
multiple agency sponsorship arrangement with the Department.
(c) Primary Sponsorship.--The Department of Energy shall be
the primary sponsor under a multiple agency sponsorship
arrangement required under subsection (a) or (b).
(d) Work.--(1) The Administrator for Nuclear Security shall
act as the lead agent in coordinating the submittal to a
Department national laboratory or site of requests for work
on antiterrorism matters by departments and agencies that are
joint sponsors of such national laboratory or center, as the
case may be, under this section.
(2) A request for work may not be submitted to a national
laboratory or site under this section unless approved in
advance by the Administrator.
(3) Any work performed by a national laboratory or site
under this section shall comply with the policy on the use of
federally funded research and development centers under
section 35.017(a)(4) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
(4) The Administrator shall ensure that the work of a
national laboratory or site requested under this section is
performed expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the head
of the department or agency submitting the request.
(e) Funding.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a joint sponsor
of a national laboratory or site under this section shall
provide funds for work of such center or site, as the case
may be, under this section under the same terms and
conditions as apply to the primary sponsor of such center
under section 303(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(b)(1)(C))
or of such site to the extent such section applies to such
site as a federally funded research and development center by
reason of subsection (b).
(2) The total amount of funds provided a national
laboratory or site in a fiscal year under this subsection by
joint sponsors other than the Department of Energy shall not
exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the total funds
provided such center or site, as the case may be, in such
fiscal year from all sources.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the world is a dangerous place, and the
United States is not immune to those dangers. In just the last few
days, we have heard warnings that suicide bombers will mount attacks in
the United States and that terrorist groups will inevitably obtain
weapons of mass destruction from rogue states.
My own greatest concern is that rogue states or terrorist groups may
obtain nuclear weapons, or the means to produce them, from the former
Soviet Union, where less-than-adequate security and under-employed
weapons scientists coexist with the world's largest stockpile of excess
fissile material. We know that both rogues and terrorists are
attempting to exploit the instability in that region in order to gain
weapons of mass destruction.
Some Russians have been caught stealing radioactive, or even fissile,
material. And witnesses at two Foreign Relations Committee hearings
warned that even modestly capable terrorists could convert stolen
highly enriched uranium into enormously destructive improvised nuclear
devices.
But I do not share the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons is
inevitable. The United States has had real successes in nuclear
nonproliferation and there is every reason to think that we can build
on that record.
Thanks to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the
countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear
weapons.
Thanks to the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program,
many Russian facilities have improved their security for fissile
materiel.
Thanks to our fissile material disposition programs, the United
States and Russia will each demilitarize 34 metric tons of excess
plutonium, and Russia will downblended 500 metric tons of high-enriched
uranium into low-enriched fuel for nuclear power reactors.
Thanks to several U.S. programs, thousands of under-employed weapons
scientists in the former Soviet Union have obtained at least part-time
employment in new, socially useful endeavors.
These programs point the way to how we can speed up the day when
rogue states and terrorists will find the doors closed to them when
they seek dangerous materials or technology from the former Soviet
Union. The administration told many months to review these programs
last year, but that review led it to the absolutely correct conclusions
that the programs are vital to our national security and that nearly
all of them should be expanded. The problem now is that we are still
not doing nearly enough. The President's budget request for fiscal year
2003 would maintain our nonproliferation assistance programs, but not
significantly increase them.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 takes important steps to
expand these programs, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation.
Senator Domenici to be both commended and supported for drafting this
bill. I am also delighted to be joined by Senators Lugar and Hagel from
the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Landrieu and Bingaman from
the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Murkowski, who has paid
particular attention to Russian nuclear problems.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 will lead to greater levels
of effort--and, I believe, greater levels of achievement--in several
areas. For example, it authorizes $40 million for a new research,
development, and demonstration program to help respond to nuclear or
radiological terrorism. Some of these funds would also help other
nations to better regulate the protection and control of radiological
sources, to prevent any diversion to terrorists. Some of the funds will
go to new technologies to detect radioactive and fissile materials
being smuggled into the United States. And some will support work with
the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve international
safeguards for nuclear materials and operations.
It authorizes up to $300 million to accelerate and expand current
programs to blend down highly enriched uranium (HEU) into reactorgrade
material which cannot explode and to dispose of plutonium in Russia.
This provision also allows for HEU purchases from other countries.
It authorizes $20 million for work with the international community
to develop options for a global program for international safeguards,
nuclear safety and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. This
includes efforts to improve sabotage protection for nuclear power
plants and other nuclear facilities overseas.
These are sensible proposals, and very sensibly priced when one
considers the magnitude of the threat that they address. Former Senator
Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler called on us
last year to devote at least $3,000,000,000 dollars a year to this
effort. Even with last year's congressionally-mandated budget increases
and even with this fine bill, we will achieve less than two-thirds of
that objective.
But these are important steps, ones that have been vetted with
experts inside and outside our government. They
[[Page S4716]]
deserve the support of all of us, and they will help build a safer
world for our children and grandchildren.
______
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 2546. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a
program for Federal flight deck officers, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my
disappointment in the decision announced yesterday by the Department of
Transportation against allowing airline pilots to carry firearms during
the performance of their duties. Today I am introducing legislation
which would overturn that decision and require the Transportation
Security Administration to establish a program to permit pilots to
defend their aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy.
This legislation will provide a critical last line of defense to secure
commercial aircraft.
This bill I am introducing today is identical to a bill in the House
of Representatives, H.R. 4635, introduced by Mr. Young of Alaska and
Mr. Mica of Florida. The legislation requires the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security to establish a program not later than 90
days after the date of enactment to deputize qualified volunteer pilots
as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of
commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air
piracy. Pilots who are deputized will be known as ``Federal Flight Deck
Officers'' and will be authorized to carry a firearm and use force,
including deadly force, against an individual in defense of an
aircraft.
Under the bill, a qualified pilot is a pilot that is employed by an
air carrier, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under
Secretary fitness to be a Federal Flight Deck Officer, and has been the
subject of an employment investigation, including a criminal history
record check.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the Under
Secretary shall deputize 500 qualified pilots who are former military
or law enforcement personnel. Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize any qualified pilot.
The Federal Government will provide training, supervision and equipment
at no expense to the pilot or air carrier. Pilots participating in this
program will not be eligible to receive compensation for services. The
legislation protects volunteer pilots and their employers against
liability from damages resulting from participation in the program.
The Department of Transportation has taken important steps to improve
the security of our airports and protect the flying public. However,
September 11 demonstrated our enemies will stop at nothing to inflict
harm on Americans and destroy our way of life. Our response must be
equally as determined and resolute. We must not take half measures or
engage in wishful thinking. We must not refrain from utilizing every
tool we possess. We must enable those who pilot commercial passenger
aircraft to defend against any threat and protect the safety of their
aircraft and passengers. And finally, we must do so without further
delay. I hope the Senate responds quickly to this important matter.
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. 2546
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 ``Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program
``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security shall establish a program to
deputize qualified volunteer pilots of passenger aircraft as
Federal law enforcement officers to defend the flight decks
of aircraft of air carriers engaged in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation against acts of criminal
violence or air piracy. Such officers shall be known as
`Federal flight deck officers'. The program shall be
administered in connection with the Federal air marshal
program.
``(b) Qualified Pilot.--Under the program, a qualified
pilot is a pilot of an aircraft engaged in air transportation
or intrastate air transportation who--
``(1) is employed by an air carrier;
``(2) has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under
Secretary fitness to be a Federal flight deck officer under
the program; and
``(3) has been the subject of an employment investigation
(including a criminal history record check) under section
44936(a)(1).
``(c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--The Under
Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide
training, supervision, and equipment necessary for a
qualified pilot to be a Federal flight deck officer under
this section at no expense to the pilot or the air carrier
employing the pilot.
``(d) Deputization.--
``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall deputize, as a
Federal flight deck officer under this section, any qualified
pilot who submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such
an officer.
``(2) Initial deputization.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary
shall deputize not fewer than 500 qualified pilots who are
former military or law enforcement personnel as Federal
flight deck officers under this section.
``(3) Full implementation.--Not later than 24 months after
the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary
shall deputize any qualified pilot as a Federal flight deck
officer under this section.
``(e) Compensation.--Pilots participating in the program
under this section shall not be eligible for compensation
from the Federal Government for services provided as a
Federal flight deck officer.
``(f) Authority To Carry Firearms.--The Under Secretary
shall authorize a Federal flight deck officer under this
section to carry a firearm while engaged in providing air
transportation or intrastate air transportation.
``(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section
44903(d), a Federal flight deck officer may use force
(including lethal force) against an individual in the defense
of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air
transportation if the officer reasonably believes that the
security of the aircraft is at risk.
``(h) Limitation on Liability.--
``(1) Liability of air carriers.--An air carrier shall not
be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or
State court arising out of the air carrier employing a pilot
of an aircraft who is a Federal flight deck officer under
this section or out of the acts or omissions of the pilot in
defending an aircraft of the air carrier against acts of
criminal violence or air piracy.
``(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal
flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any
action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the
acts or omissions of the officer in defending an aircraft
against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the
officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
``(i) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary, in
consultation with the Firearms Training Unit of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, shall issue regulations to carry out
this section.
``(j) Pilot Defined.--The term `pilot' means an individual
responsible for the operation of aircraft.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44920
the following:
``44921. Federal flight deck officer program.''.
(2) Employment investigations.--Section 44936(a)(1)(B) is
amended--
(A) by aligning clause (iii) with clause (ii);
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii);
(C) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) qualified pilots who are deputized as Federal flight
deck officers under section 44921.''.
(3) Flight deck security.--Section 128 of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) is repealed.
______
By Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2547. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for fair payments under the Medicare hospital outpatient
department prospective payment system; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to
introduce legislation entitled the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient
Department Fair Payment Act of 2002'' to improve Medicare payments for
hospital outpatient department services.
According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, in
its report to Congress this past March. ``We estimate that the
aggregate Medicare margin for outpatient services
[[Page S4717]]
will be -16.3 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, while the Medicare
outpatient prospective payment system, or OPPS, was created to give
providers incentives to deliver quality outpatient care and services in
an efficient manner, OPPS reimbursement rates have been set at a level
substantially below what is costs hospitals to care for Medicare
patients. That is an unsustainable burden for our Nation's hospitals.
This problem is especially acute in rural areas. According to the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's June 2001 report entitled
``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' outpatient costs
represent 21.8 percent of total Medicare costs in rural hospitals
compared to 16.1 percent in urban hospitals. As MedPAC concludes,
``Given their greater reliance on Medicare and on outpatient services
within Medicare, rural hospitals have more at stake than their urban
counterparts in the move to the outpatient PPS.''
In addition, Medicare's payment policy of paying less than cost
creates inappropriate incentives for providers to provide services in
the setting that receives the most favorable payment rather than the
one best suited for the patient. Medicare policy should seek, as best
as possible, to pay appropriate amounts to ensure access to care for
Medicare beneficiaries in appropriate settings, whether in inpatient
hospitals, outpatient care, ambulatory surgical centers, or physician
offices.
To provide just one example, the following are the current payment
rates for mammography in either a outpatient hospital setting of a
physician's office: for unilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS
payment is $30.54 compared to $38.01 in a physician's office; for
bilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is again $30.54
compared to an even higher $46.06 in a physician's office; for
unilateral digital mammography, OPPS payment just increased to $75.00
compared to $71.31 in a physician's office; and finally, for bilateral
digital mammography, the OPPS payment is $75.00 compared to $88.33 in a
physician's office.
Why does Medicare pay between 24 percent to 54 percent more for a
diagnostic mammography in a physician's office than in an outpatient
hospital setting? Such disparities are unjustified and they are even
worse for other Medicare services.
To address these problems, the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair
Payment Act of 2002'' would: increase extremely underfunded emergency
room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, or APC, payment
rates in the OPPS system by 10 percent and require an increase in
overall outpatient department payments to be adjusted to 90 percent of
overall costs, from the current 84 percent; and improve and extend
transitional corridor or ``hold harmless'' payments to rural hospitals,
cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extend the transitional
payments to designated eye and ear speciality hospitals.
The first provision would increase funding overall through the
outpatient hospital system from 84 percent of cost to 90 percent of
cost, still 10 percent less than the hospitals spend in delivering
necessary outpatient care, with special focus and priority on payments
for emergency room and clinic payments, prevention services, cancer
services, and to reduce the disparity between payments in outpatient
and alternative settings.
The extension of the transitional corridors or hold harmless payments
to rural, cancer, and children's hospitals addresses the particular
problems those hospitals are facing with the OPPS system and adds
designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. With regard to rural
hospitals, MedPAC recommended that due to the higher unit costs and a
greater percentage of care delivered in rural outpatient settings in
its June 2001 report entitled ``Report to the Congress: Medicare in
Rural America,'' that the data ``supports the need for the existing
hold-harmless policy'' for rural hospitals.
Without the transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, rural
hospitals would be expected to be significant losers, according to
MedPAC data. As MedPAC states, ``Small rural hospitals were protected
to more negatively affected, with those under 50 beds, about 50 percent
of rural hospitals, losing 8.5 percent and those with 50-99 beds losing
2.7 percent.'' Even with the transitional corridor and hold-harmless
payments, rural hospitals are still projected to have negative margins
of 13.7 percent with respect to outpatient care.
The legislation also addresses problems created by the Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999, or BBRA, which established temporary
additional Medicare payments, or transitional pass-through payments,
for certain innovative medical devices, drugs, and biologics. By
establishing the pass-through payments, Congress ensured Medicare
beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies.
These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total
outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, or CMS, is required by law to make a proportional
reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded.
In March 2002, CMS announced a reduction in pass-through payments of
63.6 percent. This reduction means that a pass-through payment of
$1,000 is reduced to just $364. Again, hospitals cannot continue to
provide needed services to beneficiaries with reductions of such a
magnitude.
To prevent an event greater reduction in pass-through payments, CMS
``folded-in'' a significant portion of costs of these new technologies
into the base APCs. However, because the law requires that these
changes are made in a budget-neutral manner, this resulted in a
substantial reduction in payments for standard outpatient services that
do not rely upon high-tech medical devices. In 2002, incorporating 75
percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-neutrality
adjustment of -7.2 percent, causing the substantial reduction in the
OPPS fee schedule amounts.
As MedPAC notes, ``If pass-through items are overused and overpaid,
APCs that include these technologies will be relatively overpaid while
APCs that do not will be underpaid. This process also will have
inappropriate distributional effects among hospitals if some hospitals
provide more services that use pass-through technologies than others.''
For example, rural hospitals tend to provide a greater proportion of
more basic Services, emergency care services, and fewer services that
require advanced technology, according to MedPAC. These are the
services particularly hard hit by the budget neutrality provision, and
yet, they are certainly not any less expensive than they were last
year.
To address these problems with Medicare's pass-through payment
system, the bill would: limit the pro-rata reduction in pass-through to
20 percent; and limit the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than
2.0 percent annually.
For New Mexico, the importance of this legislation cannot be
overstated. In 2000, New Mexico had over 3.1 million outpatient visits
by Medicare beneficiaries for important health concerns. This includes
essential services such as diagnostic tests, clinic visits, emergency
care treatment, chemotherapy, and surgery. In addition, according to
estimates from the American Hospital Association, the impact of this
legislation to New Mexico hospitals would be an increase in Medicare
payments between $48 and $59 million over the next five years.
For an industry attemtping to survive cuts to payments from the
private sector, Medicare and Medicaid, while also dealing with the
Nation's highest percentage of uninsured patients in the country. This
legislation is both timely and necessary. It is unjustifiable for
Medicare to continue to pay just 84 percent of the cost of care of
Medicare beneficiaries.
The bottom line is that this bipartisan legislation will ensure our
nation's hospitals a more rationale, fair, and equitable payment system
for services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries in an outpatient
setting.
I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill and a copy of a
letter to support from AHA to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2457
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S4718]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare
Hospital Outpatient Department Fair Payment Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Ensuring adequate OPD fee schedule amounts for clinic and
emergency visits.
Sec. 3. Limitation of pro rata reductions to pass-through payments.
Sec. 4. Clarifying application of OPD fee schedule increase factor.
Sec. 5. Limitation on budget neutrality adjustment for annual revisions
to system components.
Sec. 6. Outlier payments.
Sec. 7. Adjustment to limit decline in payment.
Sec. 8. Special increase in certain relative payment weights.
Sec. 9. Permanent extension of provider-based status.
SEC. 2. ENSURING ADEQUATE OPD FEE SCHEDULE AMOUNTS FOR CLINIC
AND EMERGENCY VISITS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii)--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (8)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (11)(B) and (13)(A)(i)''; and
(B) by striking ``clause (iii)'' and inserting ``clause
(iv)'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), by inserting ``, paragraph
(11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B)'' after ``this subparagraph'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(D)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``conversion factor computed
under subparagraph (C) for the year'' and inserting
``applicable conversion factor computed under subparagraph
(C), paragraph (11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B) for the year (or
portion thereof)''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, paragraph (9)(A), or
paragraph (13)(C)'' after ``paragraph (2)(C)'';
(4) in paragraph (9), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Budget neutrality adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary makes revisions under
subparagraph (A), then the revisions for a year may not cause
the estimated amount of expenditures under this part for the
year to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of
expenditures under this part (including expenditures
attributable to the special rules specified in paragraph
(13)) that would have been made if the revisions had not been
made.
``(ii) Exemption from reduction.--The relative payment
weights determined under paragraph (13)(C) and the conversion
factor computed under paragraph (13)(B) shall not be reduced
by any budget neutrality adjustment made pursuant to this
subparagraph.''; and
(5) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14) and
by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new
paragraph:
``(13) Special rules for calculating medicare opd fee
schedule amount for clinic and emergency visits.--
``(A) In general.--In computing the medicare OPD fee
schedule amount under paragraph (3)(D) for covered OPD
services that are furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and
classified within a group established or revised under
paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic or
emergency visits (as described in subparagraph (D)), the
Secretary shall--
``(i) substitute for the conversion factor calculated under
paragraph (3)(C) the conversion factor calculated under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) substitute for the relative payment weight
established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A),
respectively, the relative payment weight determined under
subparagraph (C) for such group.
``(B) Calculation of conversion factor.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i), the conversion factor calculated under
this subparagraph is--
``(i) for services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and
before January 1, 2003, an amount equal to 112.82 percent of
the conversion factor specified for such period in the final
rule published on March 1, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 9556 et seq.;
entitled `Medicare Program; Correction of Certain Calendar
Year 2002 Payment Rates Under the Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment System and the Pro Rata Reduction on
Transitional Pass-Through Payments; Correction of Technical
and Typographical Errors') and not taking into account any
subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning after
December 31, 2002, the conversion factor computed under this
subparagraph for the previous year (or in the case of 2003,
for the previous 9 months) increased by the OPD fee schedule
increase factor specified under paragraph (3)(C)(iv) for the
year involved.
``(C) Determination of relative payment weights.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the relative payment weight
determined under this subparagraph for a covered OPD service
that is classified within such a group is--
``(i) for services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, and
before January 1, 2003, the relative payment weight specified
for such group for such period in Addendum A of the final
rule published on March 1, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 9556 et seq.;
entitled `Medicare Program; Correction of Certain Calendar
Year 2002 Payment Rates Under the Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment System and the Pro Rata Reduction on
Transitional Pass-Through Payments; Correction of Technical
and Typographical Errors') and not taking into account any
subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or
after January 1, 2003--
``(I) for ambulatory patient classification group 0601
(relating to mid-level clinic visits), or a successor to such
group, the relative payment weight specified for such group
in the final rule referred to in clause (i); and
``(II) other ambulatory patient classification groups
described in subparagraph (D), the relative payment weight
established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A),
respectively, for such group for such year (but without
regard to any budget neutrality adjustment under paragraph
(9)(B)).
``(D) Groups for clinic and emergency visits.--For purposes
of this paragraph, the groups established or revised under
paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and
emergency visits are ambulatory patient classification groups
0600, 0601, 0602, 0610, 0611, and 0612 as defined for
purposes of the final rule referred to in subparagraph (C)(i)
(and any successors to such groups).''.
(b) Limitation on Secretarial Authority.--Notwithstanding
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not
make any adjustment under--
(1) paragraph (2)(F), (3)(C)(iii), (9)(B), or (9)(C) of
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)); or
(2) any other provision of such section;
to ensure that the amendments made by subsection (a) do not
cause the estimated amount of expenditures under part B of
title XVIII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) to exceed
the estimated amount of expenditures that would have been
made under such part but for such amendments.
(c) Periodic Lump-Sum Retroactive Payments.--The Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act (and at least every
90 days thereafter until the amendments made by subsection
(a) are implemented)--
(1) estimate, for each hospital furnishing services for
which payment may be made under section 1833(t) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) on or after April 1, 2002--
(A) the total amount of additional payments under such
section that would have been made to such hospital as of the
date of such estimate if such amendments had been implemented
as of such date; and
(B) the total amount of additional payments under such
section that have actually been made to such hospital as of
the date of such estimate (including any amounts paid
pursuant to this subsection); and
(2) make a lump-sum payment to such hospital equal to the
amount by which the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(A)
exceeds the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(B).
SEC. 3. LIMITATION OF PRO RATA REDUCTIONS TO PASS-THROUGH
PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(6)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(6)(E)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``The total'' and inserting
``Subject to clause (iv), the total'';
(2) in clause (iii), by striking ``If the Secretary'' and
inserting ``Subject to clause (iv), if the Secretary''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Limitation on pro rata reductions.--Notwithstanding
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), the Secretary may not reduce
the additional payments that would otherwise be made under
this paragraph (but for this subparagraph) for items and
services furnished on or after April 1, 2002, by a percentage
that exceeds 20.0 percent.''.
(b) Periodic Lump-Sum Retroactive Payments.--The Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act (and at least every
90 days thereafter until clause (iv) of section 1833(t)(6)(E)
of the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)(3)) is
implemented)--
(1) estimate, for each hospital furnishing services for
which payment may be made under section 1833(t) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) on or after April 1, 2002--
(A) the total amount of additional payments under paragraph
(6) of such section that would have been made to such
hospital as of the date of such estimate if such clause had
been implemented as of such date; and
(B) the total amount of additional payments under such
paragraph that have actually been made to such hospital as of
the date of such estimate (including any amounts paid
pursuant to this subsection); and
(2) make a lump-sum payment to such hospital equal to the
amount by which the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(A)
exceeds the amount estimated under paragraph (1)(B).
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING APPLICATION OF OPD FEE SCHEDULE INCREASE
FACTOR.
Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395l(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``Effective for years beginning
[[Page S4719]]
with 2002, the OPD fee schedule increase factor for a year
shall take effect on January 1 of such year, and nothing in
this subsection shall be construed as authorizing the
Secretary to delay the date on which such increase factor
takes effect by reason of any delay in implementing the
revisions authorized by paragraph (9)(A) for such year or for
any other reason.''.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON BUDGET NEUTRALITY ADJUSTMENT FOR ANNUAL
REVISIONS TO SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
Section 1833(t)(9)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(9)(B)), as amended by section 2(a)(4), is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``If the Secretary'' and
inserting ``Subject to clause (iii), if the Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Limitation on adjustment.--For years after 2001,
the budget neutrality adjustment under this subparagraph may
not reduce the payments that would otherwise be made under
this part but for this subparagraph by more than 2.0
percent.''.
SEC. 6. OUTLIER PAYMENTS.
Section 1833(t)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(5)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``exceed the applicable''
and inserting ``exceed a percentage specified by the
Secretary that is not less than the applicable minimum
percentage or greater than the applicable maximum''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(ii) Applicable percentages.--For purposes of clause
(i)--
``(I) the term `applicable minimum percentage' for a year
means zero percent for years before 2003 and 2.0 percent for
years after 2002; and
``(II) the term `applicable maximum percentage' for a year
means 2.5 percent for years before 2003 and 3.0 percent for
years after 2002.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Transitional authority''
and inserting ``Flexibility''; and
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``for
covered OPD services furnished before January 1, 2002,''.
SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT TO LIMIT DECLINE IN PAYMENT.
Section 1833(t)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(7)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Transitional adjustment''
and inserting ``Adjustment'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Before 2002'' and
inserting ``In general'';
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (B)'';
(ii) by striking ``furnished before January 1, 2002,''; and
(iii) by striking ``subparagraph (E)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (C)''; and
(C) in clause (i), by striking ``subparagraph (F)'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (D)'';
(3) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Hold harmless provisions.--
``(i) Cancer, children's, and small rural hospitals.--In
the case of a hospital that is described in clause (iii) or
(v) of section 1886(d)(1)(B) or is located in a rural area
and has not more than 100 beds, for covered OPD services--
``(I) that are furnished on or after the date on which
payment is first made under this subsection; and
``(II) for which the PPS amount is less than the pre-BBA
amount (or for services furnished on or after January 1,
2002, is less than the greater of the pre-BBA amount or the
reasonable costs incurred in furnishing such services),
the amount of payment under this subsection shall be
increased by the amount of such difference.
``(ii) Eye and ear hospitals.--In the case of a hospital or
unit described in subsection (i)(4), for covered OPD
services--
``(I) that are furnished on or after January 1, 2002; and
``(II) for which the PPS amount is less than the greater of
the base year amount (which for purposes of this subparagraph
shall be determined in the same manner as the pre-BBA amount
under subparagraph (D), except that clause (ii)(I) of such
subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `2001' for
`1996') or the reasonable costs incurred in furnishing such
services,
the amount of payment under this subsection shall be
increased by the amount of such difference.'';
(4) in subparagraph (F)(ii)(I), by striking ``subparagraph
(E)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C)''; and
(5) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and redesignating
subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively.
SEC. 8. SPECIAL INCREASE IN CERTAIN RELATIVE PAYMENT WEIGHTS.
Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(D)(ii), as amended by section
2(a)(3)(B), by striking ``or paragraph (13)(C)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (13)(C), or paragraph (14)'';
(2) in paragraph (9)(B)(i), as amended by section 2(a)(4),
by inserting ``determined without regard to expenditures made
by reason of the adjustments required by paragraph (14)''
after ``paragraph (13)'';
(3) in paragraph (12)(C), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (9) (including adjustments authorized
by paragraph (14))''; and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (14) (as redesignated by
section 2(a)(5)) as paragraph (15) and by inserting after
paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:
``(14) Requirement to increase relative payment weights in
certain circumstances.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the methodologies
specified for determining relative payment weights described
in paragraphs (2)(C) and (9)(A), for years beginning with
2002, the Secretary shall, as part of the revisions required
by paragraph (9)(A), increase the relative payment weight for
any group established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or
(9)(A), respectively, above the weight that would otherwise
apply to such group under this subsection if the Secretary
determines that such an increase is necessary to ensure that
the medicare OPD fee schedule amount for the group for the
year is not less than 90 percent of the median costs for
services classified within the group.
``(B) Priorities.--For purposes of providing for increases
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give priority
first to preventive services, second to cancer services,
third to services for which the medicare OPD fee schedule
amount that would otherwise apply is less the payment level
under this title for such services in other settings, and
fourth to other services.
``(C) Data.--The Secretary may base increases under
subparagraph (A) on data from any source and is not limited
to data appropriate for estimating the costs incurred by
hospitals in furnishing such services.
``(D) Aggregate expenditures.--Notwithstanding the
application of the percentage specified under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall provide for increases under such
subparagraph for each year so that the estimated amount of
additional expenditures attributable to adjustments under
such subparagraph is not less than $1,000,000,000 in such
year.''.
SEC. 9. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF PROVIDER-BASED STATUS.
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 404(a) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (113 Stat. 2763A-506), as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, are each amended by striking
``until October 1, 2002''.
____
American Hospital Association,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of our nearly 5,000
hospital, health care system, network and other health care
provider members, the American Hospital Association is
writing to express our strong support for the Medicare
Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002 that you have
introduced with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). We believe this
bill is an essential component to ensuring that America's
Medicare patients receive emergency care and outpatient
services, and have equal access to the newest medical
technologies.
As hospital care continues to shift to the outpatient
setting, it is imperative that Congress begins to address the
complex operational issues and payment inequities created by
the outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS). While the
OPPS was created to give providers incentives to deliver
quality care in an efficient manner, outpatient payment rates
were set at a level substantially below the costs hospitals
incur caring for Medicare patients. Medicare currently pays
hospitals only 84 cents for every dollar of outpatient care
provided.
Your comprehensive legislation would address problems in
the OPPS by extending and enhancing provisions that ensure
patient care is not disrupted as hospitals transition into
OPPS. We applaud your leadership on this important issue and
support swift enactment of this legislation. We look forward
to working with you further on this issue.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and
good friend Senator Bingaman to introduce the Medicare Hospital
Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. We are introducing this bill
because of the critical importance of outpatient health care services
and the devastating impact that the substantial reduction in Medicare
payments for outpatient services will have on the delivery of care. Our
legislation will increase payment rates for outpatient care to adequate
levels to ensure appropriate access to outpatient care for our Nation's
seniors. In addition, since the implementation of the new outpatient
prospective payment system in August 2000, it has become evident that
changes are needed, and this legislation proposes important reforms
that will make the system work better for Medicare and for our Nation's
seniors.
Our Nation's seniors rely upon outpatient care delivered through the
Medicare program. This is the result of trends in medical care that
will continue to place a greater emphasis on
[[Page S4720]]
the outpatient setting. According to Medpac, the number of outpatient
visits increased 73 percent during the 1990s and nearly 5 percent in
2001 alone. New technologies and advances in medicine have made it
possible for more and more care to be provided on an outpatient basis,
which eliminates the need for an overnight hospital stay. This reduces
the cost of care and gets the patient home sooner where recovery can
begin. This trend will continue and underscores the importance of
having an appropriate Medicare payment system for outpatient care.
Without these vitally needed changes in the Medicare outpatient
payment system, our medical care infrastructure will suffer and patient
care will be harmed. This March, the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, Medpac, estimated that the aggregate margin for outpatient
services would be minus 16.3 percent in 2002.
Congress created temporary additional payments, or transitional
``pass-through'' payments, for certain innovative medical devices,
drugs and biologicals in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, BBRA, of
1999. By establishing the pass-through pool, Congress ensured Medicare
beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies.
These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total
outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, CMS, is required by law to make a proportional
reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In
March 2002, CMS announced a dramatic reduction in pass-through payments
of 63.6 percent.
CMS took steps to avoid even greater reductions in the pass through
payments by incorporating 75 percent of the device costs into the base
ambulatory payment classifications, APC, amounts. Due to a
Congressionally-mandated requirement, CMS was required to make this
adjustment on a budget neutral basis, with no recognition for the
impact of this shift in payment. As a result, Medicare payments were
shifted from low-tech services to high-tech services. In addition,
incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-
neutrality adjustment of minus 7.2 percent, causing a substantial
reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts for 2002.
These shifts in payments that resulted from actions Congress took in
the BBRA are greater than intended when it was first enacted. It is
clear that corrections to the system are needed. Ironically, if these
problems with outpatient payments are not corrected, hospitals will be
forced to admit patients into the hospital for treatment that could
have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis.
To address these problems, we are introducing the Medicare Hospital
Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. This comprehensive legislation
would address problems within the current Medicare hospital outpatient
payment system. Specifically, it would address the problems outlined
here by; increasing extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic
ambulatory payment classifications, APC, rates by 10 percent and
requiring an increase in overall outpatient payments to 90 percent of
overall costs, still 10 percent less than hospitals spend in delivering
necessary outpatient care, but an improvement on the current payment of
just 84 percent of costs; limiting the pro rata reduction in pass-
through payments to 20 percent; and limiting the budget neutrality
adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent.
Furthermore, the bill improves and extends transitional corridor
payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's
hospitals, and extends the provision to designated eye and ear
specialty hospitals.
We believe these changes are necessary if we are to preserve the
quality of care in the outpatient setting that seniors deserve. Our
Nation's seniors rely upon the health care services provided in the
outpatient setting and we invite our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to join us in this effort.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 2548. A bill to amend the temporary assistance to needy families
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to improve
the provision of education and job training under that program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education
Works Act.
In 1996, legislation was passed which made major changes to our
welfare laws. Since then, we know that the welfare rolls in most States
have dramatically decreased. But reforming welfare is not just about
reducing welfare rolls; welfare reform must ultimately be about helping
poor individuals achieve self-sufficiency. While many have left welfare
for work during the past several years, too many have been left behind
because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work
history, have health problems, are in abusive relationships, or are
dealing with other circumstances that make it difficult to work. In
addition, those who have secured work are working at low wages with
limited benefits. These parents experience little earning growth over
time, because there are limited opportunities for mobility for those
with low skill levels. As we move forward with the reauthorization
process, we must do more to support state efforts to help these people
find work and to ensure that all individuals leaving welfare are moving
to employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The
Education Works Act will do just that.
We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in
helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that
have focused on employment but made substantial use of education and
training, together with job search and other employment services. In
addition, studies find that helping low-income parents increase their
skills pays off in the labor market, particularly through participation
in vocational training and postsecondary education and training.
Yet, less than one percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on
education and training in 2000 and only five percent of TANF recipients
participated in these activities in the same year. This is due in large
part to the fact that the '96 law discouraged States from allowing
welfare recipients to participate in education and training programs.
Specifically, the law limits the extent to which education activities
count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively
restricting how long individuals can participate in training and
capping how many individuals can receive these services.
The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that States
have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary,
vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education
programs by TANF recipients as part of the TANF work requirements;
giving States the flexibility to determine how long each participant
may participate in education and training activities while receiving
benefits; giving States the flexibility to provide childcare and
transportation supports, but not cash benefits, to parents and not toll
the 5 year time limit for these individuals if they are participating
in a full-time education program that will lead to work and long-term
independence; and eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF
recipients that can participate in education and training programs in
fulfillment of their work requirements
These are not radical changes. They do not discourage work, but
rather enable it.
It is important to note that of the 21 States that have operated
under TANF waivers since 1996, 18 of them had waivers of the
requirements we are talking about here. Delaware, Indiana, Montana,
Tennesee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Oregon to name a few. The other 32
States should be given the same flexibility.
In my home State, we have recognized the important role that
education and training, including postsecondary education, can play in
helping some welfare recipients to improve their skills so that they
can get off welfare and stay off welfare. In our State, we already have
an ``Education Works'' program in place. But this program is limited to
only 400 participants statewide, because the limitations in the TANF
program make it impossible to use Federal TANF funds to implement it.
This just doesn't make sense to me. We should give states the
flexibility they need to implement the
[[Page S4721]]
types of programs that they believe work best. We should hold them
accountable for decreasing caseloads over time and, more importantly,
demonstrating that those leaving welfare are economically self-
sufficient, but we should let them decide how to reach those goals. The
Education Works Act would allow them to do just that. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 2548
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 ``Education Works Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. COUNTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS WORK.
Section 407(d)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(d)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) participation in vocational educational training,
postsecondary education, an English-as-a-second-language
program, or an adult basic education program;''.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF LIMIT ON NUMBER OF TANF RECIPIENTS
ENROLLED IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OR HIGH SCHOOL
WHO MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE WORK
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT.
Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(c)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
SEC. 4. NONAPPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO
NOT RECEIVE CASH ASSISTANCE AND ARE ENGAGED IN
EDUCATION OR EMPLOYMENT.
Section 408(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Limitation on meaning of `assistance' for certain
individuals.--For purposes of this paragraph, child care or
transportation benefits provided during a month under the
State program funded under this part to an individual who is
participating in a full-time educational program or who is
employed shall not be considered assistance under the State
program.''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October
1, 2002, and shall apply to payments made under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters
beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether
regulations to implement the amendments are promulgated by
such date.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan under section 402(a) of the Social
Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation (other than legislation
appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the
additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by
this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to
comply with the requirements of such section 402(a) solely on
the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such additional
requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter
beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the
State legislature that begins after the date of enactment of
this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case
of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year
of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 2550. A bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1966,
and to establish the United States Boxing Administration; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCain. 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. 2550
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Title I--Professional Boxing Safety Act Amendments
Sec. 101. Amendment of professional boxing safety act of 1996.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Purposes.
Sec. 104. Matches in jurisdictions without commissions.
Sec. 105. Safety standards.
Sec. 106. Registration.
Sec. 107. Review.
Sec. 108. Reporting.
Sec. 109. Contract requirements.
Sec. 110. Coercive contracts.
Sec. 111. Sanctioning organizations.
Sec. 112. Required disclosures by sanctioning organizations.
Sec. 113. Required disclosures by promoters.
Sec. 114. Confidentiality.
Sec. 115. Judges and referees.
Sec. 116. Medical registry.
Sec. 117. Recognition of tribal law.
Sec. 118. Establishment of United States Boxing Administration.
Sec. 119. Effective date.
TITLE I--PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT AMENDMENTS
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF
1996.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996
(15 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2 (15 U.S.C. 6301) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Bout agreement.--The term `bout agreement' means a
contract between a promoter and a boxer which requires the
boxer to participate in a professional boxing match with a
designated opponent on a particular date.
``(2) Boxer.--The term `boxer' means an individual who
fights in a professional boxing match.
``(3) Boxing commission.--The term `boxing commission'
means an entity authorized under State or tribal law to
regulate professional boxing matches.
``(4) Boxer registry.--The term `boxer registry' means any
entity certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions for
the purposes of maintaining records and identification of
boxers.
``(5) Boxing service provider.--The term `boxing service
provider' means a promoter, manager, sanctioning body,
licensee, or matchmaker.
``(6) Contract provision.--The term `contract provision'
means any legal obligation between a boxer and a boxing
service provider.
``(7) Indian lands; indian tribe.--The terms `Indian lands'
and `Indian tribe' have the meanings given those terms by
paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively, of section 4 of the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703).
``(8) Licensee.--The term `licensee' means an individual
who serves as a trainer, second, or cut man for a boxer.
``(9) Local boxing authority.--The term `local boxing
authority' means--
``(A) any agency of a State, or of a political subdivision
of a State, that has authority under the laws of the State to
regulate professional boxing; and
``(B) any agency of an Indian tribe that is authorized by
the Indian tribe or the governing body of the Indian tribe to
regulate professional boxing on Indian lands.
``(10) Manager.--The term `manager' means a person who,
under contract, agreement, or other arrangement with a boxer,
undertakes to control or administer, directly or indirectly,
a boxing-related matter on behalf of that boxer, including a
person who is a booking agent for a boxer.
``(11) Matchmaker.--The term `matchmaker' means a person
that proposes, selects, and arranges the boxers to
participate in a professional boxing match.
``(12) Physician.--The term `physician' means a doctor of
medicine legally authorized to practice medicine by the State
in which the physician performs such function or action.
``(13) Professional boxing match.--The term `professional
boxing match' means a boxing contest held in the United
States between individuals for financial compensation. The
term `professional boxing match' term does not include a
boxing contest that is regulated by a duly recognized amateur
sports organization, as approved by the Administration.
``(14) Promoter.--The term `promoter' means the person
primarily responsible for organizing, promoting, and
producing a professional boxing match. The term `promoter'
does not include a hotel, casino, resort, or other commercial
establishment hosting or sponsoring a professional boxing
match unless--
``(A) the hotel, casino, resort, or other commercial
establishment is primarily responsible for organizing,
promoting, and producing the match; and
``(B) there is no other person primarily responsible for
organizing, promoting, and producing the match.
``(15) Promotional agreement.--The term `promotional
agreement' means a contract between a promoter and a boxer
under which the boxer grants to a promoter the exclusive
right to secure and arrange all professional boxing matches
requiring the boxer's services for--
``(A) a prescribed period of time; or
``(B) a prescribed number of professional boxing matches.
``(16) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50
States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any
territory or possession of
[[Page S4722]]
the United States, including the Virgin Islands.
``(17) Effective date of the contract.--The term `effective
date of the contract' means the day upon which a boxer
becomes legally bound by the contract.
``(18) Sanctioning organization.--The term `sanctioning
organization' means an organization, other than a boxing
commission, that sanctions professional boxing matches, ranks
professional boxers, or charges a sanctioning fee for
professional boxing matches in the United States--
``(A) between boxers who are residents of different States;
or
``(B) that are advertised, otherwise promoted, or broadcast
(including closed circuit television) in interstate commerce.
``(19) Suspension.--The term `suspension' includes within
its meaning the revocation of a boxing license.
``(20) Tribal organization.--The term `tribal organization'
has the same meaning as in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(l)).
``(21) United States Boxing Administration.--The terms
`United States Boxing Administration' and `Administration'
means the United States Boxing Administration established by
section 202.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 21 (15 U.S.C. 6312) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 21. PROFESSIONAL BOXING MATCHES CONDUCTED ON INDIAN
LANDS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an Indian tribe shall establish a boxing commission--
``(1) to regulate professional boxing matches held within
the reservation under the jurisdiction of that tribal
organization; and
``(2) to carry out that regulation or enter into a contract
with a boxing commission to carry out that regulation.
``(b) Standards and Licensing.--If a tribal organization
regulates professional boxing matches pursuant to subsection
(a), the tribal organization shall, by tribal ordinance or
resolution, establish and provide for the implementation of
health and safety standards, licensing requirements, and
other requirements relating to the conduct of professional
boxing matches that are at least as restrictive as--
``(1) the otherwise applicable standards and requirements
of a State in which the Indian lands are located; or
``(2) the most recently published version of the
recommended regulatory guidelines published by the United
States Boxing Administration.''.
SEC. 103. PURPOSES.
Section 3(2) (15 U.S.C. 6302(2)) is amended by striking
`State'.
SEC. 104. MATCHES IN JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT COMMISSIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 4 (15 U.S.C. 6303) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 4. BOXING MATCHES IN JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT BOXING
COMMISSIONS.
``(a) In General.--No person may arrange, promote,
organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing match in
a State or on Indian land unless the match--
``(1) is approved by the United States Boxing
Administration; and
``(2) is supervised by a boxing commission that is a member
of the Association of Boxing Commissions.
``(b) Approval Presumed.--For purposes of subsection (a),
the Administration shall be presumed to have approved any
match other than--
``(1) a match with respect to which the Administration has
notified the supervising boxing commission that it does not
approve;
``(2) a match advertised to the public as a championship
match; or
``(3) a match scheduled for 10 rounds or more.
``(c) Notification; Assurances.--Each promoter who intends
to hold a professional boxing match in a State that does not
have a boxing commission shall, not later than 14 days before
the intended date of that match, provide in writing to the
Administration and the supervising boxing commission,
assurances that all applicable requirements of this Act will
be met with respect to that professional boxing match.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 19 (15 U.S.C. 6310) is
repealed.
SEC. 105. SAFETY STANDARDS.
Section 5 (15 U.S.C. 6304) is amended--
(1) by striking ``requirements or an alternative
requirement in effect under regulations of a boxing
commission that provides equivalent protection of the health
and safety of boxers:'' and inserting ``requirements:'';
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) ``The examination
shall include testing for infectious diseases in accordance
with standards established by the Administration.'';
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) An ambulance continuously present on site.'';
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (2)
the following:
``(3) Emergency medical personnel with appropriate
resuscitation equipment continuously present on site.''; and
(5) by striking ``match.'' in paragraph (5), as
redesignated, and inserting ``match in an amount prescribed
by Administration.''.
SEC. 106. REGISTRATION.
Section 6 (15 U.S.C. 6305) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' the
second place it appears in subsection (a)(2);
(2) by striking the first sentence of subsection (c) and
inserting ``A boxing commission shall, in accordance with
requirements established by the United States Boxing
Administration, make a health and safety disclosure to a
boxer when issuing an identification card to that boxer.'';
(3) by striking ``should'' in the second sentence of
subsection (c) and inserting ``shall, at a minimum,''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Copy of Registration To Be Sent to USBA.--A boxing
commission shall furnish a copy of each registration received
under subsection (a) to the United States Boxing
Administration.''.
SEC. 107. REVIEW.
Section 7 (15 U.S.C. 6306) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a)
and inserting the following:
``(3) Procedures to review a summary suspension when a
hearing before the boxing commission is requested by a boxer,
licensee, manager, matchmaker, promoter, or other boxing
service provider which provides an opportunity for that
person to present evidence.'';
(2) by striking subsection (b); and
(3) by striking ``(a) Procedures.--''..
SEC. 108. REPORTING.
Section 8 (15 U.S.C. 6307) is amended--
(1) by striking ``48 business hours'' and inserting ``2
business days''; and
(2) by striking ``each boxer registry.'' and inserting
``the United States Boxing Administration.''.
SEC. 109. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
Section 9 (15 U.S.C. 6307a) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 9. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The United States Boxing Administration,
in consultation with the Association of Boxing Commissions,
shall develop guidelines for minimum contractual provisions
that should be included in bout agreements and boxer-manager
contracts. Each boxing commission shall ensure that these
minimal contractual provisions are present in any such
agreement or contract submitted to it.
``(b) Filing Requirement.--A boxing commission may not
approve a professional boxing match unless a copy of the bout
agreement related to that match has been filed with it.
``(c) Bond or Other Surety.--A boxing commission may not
approve a professional boxing match unless the promoter of
that match has posted a surety bond, cashier's check, letter
of credit, cash, or other security with the boxing commission
in an amount acceptable to the boxing commission and the
Administration.''.
SEC. 110. COERCIVE CONTRACTS.
Section 10 (15 U.S.C. 6307b) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) of subsection (a);
(2) by inserting ``or elimination'' after ``mandatory'' in
subsection (b).
SEC. 111. SANCTIONING ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 11 (15 U.S.C. 6307c) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Objective Criteria.--Within 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002,
the United States Boxing Administration, in consultation with
the Association of Boxing Commissions, shall develop
guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for
the rating of professional boxers which shall include the
athletic merits of the boxers. Within 90 days after the
Administration's promulgation of the guidelines, each
sanctioning organization shall adopt the guidelines and
follow them.'';
(2) by striking so much of subsection (b) as precedes
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(b) Appeals Process.--If a sanctioning organization
receives a request from a boxer questioning that
organization's rating of the boxer, it shall (except to the
extent otherwise required by the United States Boxing
Administration), within 7 days after receiving the request--
'';
(3) by inserting ``rating'' before ``criteria'' in
subsection (b)(1);
(4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection
(c)(1);
(5) by striking ``an association to which at least a
majority of the State boxing commissions belong.'' in
subsection (c)(2) and inserting ``the boxer and the
Administration.;'';
(6) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
``(3) provides the boxer an opportunity to appeal the
ratings change; and
``(4) applies the objective criteria for ratings required
under subsection (a) in considering any such appeal.''; and
(7) by striking ``rating;'' in subsection (d)(1)(C) and
inserting ``rating, which incorporates the objective criteria
for ratings required under subsection (a);''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 11(d)(1) (15 U.S.C.
6307c(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``ABC--'' and inserting
``Association of Boxing Commissions--''.
SEC. 112. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES BY SANCTIONING ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 12 (15 U.S.C. 6307d) is amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting ``Within 7 days after a professional boxing match
of 10 rounds or more, the sanctioning organization for that
match shall provide to the boxing commission in the State or
on the Indian lands responsible for regulating the match a
statement of--'';
[[Page S4723]]
(2) by striking ``will assess'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``has assessed, or will assess,''; and
(3) by striking ``will receive'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``has received, or will receive,''.
SEC. 113. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES BY PROMOTERS.
Section 13 (15 U.S.C. 6307e) is amended--
(1) by striking the matter in subsection (a) preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(a) Disclosures to the Boxing Commissions.--Within 7 days
after a professional boxing match of 10 rounds or more, the
promoter of any boxer participating in that match shall
provide to the boxing commission in the State responsible for
regulating the match and the Administration--'';
(2) by striking ``writing,'' in subsection (a)(1) and
inserting ``writing, other than a bout agreement previously
provided to the commission,'';
(3) by striking ``all fees, charges, and expenses that will
be'' in subsection (a)(3)(A) and inserting ``a statement of
all fees, charges, and expenses that have been, or will
be,'';
(4) by striking the matter in subsection (b) following
``Boxer.--'' and preceding paragraph (1) and inserting
``Within 7 days after a professional boxing match of 10
rounds or more, the promoter of any boxer participating in
that match with whom the promoter has a promotional agreement
shall provide to each boxer participating in the match--'';
and
(5) by striking ``match;'' in subsection (b)(1) and
inserting ``match, or that the promoter has paid, or agreed
to pay, to any other person in connection with the match;''.
SEC. 114. CONFIDENTIALITY.
Section 15 (15 U.S.C. 6307g) is repealed.
SEC. 115. JUDGES AND REFEREES.
(a) In General.--Section 16 (15 U.S.C. 6307h) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Licensing and Assignment
Requirement.--'' before ``No person'';
(2) by inserting ``or Indian lands'' after ``State''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Championship and 10-round Bouts.--In addition to the
requirements of subsection (a), no person may arrange,
promote, organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing
match advertised to the public as a championship match or in
a professional boxing match scheduled for 10 rounds or more
unless all referees and judges participating in the match
have been licensed by the United States Boxing
Administration.
``(c) Sanctioning Organization To Provide List.--A
sanctioning organization--
``(1) shall provide a list of judges and referees deemed
qualified by that organization to a boxing commission; but
``(2) may not influence, or attempt to influence, a boxing
commission's selection of a judge or referee for a
professional boxing match except by providing such a list.
``(d) Assignment of Nonresident Judges and Referees.--A
boxing commission may assign judges and referees who reside
outside that commission's State or tribal land if the judge
or referee is licensed by a boxing commission.
``(e) Required Disclosure.--A judge or referee shall
provide to the boxing commission responsible for regulating a
professional boxing match in a State or on Indian lands a
statement of all consideration, including reimbursement for
expenses, that the judge or referee has received, or will
receive, from any source for participation in the match. If
the match is scheduled for 10 rounds or more, the judge or
referee shall also provide such a statement to the
Administration.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 14 (15 U.S.C. 6307f) is repealed.
(2) Section 18(b)(2) (15 U.S.C. 6309(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ``14,''.
SEC. 116. MEDICAL REGISTRY.
The Act is amended by inserting after section 13 (15 U.S.C.
6307e) the following:
``SEC. 14. MEDICAL REGISTRY.
``(a) In General.--The Administration , in consultation
with the Association of Boxing Commissions, shall establish
and maintain, or certify a third party entity to establish
and maintain, a medical registry that contains comprehensive
medical records and medical suspensions for every licensed
boxer.
``(b) Content; Submission.--The Administration shall
determine--
``(1) the nature of medical records and medical suspensions
of a boxer that are to be forwarded to the medical registry;
and
``(2) the time within which the medical records and medical
suspensions are to be submitted to the medical registry.
``(c) Confidentiality.--The Administration shall establish
confidentiality standards for the disclosure of personally
identifiable information to sanctioning organizations that
will--
``(1) protect the health and safety of boxers by making
relevant information available to the organizations for use
but not public disclosure; and
``(2) ensure that the privacy of the boxers is
protected.''.
SEC. 117. RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL LAW.
Section 22 (15 U.S.C. 6313) is amended--
(1) by insert ``OR TRIBAL'' in the section heading after
``STATE''; and
(2) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''.
SEC. 118. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES BOXING
ADMINISTRATION.
The Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE II--UNITED STATES BOXING ADMINISTRATION
``Sec. 201. Purpose.
``Sec. 202. Establishment of United States Boxing Administration.
``Sec. 203. Functions.
``Sec. 204. Licensing and registration of boxing personnel.
``Sec. 205. National registry of boxing personnel.
``Sec. 206. Consultation requirements.
``Sec. 207. Misconduct.
``Sec. 208. Noninterference with local boxing authorities.
``Sec. 209. Assistance from other agencies.
``Sec. 210. Reports.
``Sec. 211. Initial implementation.
``Sec. 212. Authorization of appropriations.
``SEC. 201. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this title is to protect the health and
safety of boxers and to ensure fairness in the sport.
``SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES BOXING
ADMINISTRATION.
``The United States Boxing Administration is established as
an administration of the Department of Labor.
``(b) Administrator.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Administration shall be headed by
an Administrator, appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
``(2) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall be--
``(A) an individual with experience in a field directly
related to professional sports; and
``(B) selected on the basis of the individual's training,
experience, and qualifications and without regard to party
affiliation.
``(3) Compensation.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The Administrator of the United States Boxing
Administration.''.
``(c) Assistant Administrator; General Counsel.--The
Administration shall have an Assistant Administrator and a
General Counsel, who shall be appointed by the Administrator.
The Assistant Administrator shall--
``(1) serve as Administrator in the absence of the
Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in that office;
and
``(2) carry out such duties as the Administrator may
assign.
``(d) Staff.--The Administration shall have such additional
staff as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the
Administration.
``SEC. 203. FUNCTIONS.
``(a) Primary Function.--The primary function of the
Administration is to protect the health, safety, and general
interests of boxers consistent with the provisions of this
Act.
``(b) Specific Functions.--The Administrator shall--
``(1) administer title I of this Act;
``(2) except as otherwise determined by the Administration,
oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States;
``(3) work with sanctioning organizations, the Association
of Boxing Commissions, and the boxing commissions of the
several States and tribal organizations--
``(A) to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism
of professional boxing in the United States;
``(B) to enhance physical, medical, financial, and other
safeguards established for the protection of professional
boxers; and
``(C) to improve the status and standards of professional
boxing in the United States;
``(4) ensure, through the Attorney General, the Federal
Trade Commission, and other appropriate officers and agencies
of the Federal government, that Federal and State laws
applicable to professional boxing matches in the United
States are vigorously, effectively, and fairly enforced;
``(5) review local boxing authority regulations for
professional boxing and provide assistance to such
authorities in meeting minimum standards prescribed by the
Administration under this title;
``(6) serve as the coordinating body for all efforts in the
United States to establish and maintain uniform minimum
health and safety standards for professional boxing;
``(7) if the Administrator determines it to be appropriate,
publish a newspaper, magazine, or other publication
consistent with the purposes of the Administration;
``(8) procure the temporary and intermittent services of
experts and consultants to the extent authorized by section
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates the
Administration determines to be reasonable; and
``(9) take any other action that is necessary and proper to
accomplish the purpose of this title consistent with the
provisions of this title.
``(c) Prohibitions.--The Administration may not--
``(1) promote boxing events or rank professional boxers; or
``(2) provide technical assistance to, or authorize the use
of the name of the Administration by, States and Indian
tribes that do not comply with requirements of the
Administration.
``(d) Use of Name.--The Administration shall have the
exclusive right to use the name `United States Boxing
Administration'. Any person who, without the permission of
the Administration, uses that name or any other exclusive
name, trademark, emblem, symbol, or insignia of the
Administration for the purpose of inducing the sale of
[[Page S4724]]
any goods or services, or to promote any exhibition,
performance, or sporting event, shall be subject to suit in a
civil action by the Administration for the remedies provided
in the Act of July 5, 1946 (commonly known as the `Trademark
Act of 1946'; 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).
``SEC. 204. LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF BOXING PERSONNEL.
``(a) Licensing.--
``(1) Requirement for license.--No person may compete in a
professional boxing match, serve as a boxing manager, boxing
promoter, sanctioning organization, or broadcast a
professional boxing match except as provided in a license
granted to that person under this subsection.
``(2) Application and Term.--
``(A) In general.--The Administration shall--
``(i) establish an application procedure, form, and fee;
``(ii) establish appropriate standards for licenses granted
under this section; and
``(iii) issue a license to any person who, as determined by
the Administration, meets the standards established by the
Administration under this title.
``(B) Duration.--A license issued under this section shall
be for a renewable--
``(i) 4-year term for a boxer; and
``(ii) 2-year term for any other person.
``(C) Procedure.--The Administration may issue a license
under this paragraph through local boxing authorities or in a
manner determined by the Administration.
``(b) Licensing Fees.--
``(1) Authority.--The Administration may prescribe and
charge fees for the licensing of persons under this title.
The Administration may set, charge, and adjust varying fees
on the basis of classifications of persons, functions, and
events determined appropriate by the Administration.
``(2) Amounts.--The amounts of fees prescribed for a fiscal
year under this subsection shall be set at levels estimated,
when set, to yield collections in any total amount that is
not more than 10 percent of the total budget of the
Administration for that fiscal year.
``(3) Limitations.--In setting and charging fees under
paragraph (1), the Administration shall ensure that, to the
maximum extent practicable--
``(A) club boxing is not adversely effected;
``(B) sanctioning organizations and promoters pay the
largest portion of the fees; and
``(C) boxers pay as small a portion of the fees as is
possible.
``(4) Collection.--Fees established under this subsection
may be collected through local boxing authorities or by any
other means determined appropriate by the Administration.
Fees paid by boxing promoters may be derived from gross
receipts from professional boxing matches.
``(5) Deposit of collections.--Moneys received from fees
established under this section shall be deposited as an
offsetting collection in, and credited to, the account
providing appropriations to carry out the functions of the
Administration.
``SEC. 205. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF BOXING PERSONNEL.
``(a) Requirement for Registry.--The Administration shall
maintain a unified national computerized registry for the
collection, storage, and retrieval of information related to
the performance of its duties.
``(b) Contents.--The information in the registry shall
include the following:
``(1) Boxers.--A list of professional boxers and data in
the medical registry established under section 14 of this
Act, which the Administration shall secure from disclosure in
accordance with the confidentiality requirements of section
14(c).
``(2) Other personnel.--Information (pertinent to the sport
of professional boxing) on boxing promoters, boxing
matchmakers, boxing managers, trainers, cut men, referees,
boxing judges, physicians, and any other personnel determined
by the Administration as performing a professional activity
for professional boxing matches.
``SEC. 206. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.
``The Administration shall consult with local boxing
authorities--
``(1) before prescribing any regulation or establishing any
standard under the provisions of this title; and
``(2) not less than once each year regarding matters
relating to professional boxing.
``SEC. 207. MISCONDUCT.
``(a) Suspension and Revocation of License or
Registration.--
``(1) Authority.--The Administration may, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, suspend or revoke any license
issued under this title if the Administration finds that--
``(A) the suspension or revocation is necessary for the
protection of health and safety or is otherwise in the public
interest; or
``(B) there are reasonable grounds for belief that a
standard prescribed by the Administration under this title is
not being met, or that bribery, collusion, intentional
losing, racketeering, extortion, or the use of unlawful
threats, coercion, or intimidation have occurred in
connection with a license.
``(2) Period of suspension.--
``(A) In general.--A suspension of a license under this
section shall be effective for a period determined
appropriate by the Administration except as provided in
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Suspension for medical reasons.--In the case of a
suspension of the license of a boxer for medical reasons, the
Administration may terminate the suspension at any time that
a physician certifies that the boxer is fit to participate in
a professional boxing match. The Administration shall
prescribe the standards and procedures for accepting
certifications under this subparagraph.
``(b) Investigations and Injunctions.--
``(1) Authority.--The Administration may--
``(A) conduct any investigation that it considers necessary
to determine whether any person has violated, or is about to
violate, any provision of this title or any regulation
prescribed under this title;
``(B) require or permit any person to file with it a
statement in writing, under oath or otherwise as the
Administration shall determine, as to all the facts and
circumstances concerning the matter to be investigated;
``(C) in its discretion, publish information concerning any
violations; and
``(D) investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or
matters to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this
title, in the prescribing of regulations under this title, or
in securing information to serve as a basis for recommending
legislation concerning the matters to which this title
relates.
``(2) Powers.--
``(A) In general.--For the purpose of any investigation
under paragraph (1), or any other proceeding under this
title, any officer designated by the Administration may
administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena or otherwise
compel the attendance of witnesses, take evidence, and
require the production of any books, papers, correspondence,
memorandums, or other records which the Administration
considers relevant or material to the inquiry.
``(B) Witnesses and evidence.--The attendance of witnesses
and the production of any documents under subparagraph (A)
may be required from any place in the United States or any
State at any designated place of hearing.
``(3) Enforcement of subpoenas.--
``(A) Civil action.--In case of contumacy by, or refusal to
obey a subpoena issued to, any person, the Administration may
file an action in any court of the United States within the
jurisdiction of which an investigation or proceeding is
carried out, or where that person resides or carries on
business, to enforce the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of books, papers,
correspondence, memorandums, and other records. The court may
issue an order requiring the person to appear before the
Administration to produce records, if so ordered, or to give
testimony concerning the matter under investigation or in
question.
``(B) Failure to obey.--Any failure to obey an order issued
by a court under subparagraph (A) may be punished as contempt
of that Court.
``(C) Process.--All process in any contempt case under
subparagraph (A) may be served in the judicial district in
which the person is an inhabitant or in which the person may
be found.
``(4) Evidence of criminal misconduct.--
``(A) In general.--No person may be excused from attending
and testifying or from producing books, papers, contracts,
agreements, and other records and documents before the
Administration, in obedience to the subpoena of the
Administration, or in any cause or proceeding instituted by
the Administration, on the ground that the testimony or
evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of that person
may tend to incriminate the person or subject the person to a
penalty or forfeiture.
``(B) Limited immunity.--No individual may be prosecuted or
subject to any penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of,
any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which that
individual is compelled, after having claimed a privilege
against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
documentary or otherwise, except that the individual so
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and
punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.
``(5) Injunctive relief.--If the Administration determines
that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or
practice that constitutes a violation of any provision of
this title, or of any regulation prescribed under this title,
the Administration may bring an action in the appropriate
district court of the United States, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, or the United
States courts of any territory or other place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, to enjoin the act or
practice, and upon a proper showing, the court shall grant
without bond a permanent or temporary injunction or
restraining order.
``(6) Mandamus.--Upon application of the Administration,
the district courts of the United States, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United
States courts of any territory or other place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, shall have jurisdiction to
issue writs of mandamus commanding any person to comply with
the provisions of this title or any order of the
Administration.
``(d) Intervention in Civil Actions.--
``(1) In general.--The Administration, on behalf of the
public interest, may intervene of right as provided under
rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in any
civil action relating to professional boxing filed in a
United States district court.
``(2) Amicus filing.--The Administration may file a brief
in any action filed in a court
[[Page S4725]]
of the United States on behalf of the public interest in any
case relating to professional boxing.
``(e) Hearings by Administration.--Hearings conducted by
the Administration under this title may be public and may be
held before any officer of the Administration or before a
State boxing commission. The Administration shall keep
appropriate records of the hearings.
``SEC. 208. NONINTERFERENCE WITH LOCAL BOXING AUTHORITIES.
``(a) Noninterference.--Nothing in this title prohibits any
local boxing authority from exercising any of its powers,
duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or
supervision of professional boxing or professional boxing
matches to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of
this title.
``(b) Minimum Standards.--Nothing in this title prohibits
any local boxing authority from enforcing local standards or
requirements that exceed the minimum standards or
requirements promulgated by the Administration under this
title.
``SEC. 209. ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER AGENCIES.
``Any employee of any executive department, agency, bureau,
board, commission, office, independent establishment, or
instrumentality may be detailed to the Administration, upon
the request of the Administration, on a reimbursable or
nonreimbursable basis, with the consent of the appropriate
authority having jurisdiction over the employee. While so
detailed, an employee shall continue to receive the
compensation provided pursuant to law for the employee's
regular position of employment and shall retain, without
interruption, the rights and privileges of that employment.
``SEC. 210. REPORTS.
``(a) Annual Report.--The Administration shall submit a
report on its activities to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce each year. The annual report shall
include the following:
``(1) A detailed discussion of the activities of the
Administration for the year covered by the report.
``(2) A description of the local boxing authority of each
State and Indian tribe.
``(b) Public Report.--The Administration shall annually
issue and publicize a report of the Administration on the
progress made at Federal and State levels and on Indian lands
in the reform of professional boxing and commenting on
issues of continuing concern to the Administration.
``(c) First Annual Report on the Administration.--The first
annual report under this title shall be submitted not later
than 2 years after the effective date of this title.
``SEC. 211. INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION.
``(a) Temporary exemption.--The requirements for licensing
under this title do not apply to a person for the performance
of an activity as a boxer, boxing judge, or referee, or the
performance of any other professional activity in relation to
a professional boxing match, if the person is licensed by a
State or Indian tribe to perform that activity as of the
effective date of this title.
``(b) Expiration.--The exemption under subsection (a) with
respect to a license issued by a State or Indian tribe
expires on the earlier of--
``(A) the date on which the license expires; or
``(B) the date that is 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
``SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for the Administration for each fiscal year such sums as may
be necessary for the Administration to perform its functions
for that fiscal year.
``(b) Receipts Credited as Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code,
any fee collected under this title--
``(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the
account that finances the activities and services for which
the fee is imposed;
``(2) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the
costs of activities and services for which the fee is
imposed; and
``(3) shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 119. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that the provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of
title II of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, as
added by section 118 of this Act, shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2552. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to give States the option to create a program that allows
individuals receiving temporary assistance to needy families to obtain
post-secondary or longer duration vocational education; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to
Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined in introducing
this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus and
Bingaman.
This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program
called Parents as Scholars. This program, which uses State Maintenance
of Effort, (MOE), dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those
participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my
State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort.
We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of
this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I
believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first.''
Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from
welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top
priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job
that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education
might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency.
As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role
in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills
necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages
are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance.
The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002 provides State with the
option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain
post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give
States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are
participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same
assistance as they would receive if they were working.
We all know that supports like income supplements, child care
subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to
a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The
same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors.
This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking
the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary
education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and
employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the
tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and
remain, self-sufficient.
Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from
college requires a great deal of commitment and work, even for someone
who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are
significant challenges, and that's even before taking into
consideration the cost associated with obtaining a bachelor's degree,
with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing
almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients
who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they
need to sustain their families while they get a degree.
The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get
people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's
Parents as Scholars, PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median
wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per
hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median
hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-
secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per
week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant
difference.
Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants
while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS
participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to
pull their families out of the cycle of welfare.
Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the
successful Maine model, the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act requires
that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also
participate in work. During the first two years of their participation
in these education programs, students must participate in a combination
of class time, study time, employment or work experience for at least
24 hours per week, the same hourly requirement that the President
proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal.
During the second two years, for those enrolled in a four year
program, the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to
class and study time, or engage in a combination of activities,
including class and study
[[Page S4726]]
time, work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours
per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory
academic progress as defined by their academic institution.
The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to
work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find
good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that
could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic
violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will
secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of
welfare.
The experience of several Parents as Scholars graduates were recently
captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice
Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this
program is a critically important step in moving towards self-
sufficiency. In this report one PaS graduate said of her experience,
``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able
to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today,
I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated, barely getting
by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.''
Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self
sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able
to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would
encourage anyone to better their education if possible.''
These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from
access to post-secondary education. And, while these women have been
able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks to the good will and
the support of the people of Maine, PaS has strained the State's
budget. Giving States the option to use Federal dollars to support
these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability
to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly
90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently, and isn't
that our ultimate goal?
I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this
legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical
piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and
it has been missing from the Federal program for too long.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 2553. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to
provide equitable treatment of Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will finally bring closure to the concerns of many Alaska Native
veterans who served their country during the Vietnam war.
When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, was signed into
law by President Nixon in 1971, many Alaska Natives were serving in our
military. Because of their service, many were unable to apply for
Native land allotments under the Native Allotment Act, a program that
was ended with the enactment of ANCSA. Alaska Natives who did not serve
during the Vietnam conflict were able to apply for lands under the
Native Allotment Act but those who did serve had little chance to apply
under the circumstances.
I think everyone here will agree that allowing these veterans the
same advantages as those who did not serve in the military during the
Vietnam conflict is only fair. The main problem is that when we first
addressed this inequity in 1998, the terms we set were so restrictive
that presently only 60 out of a possible 1,110 veterans who could
qualify even have the chance of receiving an allotment. That is a
paltry 5 percent of all that could have otherwise qualified. This is
simply not acceptable. My legislation addresses the restrictive terms
we unknowingly set in the 1998 amendment in three ways: First, my
legislation will expand the military service dates of the program so
that they coincide with the official dates of the Vietnam conflict. We
ought not to complicate matters by using any dates other than those
that the Veteran's Administration has officially determined are within
the Vietnam conflict era. Those dates are August 5, 1964 through May 7,
1975.
Secondly, my legislation will replace the current use and occupancy
requirements with a simplified approval process, just like the one
established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
By adopting the same legislative approval process that other allotment
programs used, this legislation will avoid the lengthy delays, costly
adjudications and burdensome requirements that Alaska Native veterans
are currently facing. If we do not correct this particular problem now,
many Alaska Native veterans will die before they ever have their
applications approved. We cannot allow this to happen to them.
Finally, my legislation will extend the application deadline and
expand the available land choices so that the Alaska Native veterans
who could qualify for allotments will have the time and allotment
options they need in order to participate.
I hope my colleagues will join me in making these simple, common
sense changes so that this group of veterans can secure the land
allotments they deserve.
____________________