Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 81 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5699-S5712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--JUNE 18, 2002

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2631. A bill to amend the temporary assistance to needy families
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide
grants for transitional jobs programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the STEP Act
on behalf of myself and Senator Murray.
This bill is a companion to the Education Works Act, which I
introduced a couple of weeks ago. Both bills address the same issue,
the need to support state efforts to use welfare to work strategies
that combine work with a flexibility mix of education, training, and
other supports. Study after study has demonstrated that states that use
a combination of activities to help families move from welfare to work
are more successful. For many welfare recipients, vocational training
and postsecondary education led to work and, through substantial
increases in earnings and job quality, long-term financial
independence. This is important because although many have left welfare
for work during the past several years, many have returned or live in
poverty dependent on other government supports because they are working
at low wages with limited benefits. In addition, many with multiple
barriers remain on the rolls. 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 STEP Act and the Education Works Act will do just
that.
The Education Works Act deals with increasing state flexibility to
determine the right mix of work with education and training. The STEP
Act provides resources to States seeking to implement effective
programs that combine work with education and training. One of the most
effective types of these programs, particularly for the most difficult
to serve TANF recipients, are transitional job programs. Transitional
job programs provide subsidized, temporary, wage-paying jobs for 20 to
35 hours per week, along with access to job readiness, basic education,
vocational skills, and other barrier-removal services based on
individualized plans. The STEP Act would provide states with funding to
implementing these programs and other training and support programs.
Existing transitional job programs are achieving great outcomes. A
Mathematical study released last month demonstrated that between 81 to
94 percent of those who had completed transitional job programs move on
to unsubsidized jobs with wages. Most of these participants moved into
full-time employment, median hours worked was 40 hours. Another survey
revealed that transitional jobs program completers reported average
wages at placement into unsubsidized employment between $7 and $10 per
hour.
Transitional jobs programs can be particularly effective with the
hardest to serve welfare recipients. Transitional jobs program often
focus primarily on welfare recipients who have participated in welfare
employment and training programs without successfully finding steady
employment. The reasons for their inability to find and sustain
meaningful employment are complex and varied. For people who face
barriers, or who lack the skills or experience to compete successfully
in the labor market, paid work in a supportive environment, together
with access to needed services provides a real chance to move forward.
While more expensive than other work first strategies, transitional
jobs programs are able to do what their cheaper and less intensive
counterparts have not, help the most difficult to serve TANF
participants find stable, permanent employment.
Additional support for transitional jobs programs is needed. The TANF
and Welfare-to-Work block grants have been the principal sources of
funding for Transitional Jobs programs. Welfare-to-Work funds have been
exhausted in many parts of the country and must be spend completely
during the next year or two. In addition, with an ever growing
competition for TANF funds in a period of rising caseloads and
declining State revenues, it will be increasingly difficult to fund
transitional jobs programs solely with TANF funds.
I believe that transitional job programs are good investments because
they serve as stepping stones to permanent employment and decrease
government expenditures on health care, food stamps, and cash
assistance. Transitional jobs programs can be particularly important in
economically depressed and rural areas because they increase work
opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals, they reduce pressure on
local emergency systems and, they provide income that stimulates local
economies.
Our legislation also supports ``business link'' programs that provide
individuals with fewer barriers or individuals who have only been able
to access very low wage employment with intensive training and skill
development activities designed to lead to long-term, higher paid
employment. These programs are based on partnerships with the private
sector.
In my home State, just such a program is producing great results, the
Teamworks program. Teamworks provides training in life skills, as well
as employment skills, during a 12 week course. The program also
provides necessary supports to participants such as childcare and
transportation. Teamworks assists participants in their job search and
provides ongoing support for 18 months after job placement. The results
are impressive. The average wage of those completing the program is
$1.50 per hour higher than other programs and job retention rates are
20 percent higher. This experience is not unique. Welfare programs that
combine work with education and training with support services are more
likely to result in work leads to self-sufficiency.
The legislation that I am introducing today will give States the
tools to implement what works. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting both the STEP Act and the Education Works Act. I as
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. 2631

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 ``Support, Training,
Employment Programs Act of 2002'' or the ``STEP Act of
2002''.

[[Page S5700]]

SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL JOBS GRANTS.

Section 403(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Transitional jobs grants.--
``(A) Purpose.--The purpose of this paragraph is to provide
funding so that States and localities can create and expand
transitional jobs programs that--
``(i) combine time-limited employment that is subsidized
with public funds, with skill development and barrier removal
activities, pursuant to an individualized plan;
``(ii) provide job development and placement assistance to
individual participants to help them move from subsidized
employment in transitional jobs into unsubsidized employment,
as well as retention services after the transition to
unsubsidized employment; and
``(iii) serve recipients of assistance under the State
program funded under this part and other low-income
individuals who have been unable to secure employment through
job search or other employment-related services because of
limited skills, experience, or other barriers to employment.
``(B) Authority to make grants.--Each transitional jobs
State (as determined under subparagraph (C)) shall receive a
grant under this paragraph for each fiscal year specified in
subparagraph (K) for which the State is a transitional jobs
State, in an amount equal to the allotment for the State as
specified under subparagraph (D) for the fiscal year.
``(C) Transitional jobs state.--A State shall be considered
a transitional jobs State for a fiscal year for purposes of
this paragraph if the Secretary of Labor determines that the
State meets the following requirements:
``(i) The State has submitted to the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in the form of an
addendum to the State plan submitted under section 402) a
plan which is approved by the Secretary of Labor based on the
plan's compliance with the following requirements:

``(I) The plan describes how, consistent with this
paragraph, the State will use any funds provided under this
paragraph during the fiscal year.
``(II) The plan contains evidence that the plan was
developed in consultation and coordination with appropriate
entities including employers, labor organizations, and
community-based organizations that work with low-income
families, and includes a certification as required under
section 402(a)(4) with regard to the transitional jobs
services that the State proposes to provide.
``(III) The plan specifies the criteria that will be used
to select entities who will receive funding to operate
transitional jobs programs.
``(IV) The plan describes specifically how the State will
address the needs of rural areas, Indian tribes, and cities
with large concentrations of residents with an income that is
less than the poverty line, or who are unemployed.
``(V) The plan describes how the State will ensure that a
grantee to which information is disclosed pursuant to this
paragraph or section 454A(f)(5) has procedures for
safeguarding the information and for ensuring that the
information is used solely for the purpose described in this
paragraph or that section.
``(VI) The plan describes categories of jobs that are in
demand in various areas of the State and which offer the
opportunity for advancement to better jobs. The plan also
shall provide assurances that the ability of organizations
seeking to operate transitional jobs programs to best prepare
participants for those jobs will be given weight in the
selection of program operators.

``(ii) The State has agreed to negotiate in good faith with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to
the substance and funding of any evaluations and to cooperate
with the conduct of any such evaluations.
``(D) Allotments to states.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), the
amount of the allotment for a transitional jobs State for a
fiscal year shall be the available amount for the fiscal year
multiplied by the State percentage for the fiscal year.
``(ii) Minimum allotment.--The amount of the allotment for
a transitional jobs State (other than Guam, the Virgin
Islands, or American Samoa) for a fiscal year shall not be
less than 0.4 percent of the available amount for the fiscal
year.
``(iii) Pro rata reduction.--Subject to clause (ii), the
Secretary of Labor shall make pro rata reductions in the
allotments to States under this subparagraph for a fiscal
year as necessary to ensure that the total amount of the
allotments does not exceed the available amount for the
fiscal year.
``(iv) Available amount.--As used in this subparagraph, the
term `available amount' means, for a fiscal year, 80 percent
of the sum of--

``(I) the amount specified in subparagraph (K) for the
fiscal year;
``(II) any funds available under this subparagraph that
have not been allotted due to a determination by the
Secretary that any State has not met the requirements of
subparagraph (C); and
``(III) any available amount for the immediately preceding
fiscal year that has not been obligated by the State.

``(v) State percentage.--As used in this subparagraph, the
term `State percentage' means, with respect to a fiscal year
and a State, \1/2\ of the sum of--

``(I) the percentage represented by the number of
individuals in the State whose income is less than the
poverty line divided by the number of such individuals in the
United States; and
``(II) the percentage represented by the number of adults
who are recipients of assistance under the State program
funded under this part divided by the number of adults in the
United States who are recipients of assistance under any
State program funded under this part.

``(vi) Administration of funds.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), funds made
available to a State under this paragraph shall be
administered by an agency or agencies, as determined by the
chief executive officer of the State, which may include the
agency that administers the State program funded under this
part, the State board designated to administer the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) in the State,
or any other appropriate agency.
``(II) Coordination with tanf agency.--If an agency other
than the State agency that administers the State program
funded under this part administers funds made available to a
State under this paragraph, that agency shall coordinate the
planning and administration of such funds with the State
agency that administers the State program funded under this
part.

``(vii) Distribution of funds within States.--

``(I) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
this paragraph shall allocate not less than 90 percent of the
amount of the grant to eligible applicants for the operation
of transitional jobs programs consistent with subparagraph
(E). Any funds not used for such operation may be used to
provide technical assistance to program operators and
worksite employers, administration, or for other purposes
consistent with this paragraph.
``(II) Eligible applicants.--As used in subclause (I), the
term `eligible applicant' means a political subdivision of a
State, a local workforce investment board established under
section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2832), an Indian tribe, or a private entity.

``(E) Limitations on use of funds.--
``(i) Allowable activities.--An entity to which funds are
provided under subparagraph (D)(vii) shall use the funds to
operate transitional jobs programs consistent with the
following:

``(I) An entity which secures a grant to operate a
transitional jobs program (in this subparagraph referred to
as a `program operator'), under this paragraph shall place
eligible individuals in temporary, publicly subsidized jobs.
Individuals placed in such positions shall perform work
directly for the program operator, or at other public and
nonprofit organizations (in this subparagraph referred to as
`worksite employers') within the community. Funds provided
under subparagraph (D) shall be used to subsidize 100 percent
of the wages paid to participants as well as employer-paid
payroll costs for such participants, except as provided in
clause (v) regarding placements in the private, for-profit
sector.
``(II) Transitional jobs programs shall provide paid
employment for not less than 30, nor more than 40 hours per
week, except that a parent with a child under the age of 6, a
child who is disabled, or a child with other special needs,
or an individual who for other reasons cannot successfully
participate for 30 to 40 hours per week, may, at State
discretion, be allowed to participate for more limited hours,
but not less than 20 hours per week.
``(III) Program operators shall--

``(aa) develop an individual plan for each participant, the
goal of which shall focus on preparation for unsubsidized
jobs in demand in the local economy which offer the potential
for advancement and growth;
``(bb) develop transitional work placements for
participants that will best prepare them for jobs in demand
in the local economy that offer the potential for wage growth
and advancement; and
``(cc) provide case management services and ensure that
appropriate education, training, and other services are
available to participants consistent with each participant's
individual plan.

``(IV) Program operators shall provide job placement
assistance to help participants obtain unsubsidized
employment, and shall provide retention services for 12
months after entry into unsubsidized employment.
``(V) In any work week in which a participant is employed
at least 30 hours, a minimum of 20 percent of scheduled hours
and a maximum of 50 percent of scheduled hours, shall involve
participation in education or training activities designed to
improve the participant's employability and potential
earnings, or other services designed to reduce or eliminate
any barriers that may impede the participant's ability to
secure unsubsidized employment.
``(VI) The maximum duration of any placement in a
transitional jobs program shall not be less than 6 months,
nor more than 24 months. Nothing in this subclause shall be
construed to bar a participant from moving into unsubsidized
employment at a point prior to the maximum duration of the
program. States may approve programs of varying durations
consistent with this subclause.
``(VII) Participants shall be paid at the rate paid to
unsubsidized employees of the worksite employer, (or program
operator

[[Page S5701]]

where work is performed directly for the program operator,)
who perform comparable work at the worksite where the
individual is placed. If no other employees perform the same
or comparable work then wages shall be set, at a minimum, at
50 percent of the Lower Living Standard Income Level (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `LLSIL'), as specified in
section 101(24) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, for
family of 3 based on 35 hours per week.
``(VIII) Participants shall receive supervision from the
worksite employer or program operator consistent with the
goal of addressing the limited work experience and skills of
program participants.

``(ii) Consultation.--An application submitted by an entity
seeking to become a program operator shall include an
assurance by the applicant that the transitional jobs program
carried out by the applicant shall--

``(I) provide in the design, recruitment, and operation of
the program for broad-based input from the community served
and potential participants in the program and community-based
agencies with a demonstrated record of experience in
providing services, prospective worksite employers, local
labor organizations representing employees of prospective
worksite employers, if these entities exist in the area to be
served by the program, and employers, and membership-based
groups that represent low-income individuals; and
``(II) prior to the placement of participants, consult with
the appropriate local labor organization, if any,
representing employees in the area who are engaged in the
same or similar as that proposed to be carried out by such
program to ensure compliance with the nondisplacement
requirements specified in subparagraph (L).

``(iii) Eligibility for other work supports.--Participants
shall be eligible for subsidized child care, transportation
assistance, and other needed support services on the same
basis as other recipients of cash assistance under the State
program funded under this part.
``(iv) Wages not considered assistance.--Wages paid to
program participants shall not be considered to be assistance
for purposes of section 408(a)(7).
``(v) Private sector placements.--Placements of
participants with private, for-profit entities shall be
permitted only under the following conditions:

``(I) Except as provided in clause (vi), not more than 20
percent of the total number of participants in transitional
jobs in a State at any time may be placed at worksite
employers which are private, for-profit companies.
``(II) When placements are made at private, for-profit,
entities the entity shall pay for at least 50 percent of
programs costs (including wages) for each participant.
``(III) Not more than 5 percent of a private, for-profit
entity's workforce may be composed of transitional jobs
programs subsidized participants at any point in time, and no
supervisor at the entity shall have the responsibility for
supervising more than one transitional job program
participant.
``(IV) A private, for-profit entity shall not be allowed to
participate as a worksite employer or program operator if the
entity has previously exhibited a pattern of failing to
provide transitional jobs participants with continued,
unsubsidized employment with wages, benefits, and working
conditions, that are equal to those provided to other
unsubsidized employees who have worked a similar length of
time and are doing similar work.
``(V) The duration of any subsidized placement under this
clause shall be limited to the period of time required for
the participant to become proficient in the performance of
the tasks of the job for which the participant is employed.
``(VI) Transitional jobs participants shall only be placed
with private, for-profit entities in which the participants
will have the opportunity for permanent, unsubsidized
employment in positions where they will learn skills that
provide a clear pathway to higher paying jobs.
``(VII) At the time a transitional jobs placement is made,
the entity shall agree in writing--

``(aa) to hire the participant into an unsubsidized
position at the completion of the agreed upon subsidized
placement, or sooner, provided that the transitional jobs
participant's job performance has been satisfactory; and
``(bb) to provide the participant with access to employee
benefits that would be available to an individual in an
unsubsidized position of the employer within 12 months of the
participant's initial placement in the subsidized position.
``(vi) Exception to 20 percent limitation on private sector
placements.--

``(I) In general.--A State may exceed the 20 percent
limitation under clause (v)(I) if necessary because of the
limited number of placement opportunities in public and non-
profit organizations in rural areas of the State, but only if
the State includes in its plan a request to exceed such
limitation and provides specific information describing why
private placements in excess of the 20 percent limitation are
necessary, including a specification of the rural areas in
the State in which insufficient nonprofit or public sector
placements are available and the projected distribution of
private sector placements throughout the State.
``(II) Consideration of requests.--The Secretary shall by
regulation develop procedures for the prompt consideration
and resolution of requests by a State to exceed the 20
percent limitation under clause (v)(I).
``(III) Limitation remains in non-designated areas.--If a
request to exceed such 20 percent limitation is approved, the
20 percent limitation shall not apply in those areas of the
State that have been designated to exceed such limit, but
shall continue to apply in those areas of the State not so
designated.
``(IV) Inclusion of information in annual report.--With
respect to any year in which the Secretary authorizes the
State to exceed such 20 percent limitation, a State shall
report on the number and geographic location of private
sector slots used during the year in addition to the
information required to be reported by the State under
clauses (vii) and (viii) of subparagraph (G) .

``(F) General eligibility.--
``(i) In general.--Not less than \2/3\ of the participants
in a transitional jobs program within a State during a fiscal
year shall be individuals who are, at the time they enter the
program--

``(I) receiving assistance under the State program funded
under this part;
``(II) not receiving assistance under the State program
funded under this part, but who are unemployed, and who were
recipients of assistance under a State program funded under
this part within the immediately preceding 12-month period;
``(III) custodial parents of a minor child who meet the
financial eligibility criteria for assistance under the State
program funded under this part; or
``(IV) noncustodial parents with income below 100 percent
of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any
revision required by such section, applicable to a family of
the size involved).

``(ii) State option to further limit eligibility.--A State
may further limit the eligibility of noncustodial parents to
those noncustodial parents for whom at least 1 of the
following applies to a minor child of the noncustodial
parent:

``(I) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving,
assistance under the State program funded under this part.
``(II) The minor child received assistance under the
program funded under this part in the 12-month period
preceding the date of the determination but no longer
receives such assistance.
``(III) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving,
assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, benefits under
the supplemental security income program under title XVI of
this Act, medical assistance under title XIX of this Act, or
child health assistance under title XXI of this Act.

``(iii) Consultation.--A transitional jobs program that
provides services to non-custodial parents shall consult with
the State child support program funded under part D so that
child support services are coordinated with transitional jobs
program services.
``(iv) Limitation.--Not more than \1/3\ of all participants
in a transitional jobs program within a State during a fiscal
year shall be individuals who have attained at least age 18
with income below 100 percent of the poverty line (as defined
in section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, including any revision required by such section,
applicable to a family of the size involved) who are not
eligible under clause (i).
``(v) Methodology.--A State may use any reasonable
methodology in calculating whether a participant satisfies
the requirements of clause (i), make up \2/3\ or more of all
participants, and whether participants satisfying the
requirements of clause (iv) make up not more than \1/3\ of
all participants in a fiscal year.
``(vi) Authority to provide work-related services to
individuals who have reached the 5 year limit.--A program
operator under this paragraph may use the funds to provide
transitional job program participation to individuals who,
but for section 408(a)(7), would be eligible for assistance
under the program funded under this part of the State in
which the entity is located.
``(G) Relationship to other provisions of this part;
administrative provisions.--
``(i) Rules governing use of funds.--The provisions of
section 404, other than subsection (f) of section 404, shall
not apply to a grant made under this paragraph.
``(ii) Work participation requirements.--With respect to
any month in which a recipient of assistance under a State or
tribal program funded under this part satisfactorily
participates in a transitional jobs program funded under a
grant made under this paragraph, such participation shall be
considered to satisfy the work participation requirements of
section 407 and included for purposes of determining monthly
participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) of that
section.
``(iii) Administration.--Section 416 shall not apply to the
programs under this paragraph.
``(iv) Prohibition against use of grant funds for any other
fund matching requirement.--An entity to which funds are
provided under this paragraph shall not use any part of the
funds to fulfill any obligation of any State or political
subdivision under subsection (b) or section 418 or any other
provision of this Act or other Federal law.
``(v) Deadline for expenditure.--An entity to which funds
are provided under this paragraph shall remit to the
Secretary of

[[Page S5702]]

Labor any part of the funds that are not expended within 3
years after the date on which the funds are so provided.
``(vi) Regulations.--Within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Labor, alter
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to
implement this paragraph.
``(vii) Reporting requirements.--The Secretary of Labor, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall establish requirements for the collection and
maintenance of financial and participant information and the
reporting of such information by entities carrying out
activities under this paragraph. Such reporting requirements
shall include, at a minimum, that States report disaggregated
data on individual participants that include the following:

``(I) Demographic information about the participant
including education level, literacy level, and prior work
experience.
``(II) Identity of the program operator that provides or
provided services to the participant, and the duration of
participation.
``(III) The nature of education, training or other services
received by the participant.
``(IV) Reason for the participant's leaving the programs.
``(V) Whether the participant secured unsubsidized
employment during or within 60 days after the employment of
the participant in a transitional job, and if so, details
about the participant's unsubsidized employment including
industry, occupation, starting wages and hours, availability
of employer sponsored health insurance, sick and vacation
leave.
``(VI) The extent to which subsidized and unsubsidized
placements are in jobs or occupations identified in the
State's plan as being in demand in the local economy and
offering the opportunity for advancement and wage growth.

``(viii) Additional reporting requirements.--States shall
collect and report follow-up data for a sampling of
participants reflecting their employment and earning status
12 months after entering unsubsidized employment.
``(ix) Annual report to congress.--The Secretary of Labor
shall submit an annual report to Congress on the activities
conducted with grants made under this paragraph that includes
information regarding the employment and earning status of
participants in such activities.
``(H) National competitive grants.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall award
grants in accordance with this subparagraph, in fiscal years
2003 through 2007, for transitional jobs programs proposed by
eligible applicants, based on the following:

``(I) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provided
services in multiple sites that include sites in more than 1
State.
``(II) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provide
services in a labor market area or region that includes
portions of more than 1 State.
``(III) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provides
transitional jobs in a State that is not eligible to receive
an allotment under subparagraph (D).
``(IV) The extent to which the applicant proposes to
provide transitional jobs in either rural areas or areas
where there are a high concentration of residents with income
that is less than the poverty line.
``(V) The effectiveness of the proposal in helping
individuals who are least job ready move into unsubsidized
jobs that provide pathways to stable employment and livable
wages.

``(ii) Eligible applicants.--In this subparagraph, the term
`eligible applicant' means a local workforce investment board
established under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832), a political subdivision of a State,
or a private entity
``(iii) Funding.--For grants under this subparagraph for
each fiscal year specified in clause (i), there shall be
available to the Secretary of Labor an amount equal to 13.5
percent of the sum of--

``(I) the amount specified in subparagraph (K) for the
fiscal year;
``(II) any amount available for the immediately preceding
fiscal year that has not been obligated by a State; and
``(III) any funds available under this paragraph that have
not been allotted due to a determination by the Secretary of
Labor that the State has not qualified as a transitional jobs
State.

``(I) Funding for indian tribes.--5 percent of the amount
specified in subparagraph (K) for each fiscal year shall be
reserved for grants to Indian tribes under subparagraph (P).
``(J) Funding for evaluations of transitional jobs
programs.--1.5 percent of the amount specified in
subparagraph (K) for each fiscal year shall be reserved for
use by the Secretary to carry out subparagraph (O).
``(K) Appropriations.--
``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for grants under this paragraph--

``(I) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(II) $375,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(III) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2007.

``(ii) Availability.--The amounts made available pursuant
to clause (i) shall remain available for such period as is
necessary to make the grants provided for in this paragraph.
``(L) Worker protections.--
``(i) Nonduplication.--

``(I) In general.--Assistance provided through a grant made
under this paragraph shall be used only for a program that
does not duplicate, and is in addition to, an activity
otherwise available in the locality of such program.
``(II) Private, nonprofit entity.--Assistance provided
through a grant made available under this paragraph shall not
be provided to a private nonprofit entity to conduct
activities that are the same or substantially equivalent to
activities provided by a State or local government agency in
the area in which such entity resides, unless the
requirements of clause (ii) are met.

``(ii) Nondisplacement.--

``(I) In general.--An employer shall not displace an
employee or position (including partial displacement such as
reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits) or impair
existing contracts for services or collective bargaining
agreements, as a result of the use by such employer of a
participant in a program receiving assistance under a grant
made under this paragraph, and no participant shall be
assigned to fill any established unfilled position vacancy.
``(II) Job opportunities.--A job opportunity shall not be
created under this section that will infringe in any manner
on the promotional opportunity of an employed individual.
``(III) Limitation on services.--

``(aa) Supplantation of hiring.--A participant in any
transitional job program that receives funds under a grant
made under this paragraph shall not perform any services or
duties or engage in activities that will supplant the hiring
of unsubsidized workers.
``(bb) Duties formerly performed by another employee.--A
participant in any transitional job program that receives
funds under a grant made under this paragraph shall not
perform services or duties that are services, duties, or
activities with respect to which an individual has recall
rights pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or
applicable personnel procedures, or which had been performed
by or were assigned to any employee who recently resigned or
was discharged, any employee who is subject to a reduction in
force, any employee who is on leave (terminal, temporary,
vacation, emergency, or sick), or any employee who is on
strike or who is being locked out.
``(iii) Concurrence of local labor organization.--No work
assignment under a transitional job program that receives
funds under a grant made under this paragraph shall be made
until the program operator has obtained the written
concurrence of any local labor organization representing
employees who are engaged in the same or substantially
similar work as that proposed to be carried out for the
program operator or worksite employer with whom a participant
is placed.
``(iv) Application of worker protection laws.--Participants
employed in transitional jobs created under a transitional
job program that receives funds under a grant made under this
paragraph shall be considered to be employees for all
purposes under Federal and State law, including laws relating
to health and safety, civil rights, and worker's
compensation.
``(M) Grievance procedure.--
``(i) In general.--The State shall establish and maintain a
grievance procedure for resolving complaints by unsubsidized
employees of program operators or worksite employers or such
employees' representatives alleging violations of clause (i),
(ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (L), or by participants
alleging violations of clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of such
subparagraph.
``(ii) Limitation.--Except in the case of a grievance that
alleges fraud or criminal activity, a grievance shall be made
not later than 1 year after the date of the alleged
occurrence of the event that is the subject of the grievance.
``(iii) Hearing.--A hearing on any grievance made under
this subparagraph shall be conducted not later than 30 days
after the filing of the grievance.
``(iv) Deadline for decision.--A decision on any grievance
made under this subparagraph shall be made not later than 60
days after the filing of the grievance.
``(v) Binding arbitration.--

``(I) In general.--In the event of a decision on a
grievance that is adverse to the party who filed such
grievance, or, in the event on noncompliance with the 60-day
period required under clause (iv), the party who filed the
grievance may submit the grievance to binding arbitration
before a qualified arbitrator who is jointly selected and
independent of the interested parties.
``(II) Selection of arbitrator.--If the parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, the chief executive officer of the
State shall appoint an arbitrator from a list of qualified
arbitrators within 15 days after receiving a request for such
appointment from a party to the grievance.
``(III) Deadline for proceeding.--An arbitration proceeding
shall be held not later than 45 days after the request for
the arbitration proceeding, or, if the arbitrator is
appointed by the chief executive officer of the State in
accordance with subclause (II), not later than 30 days after
the appointment of such arbitrator.

[[Page S5703]]

``(IV) Deadline for decision.--A decision concerning a
grievance that has been submitted to binding arbitration
under this clause shall be made not later than 30 days after
the date the arbitration proceeding begins.
``(V) Cost.--

``(aa) In general.--Except as provided in item (bb), the
cost of an arbitration proceeding shall be divided evenly
between the parties to the arbitration.
``(bb) Employee is prevailing party.--If an employee or
such employee's representative prevails under a binding
arbitration proceeding under this clause, the State agency
shall pay the total cost of such proceeding and the
attorneys' fees of such employee or representative.
``(vi) Remedies.--Remedies for a grievance filed under this
subparagraph include--

``(I) prohibition of the work assignment in the program
funded under a grant made under this paragraph;
``(II) reinstatement of the displaced employee to the
position held by such employee prior to displacement;
``(III) payment of lost wages and benefits of the displaced
employee;
``(IV) reestablishment of other relevant terms, conditions,
and privileges of employment of the displaced employee; and
``(V) such equitable relief as is necessary to make the
displaced employee whole.

``(vii) Judicial review.--An action to enforce remedy or an
arbitration award under this paragraph may be brought in any
district court of the United States, without regard to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties to
the action.
``(viii) Non-exclusive procedures.--The grievance
procedures specified in this subparagraph are not exclusive
and an aggrieved employee or participant in a program funded
under a grant made under this paragraph may use alternative
procedures available under applicable contracts, collective
bargaining agreements, or Federal or State laws.
``(N) Non-preemption of state law.--The provisions of
subparagraphs (L) and (M) of this paragraph shall not be
construed to preempt any provision of State law that affords
greater protections to employees or to other participants
engaged in work activities under a program funded under this
part than is afforded by the provisions of this paragraph.
``(O) Evaluation of transitional jobs programs.--
``(i) Evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor--

``(I) shall develop a plan to evaluate the extent to which
transitional jobs programs funded under this paragraph have
been effective in promoting sustained, unsubsidized
employment for each group of eligible participants;
``(II) may evaluate the use of such grants by such grantees
as the Secretary deems appropriate, in accordance with an
agreement entered into with the grantees after good-faith
negotiations; and
``(III) should include the following outcome measures in
the plan developed under subclause (I):

``(aa) Placements in unsubsidized employment.
``(bb) Placements in unsubsidized employment that last for
at least 12 months, and the extent to which individuals are
employed continuously for at least 12 months.
``(cc) Earnings of individuals who obtain employment at the
time of placement.
``(dd) Earnings of individuals one year after placement.
``(ee) The occupations and industries in which wage growth
and retention performance is greatest.
``(ff) Average expenditures per participant.
``(P) Grants to indian tribes.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall award a grant in
accordance with this subparagraph to an Indian tribe for each
fiscal year specified in subparagraph (K) for which the
Indian tribe is a transitional jobs tribe, in such amount as
the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate.
``(ii) Transitional jobs tribe.--An Indian tribe shall be
considered a transitional jobs tribe for a fiscal year for
purposes of this subparagraph if the Indian tribe meets the
following requirements:

``(I) The Indian tribe has submitted to the Secretary a
plan which describes how, consistent with this paragraph, the
Indian tribe will use any funds provided under this
subparagraph during the fiscal year. If the Indian tribe has
a tribal family assistance plan, the plan referred to in the
preceding sentence shall be in the form of an addendum to the
tribal family assistance plan.
``(II) The Indian tribe is operating a program under a
tribal family assistance plan approved by the Secretary, a
program described in section 412(a)(2)(C), or an employment
program funded through other sources under which substantial
services are provided to recipients of assistance under a
program funded under this part.
``(III) The Indian tribe has agreed to negotiate in good
faith with the Secretary with respect to the substance and
funding of any evaluation under subparagraph (O), and to
cooperate with the conduct of any such evaluation.''.

SEC. 3. INNOVATIVE BUSINESS LINK PARTNERSHIP FOR EMPLOYERS
AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services and the Secretary of Labor (in this section
referred to as the ``Secretaries'') jointly shall award
grants in accordance with this section for projects proposed
by eligible applicants based on the following:
(1) The potential effectiveness of the proposed project in
carrying out the activities described in subsection (e).
(2) Evidence of the ability of the eligible applicant to
leverage private, State, and local resources.
(3) Evidence of the ability of the eligible applicant to
coordinate with other organizations at the State and local
level.
(b) Definition of Eligible Applicant.--In this section, the
term ``eligible applicant'' means a nonprofit organization, a
local workforce investment board established under section
117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832),
or a political subdivision of a State. In addition, in order
to qualify as an eligible applicant for purposes of
subsection (e), the applicant must provide evidence that the
application has been developed by and will be implemented by
a local or regional consortium that includes, at minimum,
employers or employer associations, education and training
providers, and social service providers.
(c) Requirements.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretaries shall--
(1) consider the needs of rural areas and cities with large
concentrations of residents with an income that is less than
the 150 percent of the poverty line; and
(2) ensure that all of the funds made available under this
section (other than funds reserved for use by the Secretaries
under subsection (j)) shall be used for activities described
in subsection (e).
(d) Determination of Grant Amount.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in determining
the amount of a grant to be awarded under this section for a
project proposed by an eligible applicant, the Secretaries
shall provide the eligible applicant with an amount
sufficient to ensure that the project has a reasonable
opportunity to be successful, taking into account--
(A) the number and characteristics of the individuals to be
served by the project;
(B) the level of unemployment in such area;
(C) the job opportunities and job growth in such area;
(D) the poverty rate for such area; and
(E) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate
in the area to be served by the project.
(2) Award ceiling.--A grant awarded to an eligible
applicant under this section may not exceed $10,000,000.
(e) Allowable Activities.--
(1) Promote business linkages.--An eligible applicant
awarded a grant under this section shall use funds provided
under the grant to promote business linkages in which funds
shall be used to fund new or expanded programs that are
designed to--
(A) substantially increase the wages of low-income parents,
noncustodial parents, and other low-income individuals,
whether employed or unemployed, who have limited English
proficiency or other barriers to employment by upgrading job
and related skills in partnership with employers, especially
by providing services at or near work sites; and
(B) identify and strengthen career pathways by expanding
and linking work and training opportunities for low-earning
workers in collaboration with employers.
(2) Consideration of in-kind, in-cash resources.--In
determining which programs to fund under this subsection, an
eligible applicant awarded a grant under this section shall
consider the ability of a consortium to provide funds in-kind
or in-cash (including employer-provided, paid release time)
to help support the programs for which funding is sought.
(3) Priority.--In determining which programs to fund under
this subsection, an eligible applicant awarded a grant under
this section shall give priority given to programs that
include education or training for which participants receive
credit toward a recognized credential.
(4) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--Funds provided to a program under this
subsection may be used for a comprehensive set of employment
and training benefits and services, including job
development, job matching, curricula development, wage
subsidies, retention services, and such others as the program
deems necessary to achieve the overall objectives of this
subsection.
(B) Provision of services.--So long as a program is
principally designed to assist eligible individuals, funds
may be provided to a program under this subsection that is
designed to provide services to categories of low-earning
employees for 1 or more employers and such a program may
provide services to individuals who do not meet the
definition of low-income established for the program.
(f) Definition of Eligible Individual.--In this section,
the term ``eligible individual'' means--
(A) an individual who is a parent who is a recipient of
assistance under a State or tribal program funded under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.);
(B) an individual who is a parent who has ceased to receive
assistance under such a State or tribal program; or
(C) a noncustodial parent who is unemployed, or having
difficulty in paying child support obligations.
(g) Application.--Each eligible applicant desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretaries at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by

[[Page S5704]]

such information as the Secretaries may require.
(h) Assessments and Reports by Grantees.--
(1) In general.--An eligible applicant that receives a
grant under this section shall assess and report on the
outcomes of programs funded under the grant, including
outcomes related to job placement, 1-year employment
retention, wage at placement, and earnings progression, as
specified by the Secretaries.
(2) Assistance.--The Secretaries shall--
(A) assist grantees in conducting the assessment required
under paragraph (1) by making available where practicable
low-cost means of tracking the labor market outcomes of
participants; and
(B) encourage States to also provide such assistance.
(i) Application to Requirements of the State TANF
Program.--
(1) Work participation requirements.--With respect to any
month in which a recipient of assistance under a State or
tribal program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) who satisfactorily
participates in a business linkage program described in
subsection (e) that is paid for with funds made available
under a grant made under this section, such participation
shall be considered to satisfy the work participation
requirements of section 407 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 607)) and included for purposes of determining monthly
participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) of such
section.
(2) Participation not considered assistance.--A benefit or
service provided with funds made available under a grant made
under this section shall not be considered assistance for any
purpose under a State or tribal program funded under part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
(j) Assessments by the Secretaries.--
(1) Reservation of funds.--Of the amount appropriated under
subsection (k), $3,000,000 is reserved for use by the
Secretaries to prepare an interim and final report
summarizing and synthesizing outcomes and lessons learned
from the programs funded through grants awarded under this
section.
(2) Interim and final assessments.--With respect to the
reports prepared under paragraph (1), the Secretaries shall
submit--
(A) the interim report not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) the final report not later than 6 years after such date
of enactment.
(k) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for carrying out this section, $250,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
______

By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2632. A bill to provide an equitable formula for computing the
annuities of surviving spouses of members of the uniformed services who
died entitled to retired or retainer pay but before the Survivor
Benefit Plan existed or applied to the members, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, a couple weeks ago, on Memorial Day, we
promised to remember and honor those who have sacrificed so much to
serve our country. In Iowa, Mary ``Beth'' James and her family were
honoring the memory of her husband, Bob James. But I'm afraid we have
forgotten Beth, and not done Bob justice. Today I am introducing a bill
for Beth and the other ``Forgotten Widows.''
Bob James proudly served his country as an active member of the Army
and Army Reserves for 35 years, until he passed away in 1977. Bob's
service began with the Amphibious Combat Infantry in North Africa and
Italy in World War II. As a junior officer, Bob James landed with the
Third Division near Casablanca, and later served with the 34th Division
through the North African and Tunisian campaigns, as well as in
amphibious landings at Solarno, Italy, the battle of Mt. Casino and
four crossings of the Volturno River. He was awarded the Bronze Star
medal for the Rome-Arno campaign and was given a battlefield promotion
to First Lieutenant.
After five years in World War II, he carried a mobilization
designation as part of his 30-year reserve duty with the Selective
Service Unit in Cedar Rapids that he proposed and was asked by General
Hershey to organize. In fact, Bob served longer than the usual 30 years
because General Hershey personally requested that he remain in active
Reserves until he reached the age of 60.
When Bob became ill, he continued to attend Reserve meetings. His
wife, Beth, now age 83, remembers Bob telling her on April 9, 1977,
Easter Sunday, ``I only have to live another six months.'' You see, he
was worried about Beth's welfare after he passed away. He knew he had
to turn 60 before he could enroll in the military's Survivor Benefit
Plan to provide for Beth after he passed away. Unfortunately, Bob was
not able to hold on. Lieutenant Colonel William R. James, USAR, died at
age 59\1/2\ in 1977, 5\1/2\ months before his 60th birthday.
Under the military's Survivor Benefit Plan, members who choose to
enroll in the plan have a small deduction taken from their retirement
benefit each month so that their spouses can continue to receive a
portion of the benefit after the member dies. When the Reserve
Component Survivor's Benefit Plan was established in 1972, members
could not sign up for survivors benefits until they became eligible for
the retirement benefit at age 60. Because of this arbitrary rule, and
because Bob died at 59\1/2\, Beth received no survivor's benefit even
though Bob served in the military for 35 years and had more than the
maximum number of points used in calculating retirement benefits.
Congress quickly became aware of this unjust consequence of the SBP
law. One year after Bob's death, Congress took action to correct the
unfair enrollment structure of the Reserve Component Survivor's Benefit
Plan. Legislation passed in 1978 allows Reserve Component members to
decide whether or how they will participate in the RCSBP when they are
notified of retirement eligibility, but not yet eligible to receive
retired pay, in almost all cases, many years before reaching age 60.
Had this legislation been enacted earlier, Bob could have provided for
Beth's security.
Unfortunately, when drafting the legislation in 1978, Congress forgot
about Beth and thousands of spouses like her whose husbands, despite
having served their country for at least 20 years, died before they
were allowed to enroll in the program to provide for their survivors.
Congress continued to ignore these widows until 1997. Led by my
colleague from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, Congress finally took
an important, but limited, step to recognize the ``Forgotten Widows,''
as Beth and the other spouses had come to be known. Congress created a
special annuity of $165 per month for the Forgotten Widows. For the
first time in 20 years, Beth James received some support from our
government in return for Bob James' service to his country.
While the annuity for certain military surviving spouses created in
1997 was certainly a step in the right direction, it is by no means
adequate. The forgotten widows currently receive about $185 per month,
after cost of living increases since 1997. In comparison, the monthly
SBP benefits average is about $580 for beneficiaries over 62 and the
monthly RC-SBP benefits average about $325 for beneficiaries over 62.
The current benefit for forgotten widows is low for two reasons. First,
the fiscal year 1998 legislation initially set the ACMSS benefit at the
minimum allowable amount a service member could elect, even though most
members participate at a higher level. Second, the 1997 legislation did
not take into account cost of living increases that the widows would
have received for more than two decades. If these widows had been
enrolled in these programs in 1972 at the minimum level, their monthly
benefit today would be approximately $434, rather than $185.
The Forgotten Widows' Benefit Equity Act of 2002 amends the Annuity
for Certain Military Surviving Spouses program established in the
fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Bill. It does not change the
eligibility criteria for the program. It directs the Department of
Defense to calculate each surviving spouse's annuity assuming that the
member had enrolled in the SBP before he died and had elected a base
amount equal to his retired pay. For almost all forgotten widows this
will be much more than the current annuity; if it is not, the survivor
will continue to receive the current benefit. This approach ensures
that the survivors' annuities take into account the members' rank and
years of service, and the past cost of living increases.
It is possible that some of the members would not have elected to
participate in the SBP, or would not have chosen a base amount of 100
percent of retired pay, and thus the survivors would have received a
lower benefit. However, they were never given that choice. And most
members today do

[[Page S5705]]

choose to participate at or near the highest level. In addition, this
legislation is not retroactive; the forgotten widows will not be
compensated for the thousands of dollars of benefits they would have
received for over 20 years.
These women, whose husbands devoted over 20 years of their lives to
defending our freedoms and some of whom received no pensions of their
own, were abandoned by our government for at least 20 years. While
Congress recognized our responsibility to them in 1998, we have not
fully met our obligation to provide them with an adequate, fair
benefit. We can and must do better. We must stand by our Memorial Day
promises to remember those who sacrificed for our country. I ask my
colleagues to do what is right and support passage of the Forgotten
Widow's Benefit Equity Act of 2002.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2632

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 ``Forgotten Widows' Benefit
Equity Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. EQUITABLE AMOUNT OF SURVIVOR ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN
MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

(a) Formula.--Subsection (b) of section 644 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-85; 10 U.S.C. 1448 note) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) An annuity payable under this section for the
surviving spouse of a deceased member shall be equal to the
higher of $186 per month, as adjusted from time to time under
paragraph (3), or the applicable amount as follows:
``(A) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased
member described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) who
died before September 21, 1972, the amount computed under the
SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if--
``(i) the SBP program had become effective on the day
before the date of the death of the deceased member; and
``(ii) the member had effectively elected to provide the
maximum survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under the
SBP program.
``(B) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased
member described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) who
died after September 20, 1972, the amount computed under the
SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if the
member had effectively elected to provide the maximum
survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under that program.
``(C) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased
member described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) who
died before October 1, 1978, the amount computed under the
SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if--
``(i) the SBP program, as in effect on October 1, 1978, had
become effective on the day before the date of the death of
the deceased member;
``(ii) the member had been 60 years of age on that day; and
``(iii) the member had effectively elected to provide the
maximum survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under the
SBP program.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``the annuity that
is payable under this section'' the following: ``in the
amount under paragraph (1) that is adjustable under this
paragraph''.
(b) SBP Program Defined.--Subsection (d) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The term `SBP program' means subchapter II of chapter
73 of title 10, United States Code.''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--(1) The amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on October
1, 2002.
(2) The Secretary concerned shall recompute under section
644 of Public Law 105-85 (as amended by subsections (a) and
(b)) the amounts of the survivor annuities that are payable
under such section for months beginning after the effective
date under paragraph (1).
(3) No benefit shall be payable for any period before the
effective date under paragraph (1) by reason of the
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2633. A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening,
maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available
for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing,
distributing, or using any controlling substance, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, over the past several years, I have
become increasingly concerned with the trafficking and use of the
newest fad drug, Ecstasy. All across the country, thousands of
teenagers are treated for overdoses and Ecstasy-related health problems
in emergency rooms each year. And recent statistics from the
Partnership for a Drug Free America show that teen use of Ecstasy has
increased 71 percent since 1999. Unless we mount a major education
campaign across schools and campuses nationwide, we may not be able to
counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless,
fashionable and hip.
Much of the abuse of Ecstasy and other club drugs happens at all-
night dance parties known as ``raves.'' A few months ago in the Caucus
on International Narcotics Control I held a hearing to take an in-depth
look at the phenomenon of these all-night dance parties and recent
efforts at the Federal, State and local levels to crack down on rave
promoters who allow rampant drug use at their events and do everything
they can to profit from it.
It is common for rave organizers to go to great lengths to portray
their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend.
They advertise them as alcohol-free parties and some even hire off-duty
police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that many
of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club
drugs,'' such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is
widespread.
But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their
events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their
promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the
party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as
the letters ``E'' or ``X,'' street terms for Ecstasy, or the term
``rollin,'' which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect,
promoting Ecstasy along with the rave.
By doing so, the promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger
kids. Many supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to
enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby
pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And party organizers
know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user
extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece.
Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to
buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down
room.''
Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are
``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused
in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can
even be fatal.
After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans
in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of
rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between
these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves
were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time
approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local
emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in
the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest
rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and
Ecstasy overdoses have been eliminated.
State and locals governments have begun to take important steps to
crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as
havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has
shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to
knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances
are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building
owner and building manager can be charged under Mayor Daley's law. The
State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony.
And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave
training classes'' to parents to educate them about the danger of raves
and the club drugs associated with them.
And at the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal
prosecutors have used the so called ``crack

[[Page S5706]]

house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rave promoters.
These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New
Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss
and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal
statute more precisely to the problem at hand. Today I am proposing
legislation, Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, or the
``RAVE'' Act, which will do just that. I am pleased to have Senator
Grassley as the lead cosponsor.
The bill tailors the crack house statute to address rave promoters'
actions more specifically so that Federal prosecutors will be able to
use it to prosecute individuals who allow rampant drug use at their
events and seek to profit from putting kids at risk. The legislation
also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric
acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to
examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect
the seriousness of offenses involving GHB.
But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to
prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs.
There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents,
teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers
of the drugs used and sold at raves. The RAVE Act directs funds to the
DEA for that purpose. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million
for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who
can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local
trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and
treatment programs.
It is the unfortunate truth that most raves are havens for illicit
drugs. Enacting the RAVE Act will help to prosecute the promoters who
seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and will
take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about
the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves.
I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague
Senator Biden today in introducing the RAVE Act, or Reducing America's
Vulnerability to Ecstacy Act of 2002. I believe this legislation will
help America's law enforcement go after the latest methods drug dealers
are using to push drugs on our kids. As drug dealers discover new drugs
and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal
system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this
legislation does that.
Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly
termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance
does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and
young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and
rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug
treatment and law enforcement experts say that Esctasy is readily
accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to
this drug or ignore the consequences of its use.
The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in
Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted
and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit
narcotics is Ecstasy, an especially popular club drug that is all too
often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an
illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects. In general,
Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases
the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition
that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that
happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to
cool off, a fact that some rave promoters take advantage of by charging
exorbitant fees for bottles of water. Too often, users collapse and die
because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-
term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward long-term problems such as
depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that
Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain.
The legislation that we introduce today is the result of information
gathered during a series of hearings held by the Caucus on
International Narcotics Control. It will help U.S. attorneys shut down
raves and prosecute rave promoters who knowingly maintain a place where
drugs are used, kept, or sold by expanding the existing statute that
allows the closure and prosecution of crack house operators.
The statute would only be applicable if the rave promoters or
location owners ``knowingly and intentionally'' either use or allow to
be used space for an event where drugs will be ``manufactured, stored,
distributed, or used.'' This legislation will not eliminate all raves.
Provided rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so
often advertized, as places for people to come dance in a safe,
alcohol-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this law.
But this legislation will give law enforcement the tools needed to shut
down those rave operators and promoters who use raves as a cover to
sell drugs. Innocent owners or proprietors will remain exempt from
prosecution.
This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future
rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at
risk. Esctasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must
confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but
education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in
supporting the RAVE Act, and help us work towards its quick passenge.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 2638. A bill to encourage health care facilities, group health
plans, and health insurance issuers to reduce administrative costs, and
to improve access, convenience, quality, and safety, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Efficiency
in Health Care, eHealth Care, Act. The time is long overdue to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of America's antiquated healthcare
information technology systems. We can achieve large cost savings and
improve patient care by bringing the nation's health care systems into
the information age.
The eHealth Care Act provides modern standards for financial
transactions such as billing and claims processing that can only be met
by adoption of the same kind of high volume, speedy, cost-efficient
technology that has dramatically lowered administrative costs in other
industries. The new standards will be coupled with grants to health
care providers to assist them in upgrading their information
technologies to meet these new demands.
Estimates are that administrative costs currently represent 20 to 30
percent of health care spending, or up to $420 billion each year. While
other industries are making full use of available information
technology, health care has been a very slow adopter. And this bill
will reduce health care administration by as much as $300 billion a
year, enough to provide universal health coverage for every American
many times over.
The sad fact is that processing a single health care transaction can
cost as much as 25 dollars. Other industries have drastically reduced
administrative costs by using modern information technology. Banks and
brokerages have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction
using modern technology. Health care remains one of the few industries
clinging to antiquated 20th century technology while the rest of the
Nation's businesses have moved into the 21st century. This bill will
provide the tools for health care systems to make a great leap forward
by using new technologies to cut costs.
Recent breakthroughs in technology not only can save money, but also
can provide more timely and accurate billing and claims transactions.
Today, only 10 or 15 percent of all patient charts are available
electronically, and it costs about $9 each and every time a doctor has
to pull a patient's chart. Even worse, despite the high cost, the
patient's chart is often incomplete. Through advances in technology,
doctors should be able to access complete patient records at a huge
cost saving. That is not only more efficient care, it is better care.
Today, 30 percent of doctor's claims leave the physician's office
with errors, and nearly 15 percent get lost. Manual procedures for
handling referrals, eligibility, treatment authorizations, and

[[Page S5707]]

explanations of benefits can add anywhere from $10 to $85 per
transaction. In fact, estimates are that $250 billion is spent each
year on medical claims paperwork. Paper claims processing amounts to
$28,000 per physician and $12.7 billion for all physicians each year.
Conducting these transactions online could cut that figure tenfold. We
are clearly not getting much bang for our buck. The eHealth Care Act
will provide the standards needed for health plans, insurers,
providers, and patients to realize both the cost savings and better
billing and claims transactions.
But the cost to the health care system is not just monetary. The
eHealth Care bill will also set standards for physicians ordering
prescription medications. Medication errors are responsible for over
7,000 deaths annually, but doctors currently write only 1 percent of
prescriptions electronically. By requiring adoption of computerized
systems for writing prescriptions, errors due to mistaken prescriptions
or illegible handwriting will be reduced. There is no excuse for
patients to be harmed and even die when we have the technology to save
them.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to
get this very important legislation passed.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 2639. A bill to provide health benefits for workers and their
families; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Health Care
for Working Families Act, a bill that will make the basic human right
to health care a reality for millions of working Americans and their
families.
The tragedy of September 11 created a special obligation to address
the injustices that have festered for far too long within our national
family. The brave passengers of Flight 93 fought and defied the
terrorists and saved the lives of thousands. Construction and health
workers braved the treacherous fire and debris to rescue survivors and
recover the remains of those who lost their lives. Police and
firefighters, and ordinary citizens, gave their lives so that others
might live. And thousands of Americans all over the country lined up to
donate blood to help the victims.
I believe that the most enduring legacy of the September 11 attacks
is a new sense of community among all Americans. A nation that has
united to battle a terrorist threat from abroad can also unite to
vanquish the conditions here at home that curtail the opportunities and
sadden the lives of so many of our fellow citizens. Just as the British
people came together after World War II to provide health care for all
citizens of the United Kingdom, we join hands after September 11 to
guarantee all citizens of the United States the protection and
opportunity that should be their birthright. There is no area where
action is more urgently needed than health care.
Americans are rightly proud to be at the forefront of medical and
scientific advancement. In the past year, we successfully mapped the
human genome. We developed new pharmaceuticals to target specific
cancers. We have seen the promise stem cell research gives to millions
suffering from chronic diseases. We clearly recognize the value of
scientific achievement and have always been supportive of the great
institutions and individuals that are driving our progress.
But our successes in the science of medicine must not blind us to the
great failure of our health care system, the failure to provide
affordable, quality health insurance to all our people. We lead the
world in medical research. We lead the world in our capacity to cure
and treat the most complex and deadly illnesses. But we lag behind
every country in the industrial world in guaranteeing all our people
access to the best medical care we can offer. And today we face another
health care crisis as the number of the uninsured has begun to rise and
rise rapidly.
Health care is not just another commodity. It is not a gift to be
rationed based on the ability to pay. The state of a family's health
should not be determined by the size of a family's wealth.
Yet, thirty-nine million Americans now have no health insurance at
all. Over the course of a year, 30 million more will lack coverage for
an extended period. It is unacceptable that any American is uninsured.
It is shameful that thirty-nine million Americans are uninsured. And it
is intolerable that the number of uninsured is now rising again and, if
we do nothing, could reach more than 52 million by the end of the
decade.
Who are the 39 million uninsured Americans who must go without the
health care they need because they must do without the health insurance
they deserve? Over 80 percent are members of working families. They are
grocery baggers, car mechanics, construction workers. They are factory
workers, nurses and nurses aides, secretaries and the self-employed.
They are child care workers and waiters and cooks. They are teachers
and social workers. They are veterans. They are people who wake up
every morning and go to work. They work hard 40 hours a week and fifty-
two weeks a year, but all their hard work cannot buy them the health
insurance they need to protect themselves and their families, because
they can't afford it and their employers don't provide it.
They play by the rules. They stand by their families and their
country. But when it comes to health insurance, America has let them
down.
A recent report by the Institute of Medicine lays out the stark
result of America's failure to provide health insurance. Cancer,
stroke, heart disease, leukemia, AIDS, and other serious illnesses know
nothing about insurance, or economic class or race or creed. They can
strike anyone equally. And when they do, the uninsured are left out and
left behind. In hospital or out, young or old, black or white, the
uninsured receive less care, suffer more pain, and die at higher rates
than those who are insured.
One-third of uninsured Americans will simply go without care when
they get sick instead of seeking medical attention. They stop and ask
themselves whether their symptoms or their childrens symptoms are truly
worth a doctor visit. Is this cough just a cold or could it be strep
throat? Is this pain in my bones indicative of something more serious
or will it eventually go away if I ignore it? Millions of families are
forced to decide between their health and other necessities of life.
They ration health care for themselves and their children, and too
often they pay a terrible price.
Every year, 8 million uninsured Americans fail to take their
medications because they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions.
300,000 children with asthma never get treated by a doctor. Uninsured
women diagnosed with breast cancer are 50 percent more likely to die
from the disease because their cancer is diagnosed later. 32,000
Americans with heart disease go without life-saving bypass surgery or
angioplasty. The chilling bottom line is that Americans without health
insurance are one-quarter more likely to die prematurely solely because
they lack coverage.
The legislation I am introducing today is a major step forward toward
the day when all Americans will enjoy the health insurance that should
be their birthright This measure will require every firm with more than
100 workers to provide health insurance coverage for employees and
their dependents. This coverage must be as good as the coverage now
provided for Federal employees. If good health insurance coverage is
available to every member of the Senate, to every member of the House,
and to the President of the United States, it ought to be available to
every other American too.
This measure alone would assure coverage for more than a third of
today's uninsured workers.
For generations we have required employers to contribute to Social
Security and then to Medicare. We have required them to pay a minimum
wage, and contribute to unemployment insurance. Now it is time to say,
at least for large firms, that they also have an obligation to
contribute to the cost of health insurance for their employees. The
vast majority of large businesses already do so, and the rest should
fulfill that obligation, too.
The legislation I am introducing is supported by more than 100
health, labor, elderly, disability, church, and family groups. It
deserves the support of Congress as the single most important way to
move America closer to the goal of health care for all.

[[Page S5708]]

This legislation is an important first step toward the day when the
fundamental right to health care will be a reality for every American.
But it is only a first step. Later this year, after broad consultation
with affected groups, I will introduce legislation to assure that all
Americans, wherever they work, wherever they live, have the quality,
affordable health insurance coverage they deserve.
Health care is a defining test of our commitment and our national
character. The American people have shown that they are ready for great
missions. They are the creators of the new spirit of September 11. Now,
we in public life must live up to the standards they have set.
We must strive to do what is best, in health and education as well as
national defense, and we must measure our success by what we accomplish
not just for one political party or another, not for this or that
interest group, but for America and its enduring ideal of liberty and
justice for all.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2640. A bill to provide for adequate school facilities in Yosemite
National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this
legislation today to authorize the Interior Department to provide
critical services to three national parks in my home State of
California.
With the passage of this bill, Yosemite, Manzanar, and Golden Gate
National Parks will receive the Federal support needed to continue to
offer a broad range of services to the millions of tourists and
Californians who visit these national treasures each year.
This bill meets four distinct needs in these parks: it authorizes the
Interior Secretary to designate Federal emergency funds to small
schools in Yosemite National Park, allows the Yosemite Area Regional
Transportation System, YARTS, to continue operating and extends the
Manzanar and Golden Gate National Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory
Commissions for ten more years.
The first component of this bill provides critical funds to three
small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park.
Approximately 126 children of park service employees are taught in
the quaint one-room buildings of Wawoma, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley
elementary schools. The remote location of these schools, along with
their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education,
have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of
$241,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational
services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental
instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside
of the Park.
In light of these facts, this bill allows the Interior Secretary to
assist these schools if their combined state funding falls below
$75,000. It also clarifies how funds will be used by limiting
allocations to providing general upkeep, maintenance, and classroom
instruction.
Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot
federal funds for the continuing operation of the Yosemite Area
Regional Transportation System, YARTS.
YARTS is a bus service that gives visitors the option of taking a
free shuttle through Yosemite National Park instead of driving on their
own. Since it began operating in 2000, this service has played a
crucial role in improving visitor accessibility to the Park's
attractions, alleviating traffic congestion on access roads and
reducing the amount of air pollution emitted by incoming cars.
The Federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to
offer services on a temporary basis expired in May and since then,
YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not
discontinued.
Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their
mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by
taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary
assistance that this service needs.
The last component of this bill will extend the advisory commissions
of the Manzanar Historic Site and Golden Gate National Recreation Area
for ten more years.
Both of these commissions have active committees that represent a
wide range of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor
enthusiasts. They provide a vital communications link between the Park
Service and the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that
these national sites have to offer. Without these commissions, the Park
Service would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and
attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that they
serve.
I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park
Service decisions. I believe that these commissions have been essential
in ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow
community participation in its decision making process, particularly
when it comes to contentious issues.
California's national parks are truly invaluable, each one of the
parks that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and
residents to enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This
legislation mark the beginning of a process that I hope will result in
the Park Service and the community working together not only to protect
the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities. I
invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Dayton, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 2641. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce
the health risks posed by asbestos-containing products; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I rise and join my colleagues
Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, and Wellstone in introducing
legislation to improve protections for workers and consumers against a
known carcinogen: asbestos. The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in
America Act of 2002 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, to ban the substance by 2005.
Most Americans believe that asbestos has already been banned. People
have this misconception in part because EPA tried to ban it in 1989,
and the ban was well publicized. But what wasn't so publicized was the
fact that in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's
ban, and the first Bush Administration didn't appeal the decision to
the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing
ones were not.
People also believe asbestos has been banned because the mineral has
been heavily regulated, and some uses are now prohibited. But the
sweeping ban that EPA worked for ten years to put in place never went
into effect. As a result, products such as asbestos clothing, pipeline
wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle,
disc brake pads, gaskets and roof coatings still contain asbestos
today. Had EPA's ban gone into effect, these products would no longer
be allowed to contain this deadly substance.
This morning I met with three people who wish there had been better
protections in place against the dangers of asbestos years ago. I had
the honor of meeting Mrs. Susan Vento, the wife of the beloved
Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota who died from a disease caused
by asbestos in October of 2000 at the age of 60. Representative Vento
was exposed to asbestos when he worked in factories in St. Paul during
college.
I also had the privilege of meeting Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son
of the legendary Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt who also died in 2000 of
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal
organs caused by asbestos. Like so many others who served in the Navy,
Admiral Zumwalt was exposed to asbestos during his military service.
In addition, I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Brian Harvey, a former
English teacher from Washington State University and a survivor of the
deadly disease. Like Congressman Vento, Mr. Harvey was exposed to
asbestos working summers during college, only Mr. Harvey worked in a
timber mill in Shelton, WA instead of in factories in St. Paul. Mr.
Harvey received aggressive treatment from the University of

[[Page S5709]]

Washington, and his triumph over the deadly disease offers all of us
hope.
You don't have to tell Mrs. Vento, Lt. Colonel Zumwalt or Mr. Harvey
that asbestos can kill, or that it hasn't been banned. Unfortunately,
they already know about asbestos.
I have also heard from other Washington State residents about the
devastating effects that asbestos exposure can have on people's lives.
I'd like to take a moment to tell you about an e-mail I received from
two of my constituents, Mr. Charles Barber and his wife, Ms. Karen
Mirante, who live in Seattle. They wrote to me last year to express
support for my efforts on asbestos. Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had just
recently learned that both of their fathers were diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the same deadly disease that took the lives of
Congressman Vento and Admiral Zumwalt.
Mr. Barber's father, Rudolph ``Rudy'' Barber, was a World War II
veteran who worked at Todd shipyards. Then he worked for Boeing for 35
years building airplanes. According to his son, when Rudy served on a
troopship during the war he recalled sleeping in a bunk under asbestos-
coated pipes which flaked so badly that he had to shake out his
sleeping bag every morning.
A few years after retiring from Boeing, Rudy Barber started to
develop breathing problems. First he was told by one doctor that his
disease could be cured with surgery, but it wasn't. After undergoing
surgery, another doctor diagnosed him with mesothelioma. After a year
and a half of suffering and of enduring repeated radiation and
chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Barber died on April 28, 2002. According
to his family, he never complained and continued to help his family and
neighbors with maintenance and farm work for as long as he could.
Karen Mirante's father, Fred Mirante, was a retired truck driver who
was active in labor issues. While the source of Mr. Mirante's exposure
to asbestos is unknown, it is likely that he breathed in asbestos from
brakes when he worked on cars. After receiving experimental therapies
for the disease and after a two and one-half year battle, he died on
June 4, 2002. June 16, last Sunday, was the first Father's Day that Mr.
Barber and Ms. Mirante had to spend without their cherished, hard-
working dads.
I mention Bruce Vento, Admiral Zumwalt, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Barber and
Mr. Mirante to demonstrate that asbestos disease strikes all different
types of people in different professions who were exposed to asbestos
at some point in their lives. Asbestos knows no boundaries. It is still
in thousands of schools and buildings throughout the country, and is
still being used in some consumer products.
I first became interested in this issue because, like most people, I
thought asbestos had been banned. But in 1999, the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer starting running stories about a disturbing trend in the
small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there suffer from high
rates of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. These findings
prompted Montana Senator Max Baucus to ask EPA to investigate. The
agency found that the vermiculite mine near Libby, which operated from
the 1920s until 1990, is full of tremolite asbestos. EPA is still
working to clean up Libby, which is now a Superfund site.
W.R. Grace, the company which ran the mine, had evidence of the
harmful health effects of its product, but did not warn workers, town
residents or consumers. Instead, the product was shipped to over 300
sites nationally for processing and then was used to make products such
as home insulation and soil additives. EPA and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, have determined that 22 sites
are still contaminated today, including one in Spokane, WA.

At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed, waste rock
left over from the expansion process was given away for free, and
people used it in their yards, driveways and gardens. During its
investigation into sites around the country which processed vermiculite
from Libby, ATSDR discovered a picture taken of two darling little
boys, Justin and Tim Jorgensen, climbing on waste rock given out by
Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, MN sometime in the late 1970s.
According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10
percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos
concentrations 135 times higher than the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's current standard for workers. Thankfully, neither
Justin nor Tim has shown any signs of disease, but their risks of
developing asbestos diseases, which have latency periods of 15 to 40
years, are increased from their childhood exposures.
People may still today be exposing themselves to harmful amounts of
asbestos in vermiculite. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may
have insulation made with harmful minerals from Libby. And EPA has also
tested agricultural products, soil conditioners and fertilizers, made
with vermiculite, and determined that some workers may have been
exposed to dangerous concentrations of tremolite asbestos.
As I learned more about Libby, and how asbestos has ended up in
products by accident, I was shocked to learn that asbestos is still
being used in products on purpose. While some specific uses have been
banned, the EPA's more sweeping ban was never put into effect because
of an asbestos industry backed lawsuit. As a result, new uses of
asbestos were banned, but most existing ones were not. Asbestos is
still used today to make roofing products, gaskets, brakes and other
products. In 2001 the U.S. consumed 13,000 metric tons of it. Asbestos
is still entering the product stream in this country, despite its known
dangers to human health.
In contrast, asbestos has been banned in these 20 countries:
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Now
it is time for the United States to ban asbestos, too. According to
EPA, 27 million Americans had significant exposure to the material on
the job between 1940 and 1980. It is time for the sad legacy of
asbestos disease we have witnessed during the 20th century to come to
an end. I want to ensure our government does all it can to minimize
future suffering and death caused by this substance.
That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of
2002. The legislation has four main parts. First and foremost, this
bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 13 years
ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The bill requires EPA to ban it
by 2005. Like the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file
for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material
available: if there is no substitute material available and EPA
determines the exemption won't pose an unreasonable risk of injury to
public health or the environment.
Second, the bill requires EPA to conduct a pubic education campaign
about the risks of asbestos products. Within 6 months of passage, the
EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will begin educating
people about how to safely handle insulation made with vermiculite. I
believe the government needs to warn people that their insulation, if
made with vermiculite, may be contaminated with asbestos. Home owners
and workers may be unknowingly exposing themselves to asbestos when
they conduct routine maintenance near this insulation. While EPA has
agreed to remove vermiculite insulation from homes in Libby, the agency
currently has no plans to do this nation-wide.
The legislation also requires EPA to conduct a survey to determine
which foreign and domestic products being consumed in the United States
today have been made with asbestos. There is no solid, up-to-date
information about which products contain it, although EPA has estimated
that as many as 3,000 products still do.
The survey will provide the foundation for a broader education
campaign so consumers and workers will know how to handle as safely as
possible asbestos products that were purchased before the ban goes into
effect.
Third, the legislation requires funding to improve treatment for
asbestos diseases. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, working through the National Institutes of Health, to
``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support
of research on diseases caused

[[Page S5710]]

by exposure to asbestos.'' The Ban Asbestos in America Act requires the
creation of a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the
disease. If there had been an asbestos disease tracking system in
place, public health officials would have detected the health problems
in Libby much sooner, and may have saved lives.
In addition, the bill authorizes funding for 7 mesothelioma treatment
centers nationwide to improve treatments for and awareness of this
fatal cancer. As was the case with Mr. Harvey, who received treatment
from the University of Washington, early detection and proper treatment
make the difference between life and death. This bill authorizes
$500,000 for each center for five years. This means more mesothelioma
patients will receive treatments that can prolong their lives.
In response to the EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana,
EPA committed to create a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and other
durable fibers. However, because of insufficient resources, EPA has now
narrowed the focus of the Panel to address issues surrounding only the
six regulated forms of asbestos. The bill requires EPA to expand its
Blue Ribbon Panel on Asbestos to address issues beyond those
surrounding the six regulated forms of asbestos.
The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 expands the Blue Ribbon
Panel's scope to include nonasbestiform asbestos and other durable
fibers. The Panel shall include participation by the Department of
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission. In its response to the Inspector General,
EPA was originally planning for the Panel to address implementation of
and grant programs under Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act,
creation of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Pollutants
under the Clean Air Act for contaminant asbestos, and other legislative
and regulatory options for protecting public health.
The Administration also promised for the Panel to review the
feasibility of establishing a durable fibers testing program within
EPA, options to improve protections against exposure to asbestos in
asbestos-containing products in buildings, and public education. The
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 requires the Panel to address these
subjects as EPA originally planned.
The legislation also requires the Panel to explore the need to
establish across federal agencies a uniform asbestos standard and a
protocol for detecting and measuring asbestos. Currently, asbestos is
regulated under at least 11 statutes. There are different standards
within EPA and across federal agencies, and agencies rely on different
protocols to detect and measure the substance. This has led to
widespread confusion for the public, for example, in 2000, there were
reports that there was asbestos in crayons. There has also been
confusion surrounding asbestos exposure in New York City following the
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. And in Libby, the EPA
Inspector General's report cited split jurisdiction and multiple
standards as one of the reasons EPA didn't do a better job of
protecting the people of Libby from exposure to asbestos in the first
place.
The Blue Ribbon Panel will also review the current state of the
science on the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other
durable fibers, whether the current definition of asbestos containing
material should be modified throughout the Code of Federal Regulations,
and current research on and technologies for disposal of asbestos-
containing products and contaminant asbestos products. The bill leaves
up to the discretion of the Panel whether it will expand its scope to
include manmade fibers, such as ceramic and carbon fibers. The Blue
Ribbon Panel's recommendations are due 2 years after enactment of the
Act.
Our Federal agencies need to do a better job of coordinating and
working together on asbestos, which will mean less confusion for the
public and improved protection for everyone.
The toll that asbestos has taken on people's lives in this country is
staggering. And while Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, Wellstone, and
I continue to mourn the loss of Congressman Bruce Vento, Admiral Elmo
Zumwalt, more than 200 people from Libby and thousands of others, today
our message is one of hope.
Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build
support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this
legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer
people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those
who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong
and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban
Asbestos in America Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2641

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 ``Ban Asbestos in America Act
of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency has classified asbestos as a category A human
carcinogen, the highest cancer hazard classification for a
substance;
(2) there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos;
(3)(A) in hearings before Congress in the early 1970s, the
example of asbestos was used to justify the need for
comprehensive legislation on toxic substances; and
(B) in 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
(4) in 1989, the Administrator promulgated final
regulations under title II of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq.) to phase out asbestos in
consumer products by 1997;
(5) in 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit overturned the regulations, and the Administrator did
not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court;
(6) as a result, while new uses of asbestos were banned,
asbestos is still being used in some consumer and industrial
products in the United States;
(7) available evidence suggests that--
(A) imports of some types of asbestos-containing products
may be increasing; and
(B) some of those products are imported from foreign
countries in which asbestos is poorly regulated;
(8) many people in the United States incorrectly believe
that--
(A) asbestos has been banned in the United States; and
(B) there is no risk of exposure to asbestos through the
use of new commercial products;
(9) asbestos has been banned in Argentina, Austria,
Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom;
(10) asbestos will be banned throughout the European Union
in 2005;
(11) the World Trade Organization recently upheld the right
of France to ban asbestos, with the United States Trade
Representative filing a brief in support of the right of
France to ban asbestos;
(12) the 1999 brief by the United States Trade
Representative stated, ``In the view of the United States,
chrysotile asbestos is a toxic material that presents a
serious risk to human health.'';
(13) people in the United States have been exposed to
harmful levels of asbestos as a contaminant of other
minerals;
(14) in the town of Libby, Montana, workers and residents
have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos for
generations because of mining operations at the W.R. Grace
vermiculite mine located in that town;
(15) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
found that over a 20-year period, ``mortality in Libby
resulting from asbestosis was approximately 40 to 60 times
higher than expected. Mesothelioma mortality was also
elevated.'';
(16)(A) in response to this crisis, in January 2002, the
Governor of Montana requested that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency designate Libby as a
Superfund site; and
(B) the Administrator is in the process of placing Libby on
the National Priorities List;
(17)(A) vermiculite from Libby was shipped for processing
to 42 States; and
(B) Federal agencies are investigating potential harmful
exposures to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite at sites
throughout the United States; and
(18) although it is impracticable to ban asbestos entirely
because asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral in the
environment and occurs in several deposits throughout the
United States, Congress needs to do more to protect the
public from exposure to asbestos.

SEC. 3. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--Title II of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by inserting before section 201 (15 U.S.C. 2641) the
following:

[[Page S5711]]

``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';

and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``Subtitle B--Asbestos-Containing Products

``SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.

``In this subtitle:
``(1) Asbestos-containing product.--The term `asbestos-
containing product' means any product (including any part) to
which asbestos is deliberately or knowingly added or in which
asbestos is deliberately or knowingly used in any
concentration.
``(2) Contaminant-asbestos product.--The term `contaminant-
asbestos product' means any product that contains asbestos as
a contaminant of any mineral or other substance, in any
concentration.
``(3) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means--
``(A) any individual;
``(B) any corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, joint venture, sole proprietorship, or other
for-profit or nonprofit business entity (including any
manufacturer, importer, distributor, or processor);
``(C) any Federal, State, or local department, agency, or
instrumentality; and
``(D) any interstate body.
``(4) Distribute in commerce.--
``(A) In general.--The term `distribute in commerce' has
the meaning given the term in section 3.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `distribute in commerce' does
not include--
``(i) an action taken with respect to an asbestos-
containing product in connection with the end use of the
asbestos-containing product by a covered person that is an
end user; or
``(ii) distribution of an asbestos-containing product by a
covered person solely for the purpose of disposal of the
asbestos-containing product.
``(5) Durable fiber.--
``(A) In general.--The term `durable fiber' means a
silicate fiber that--
``(i) occurs naturally in the environment; and
``(ii) is similar to asbestos in--

``(I) resistance to dissolution;
``(II) leaching; and
``(III) other physical or chemical processes expected from
contact with lung cells and fluids.

``(B) Inclusions.--The term `durable fiber' includes--
``(i) richterite;
``(ii) winchite;
``(iii) erionite; and
``(iv) nonasbestiform varieties of chrysotile, crocidolite,
amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite.
``(6) Fiber.--The term `fiber' means an acicular single
crystal or similarly elongated polycrystalline aggregate
particle with a length to width ratio of 3 to 1 or greater.

``SEC. 222. PANEL ON ASBESTOS AND OTHER DURABLE FIBERS.

``(a) Panel.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall continue the
panel (established by the Administrator and in existence on
the date of enactment of this subtitle) to study asbestos and
other durable fibers.
``(2) Participation.--The Secretary of Labor, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, and the Chairman of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission shall participate in the
activities of the panel.
``(b) Issues.--The panel shall study and, not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this section, provide
the Administrator recommendations for, public education
programs relating to--
``(1) the need to establish, for use by all Federal
agencies--
``(A) a uniform asbestos exposure standard; and
``(B) a protocol for measuring and detecting asbestos;
``(2) the current state of the science relating to the
human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other
durable fibers;
``(3) implementation of subtitle A;
``(4) grant programs under subtitle A;
``(5) revisions to the national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants promulgated under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
``(6) legislative and regulatory options for improving
consumer and worker protections against harmful health
effects of exposure to asbestos and durable fibers;
``(7) whether the definition of asbestos-containing
material, meaning any material that contains more than 1
percent asbestos by weight, should be modified throughout the
Code of Federal Regulations;
``(8) the feasibility of establishing a durable fibers
testing program;
``(9) options to improve protections against exposure to
asbestos from asbestos-containing products in buildings;
``(10) current research on and technologies for disposal of
asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos
products; and
``(11) at the option of the panel, the effects on human
health that may result from exposure to ceramic, carbon, and
other manmade fibers.

``SEC. 223. STUDY OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS AND
CONTAMINANT-ASBESTOS PRODUCTS.

``(a) In General.--In consultation with the Secretary of
Labor, the Chairman of the International Trade Commission,
the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health,
the Administrator shall conduct a study on the status of the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, ownership,
importation, and disposal of asbestos-containing products and
contaminant-asbestos products in the United States.
``(b) Issues.--In conducting the study, the Administrator
shall examine--
``(1) how consumers, workers, and businesses use asbestos-
containing products and contaminant-asbestos products that
are entering commerce as of the date of enactment of this
subtitle; and
``(2) whether consumers and workers are being exposed to
unhealthful levels of asbestos through exposure to products
described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the
results of the study.

``SEC. 224. PROHIBITION ON ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS.

``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the
Administrator shall promulgate--
``(1) not later than January 1, 2004, proposed regulations
that prohibit covered persons from manufacturing, processing,
or distributing in commerce asbestos-containing products; and
``(2) not later than January 1, 2005, final regulations
that prohibit covered persons from manufacturing, processing,
or distributing in commerce asbestos-containing products.
``(b) Exemptions.--
``(1) In general.--Any person may petition the
Administrator for, and the Administrator may grant an
exemption from the requirements of subsection (a) if the
Administrator determines that--
``(A) the exemption would not result in an unreasonable
risk of injury to public health or the environment; and
``(B) the person has made good faith efforts to develop a
substance, or identify a mineral, that--
``(i) does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
public health or the environment; and
``(ii) may be substituted for an asbestos-containing
product.
``(2) Terms and conditions.--An exemption granted under
this subsection shall be in effect for such period (not to
exceed 1 year) and subject to such terms and conditions as
the Administrator may prescribe.
``(c) Inventory.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), each covered
person (other than an individual) that possesses an asbestos-
containing product that is subject to the prohibition
established under this section shall establish an inventory
of the asbestos-containing product possessed by the covered
person as of January 1, 2005.
``(2) Contents.--The inventory of a covered person subject
to paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) be in writing; and
``(B) include--
``(i) the type of each asbestos-containing product
possessed by the covered person;
``(ii) the number of product units of each asbestos-
containing product in the inventory of the covered person;
and
``(iii) the location of the product units.
``(3) Records.--The information in an inventory of a
covered person shall be maintained for a period of not less
than 3 years.
``(4) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the application
of this subsection to an end user that possesses a de minimis
quantity of an asbestos-containing product, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(d) Disposal.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later than June 1, 2005, each covered person that possesses
an asbestos-containing product that is subject to the
prohibition established under this section shall dispose of
the asbestos-containing product, by a means that is in
compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements.
``(2) Exemption.--Nothing in paragraph (1)--
``(A) applies to an asbestos-containing product that--
``(i) is no longer in the stream of commerce; or
``(ii) is in the possession of an end user; or
``(B) requires that an asbestos-containing product
described in subparagraph (A) be removed or replaced.

``SEC. 225. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--Not later than March 1, 2005, and
subject to subsection (c), in consultation with the Chairman
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Secretary
of Labor, the Administrator shall establish a program to
increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-
containing products and contaminant-asbestos products in the
marketplace, including homes and workplaces.
``(b) Greatest Risks.--In establishing the program, the
Administrator shall--
``(1) base the program on the results of the study
conducted under section 223;
``(2) give priority to asbestos-containing products and
contaminant-asbestos products used by consumers and workers
that pose the greatest risk of injury to human health; and
``(3) at the option of the Administrator on receipt of a
recommendation from the panel, include in the program the
conduct of projects and activities to increase public
awareness of the effects on human health that may result from
exposure to--
``(A) durable fibers; and
``(B) ceramic, carbon, and other manmade fibers.

[[Page S5712]]

``(c) Minimal Risks.--If the Administrator determines, on
the basis of the study conducted under section 223, that
asbestos-containing products used by consumers and workers do
not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, the
Administrator shall not be required to conduct a program
under this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
(b) Vermiculite Insulation.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission shall begin a national campaign to educate
consumers concerning--
(1) the dangers of vermiculite insulation that may be
contaminated with asbestos; and
(2) measures that homeowners and business owners can take
to protect against those dangers.

SEC. 4. ASBESTOS-CAUSED DISEASES.

Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``SEC. 417D. RESEARCH ON ASBESTOS-CAUSED DISEASES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of NIH and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall expand, intensify, and
coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research
on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, particularly
mesothelioma, asbestosis, and pleural injuries.
``(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section--
``(1) through the Director of NIH and the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
``(2) in collaboration with the Administrator of the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the head of any
other agency that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(c) Registry.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, in cooperation with the
Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health and the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, shall establish a National
Mesothelioma Registry.
``(2) Contents.--The Registry shall contain information on
diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, particularly
mesothelioma.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts made available for the purposes described in
subsection (a) under other law, there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section such sums as are
necessary for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year
thereafter.

``SEC. 417E. MESOTHELIOMA TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

``(a) Funding.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of NIH and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, shall provide not to exceed $500,000
for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to each
institution described in subsection (b) to strengthen the
mesothelioma treatment programs carried out at those
institutions.
``(b) Institutions.--The institutions described in this
subsection are the following:
``(1) The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital, New York, New
York.
``(2) The Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State
University, Detroit, Michigan.
``(3) The University of California at Los Angeles Medical
School, Los Angeles, California.
``(4) The University of Chicago Cancer Research Center,
Chicago, Illinois.
``(5) The University of Pennsylvania Hospital,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
``(6) The University of Texas, through the M.D. Anderson
Cancer Research Center Houston, Texas.
``(7) The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

The table of contents in section 1 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. prec. 2601) is amended--
(1) by inserting before the item relating to section 201
the following:

``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';

and
(2) by adding at the end of the items relating to title II
the following:

``Subtitle B--Asbestos-Containing Products

``Sec. 221. Definitions.
``Sec. 222. Panel on asbestos and other durable fibers.
``Sec. 223. Study of asbestos-containing products and contaminant-
asbestos products.
``Sec. 224. Prohibition on asbestos-containing products.
``Sec. 225. Public education program.''.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 2642. A bill to require background checks of alien flight school
applicants without regard to the maximum certificated weight of the
aircraft for which they seek training, and to require a report on the
effectiveness of the requirement; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, in the wake of the September
11 terrorist attacks, it was discovered that many of the hijackers
received flight training in the United States. In addition, Zacarias
Moussaoui, the alleged ``20th hijacker,'' was apprehended by
investigators in Minnesota after accounts that he was only interested
in learning to fly, not land, an airplane.
Section 113 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act requires
background checks of all foreign flight school applicants seeking
training to operate aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or more. While this
provision should help ensure that events like the September 11 attacks
are not performed by U.S.-trained pilots using hijacked jets in the
future, it does nothing to prevent different types of potential attacks
against our domestic security.
The FBI recently issued a terrorism warning indication that small
planes might be used to carry out attacks. We need to ensure that we
are not training terrorists to perform these activities. We can't allow
critical warnings to go unheeded.
Today I am introducing legislation that would close this dangerous
loophole by requiring background checks on all foreign applicants to
U.S. flight schools, regardless of the aircraft on which they plan to
train. I am joined in this effort by Senators Thomas, Feinstein, and
Bayh, and I look forward to the Senate's prompt consideration of 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. 2642

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

SECTION 1. FLIGHT SCHOOL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Section 44939(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``having a maximum certificated takeoff
weight of 12,500 pounds or more''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF BACKGROUND CHECK
REQUIREMENT.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General shall
submit a joint report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure evaluating the
effectiveness of activities conducted under section 44939 of
title 49, United States Code.

____________________