Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10361-S10388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 3089. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of
Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal
trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman
Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill, H.R. 4723, in the
House. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation will help to
build stronger economic ties between the United States and Ukraine.
The cold war era Jackson-Vanik immigration restrictions that deny
most favored nation trade status to imports from former Soviet-Block
countries are outdated and when applied to Ukraine, inappropriate.
Those restrictions were established as a tool to pressure Communist
nations to allow their people to freely emigrate in exchange for
favorable trade treatment by the United States.
Ukraine does allow it citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate.
It has met the Jackson-Vanik test. In fact, Ukraine has been found to
be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under
the Jackson-Vanik law. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the
Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a
bilateral trade agreement went into effect. It is time the United
States recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik
restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent
basis. Our bill does this as well as addressing traditional Jackson-
Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of
property, and human rights. It also deals with the important trade
issues that must be considered when granting a country permanent normal
trade relations, PNTR, such as making progress toward World Trade
Organization, WTO, accession and tariff and excise tax reductions.
Since reestablishing independence in 1991, Ukraine has taken
important steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a
free-market economy. As a member state of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Ukraine is committed to developing a
system of governance in accordance with the principles regarding human
rights and humanitarian affairs that are set forth in the Final Act of
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki
Final Act. I believe that more needs to be done to reform Ukraine's
economy and legal structures, but I believe that the hope for PNTR and
thus PNTR itself, can encourage these reforms.
Drawing Ukraine into normal trade relations should lead Ukraine to
achieve greater market reform and continue its commitment to
safeguarding religious liberty and enforcing laws to combat
discrimination as well as expand on the restitution of religious and
communal properties. Also, PNTR status will hopefully do more than
increase bilateral trade between the United States and Ukraine and
encourage increased international investment in Ukraine. Hopefully it
will also stimulate the reform we all want and Ukraine deserves on
their way to achieving a mature nation statehood.
Ukraine is important to U.S. strategic interests and objectives in
Central and Eastern Europe and has participated with the United States
in its peacekeeping operations in Europe and has provided important
cooperation in the global struggle against international terrorism.
It's time we recognize Ukraine's accomplishments and status as an
emerging democracy and market economy and graduate it from the Jackson-
Vanik restrictions.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3090. A bill to provide for the testing of chronic wasting disease
and other infectious disease in deer and elk herds, to establish the
Interagency Task Force on Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to
address two emergent wildlife diseases in my state, chronic wasting
disease, or CWD, and epizootic hemorrhagic disease, or EHD, both of
which have been found in Wisconsin's deer. I am pleased to be joined in
introducing this legislation today by the Senior Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. CWD was detected in wild deer in my state earlier
this year, and, unfortunately, has now spread to captive herds. EHD was
detected in wild deer in the last week of September. These diseases
have become serious and substantial management problems in my home
State of Wisconsin.
To address CWD, the State of Wisconsin has decided to eradicate free-
ranging white tailed deer within eastern Iowa, western Dane, and
southern Sauk counties in an effort to try to eradicate the disease.
Wisconsin will sample and test another 50,000 deer statewide. This
represents an unprecedented eradication and sampling effort in
Wisconsin. Most likely, it is the largest ever undertaken in the United
States.
For months, the Wisconsin delegation has been unified, on a
bipartisan basis, in seeking Federal assistance from the Administration
to combat this problem. We have sought assistance from the United
States Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior. We
have pursued any and every other Federal agency that might be able to
provide us with assistance. Some help has been forthcoming, and we are
grateful for the help that we have received.
But the help our State has gotten so far to combat CWD isn't near
enough. We need to be ready for the deer hunt that begins next month.
We need to expand the availability of CWD testing in our State, and we
need to expand it now. Wisconsin is undertaking an unprecedented
testing program, but USDA has refused to allow Wisconsin to certify
private labs to run CWD tests. That is why I have authored this new
bill to require USDA to make CWD

[[Page S10362]]

screening tests available to the public, that's the only way
Wisconsinites can make informed decisions when hunting season arrives.
USDA is concerned that the public may interpret the results of the
currently available CWD tests to be more than a determination of
whether the deer does or does not have CWD. USDA is concerned because
the current tests have certain limitations and are only accurate in
determining whether a deer is infected with CWD. No test has yet been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a way of proving that
deer meat is safe to eat.
While I understand USDA's concern that an animal screening test for
CWD should not be viewed by the public as a food safety test, at
present there is no food safety test for venison. The CWD screening
tests are the only tests that are available today. We should make the
public aware of the limitations of today's tests, but we should also
make those tests available and let the public use their own judgment.
The World Health Organization has advised that meat from CWD-infected
deer should not be consumed. The only way Wisconsinites can follow the
WHO's advice and make an informed decision is to have their deer
tested.
This bill addresses Wisconsin's urgent short term need for enhanced
testing capacity in two ways. First, the bill requires USDA to release,
within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for
chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue
to be tested. Second, the bill requires USDA to develop a certification
program for Federal and non-federal labs, including private labs,
allowing them to conduct chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days
of enactment. I hope these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity
to expand deer testing this year. To address longer-term needs the bill
directs USDA to accelerate research into the development of live animal
tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests,
and to develop testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing
time.
I believe that the alternative to not expanding testing in Wisconsin
is much worse, and much more challenging than undertaking an effort to
educate our hunters about the limitations of current tests. The
alternative, frankly, is the spread of this disease. We should be very
clear that the Federal Government will be allowing this disease to
spread if it does not act to make more testing available.
Concerned hunters, faced with limited information, will simply choose
not to hunt Already, the lack of testing is affecting the number of
hunters who will take to the woods in Wisconsin this fall. Registration
for hunting licenses in my State is already down 30 percent from this
time last year. If we do not expand testing in Wisconsin, we will
likely guarantee the spread of the disease.
Failure to aggressively work to eradicate CWD before it spreads could
allow the very resilient prions that spread the disease to survive in
the environment for years, further complicating eradication efforts.
And although CWD has never spread to other species, scientists have not
ruled out that possibility, and more deer with the disease may well
increase the risk.
The bill also addresses another issue, the emergence of another
animal disease, this time a viral disease, EHD. This disease has
apparently killed eighteen deer in Iowa County, and could have spread
beyond the deer population in Iowa County.
This disease affects not only our deer population, but could also
harm our world famous dairy industry. While I am told that cows don't
frequently die from EHD, they can carry the disease, and some are
worried that this disease could subject our dairy herds to quarantine
if they were found to have EHD.
Our hunters and dairy industry do seem to have caught a break when it
comes to EHD. I understand that colder weather will kill off the biting
insects that spread the EHD virus. This should provide some protection
for deer and dairy cattle for the next few months. In the meantime,
however, we must take steps to prevent the spread of this disease now
before it becomes a problem in the spring and to prevent its possibly
spreading to our dairy industry.
The Administration has simply not taken sufficient steps on CWD, and
I am concerned that it will again fail to do enough if EHD becomes a
problem. That's why my legislation today also includes a provision to
create an action plan to address concerns about EHD. It would require
that the Secretary of Agriculture create a federal working group to
outline what actions the federal government is taking now, and to
determine the future actions that are important to take in addressing
EHD.
My legislation is also budget neutral. It won't cost taxpayers a
dime. It asks USDA to undertake these activities using current funds. I
refuse to accept that USDA cannot find the resources within its budget
of over seventy three billion dollars to take these actions. The
Department must find the means to develop an efficient and accurate way
to certify private labs to conduct CWD tests following the standards
that the USDA labs use.
Legislative action on this problem is urgently needed. We cannot
afford to wait, or we will allow these wildlife diseases to spread.
This legislation is a necessary step in ensuring that we can bring
these diseases under control and I urge its swift consideration.
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. 3090

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 ``Comprehensive Wildlife
Disease Testing Acceleration Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Chronic wasting disease.--The term ``chronic wasting
disease'' means the animal disease that afflicts deer and
elk--
(A) that is a transmissible disease of the nervous system
resulting in distinctive lesions in the brain; and
(B) that belongs to the group of diseases--
(i) that is known as transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies; and
(ii) that includes scrapie, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, and Cruetzfeldt-Jakob disease.
(2) Epizootic hemorrhagic disease.--The term ``epizootic
hemorrhagic disease'' means the animal disease afflicting
deer and other wild ruminants--
(A) that is an insect-borne transmissible viral disease;
and
(B) that results in spontaneous hemorraging in the muscles
and organs of the afflicted animals.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the
Interagency Task Force on Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease
established by section 4(a).

SEC. 3. CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE SAMPLING GUIDELINES AND
TESTING PROTOCOL.

(a) Sampling Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines
for the collection of animal tissue by Federal, State,
tribal, and local agencies for testing for chronic wasting
disease.
(2) Requirements.--Guidelines issued under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) include procedures for the stabilization of tissue
samples for transport to a laboratory for assessment; and
(B) be updated as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(b) Testing Protocol.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a
protocol to be used in the laboratory assessment of samples
of animal tissue that may be contaminated with chronic
wasting disease.
(c) Laboratory Certification and Inspection Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
program for the certification and inspection of Federal and
non-Federal laboratories (including private laboratories)
under which the Secretary shall authorize laboratories
certified under the program to conduct tests for chronic
wasting disease.
(2) Verification.--In carrying out the program established
under paragraph (1), the Secretary may require that the
results of any tests conducted by private laboratories shall
be verified by Federal laboratories.
(d) Development of New Tests.--Not later than 45 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
accelerate research into--
(1) the development of animal tests for chronic wasting
disease, including--
(A) tests for live animals; and
(B) field diagnostic tests; and
(2) the development of testing protocols that reduce
laboratory test processing time.

[[Page S10363]]

SEC. 4. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON EPIZOOTIC HEMORRHAGIC
DISEASE.

(a) In General.--There is established a Federal interagency
task force to be known as the ``Interagency Task Force on
Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease'' to coordinate activities to
prevent the outbreak of epizootic hemorrhagic disease and
related diseases in the United States.
(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary, who shall serve as the chairperson of
the Task Force;
(2) the Secretary of the Interior;
(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
(4) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(5) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(6) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs;
(7) the Director of the National Institutes of Health;
(8) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention;
(9) the Commissioner of Customs; and
(10) the heads of any other Federal agencies that the
President determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall submit to
Congress a report that--
(1) describes any activities that are being carried out, or
that will be carried out, to prevent--
(A) the outbreak of epizootic hemorrhagic disease and
related diseases in the United States; and
(B) the spread or transmission of epizootic hemorrhagic
disease and related diseases to dairy cattle or other
livestock; and
(2) includes recommendations for--
(A) legislation that should be enacted or regulations that
should be promulgated to prevent the outbreak of epizootic
hemorrhagic disease and related diseases in the United
States; and
(B) coordination of the surveillance of and diagnostic
testing for epizootic hemorrhagic disease, chronic wasting
disease, and related diseases.

SEC. 5. FUNDING.

To carry out this Act, the Secretary may use funds made
available to the Secretary for administrative purposes.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Miller, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Ms. Landrieu, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 3091. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to prevent abuse of recipients of long-term care services under the
Medicare and Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient
Abuse Prevention Act, which will help protect patients in long-term
care from abuse and neglect by those who are supposed to care for them.
This legislation will establish a National Registry of abusive long-
term care workers and require criminal background checks for potential
employees. The changes we are making today are technical in nature and
are designed to ensure that the background check system runs as
smoothly and efficiently as possible.
There is absolutely no excuse for abuse or neglect of the elderly and
disabled at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. Our
parents and grandparents made our country what it is today, and they
deserve to live with dignity and the highest quality care.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. We know that the majority
of caregivers are dedicated, professional, and do their best under
difficult circumstances. But it only takes a few abusive staff to case
a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment.
Current State and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out
abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of
abusive nurse aides. But nurse aides are not the only workers involved
in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there
is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides
between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving
to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there.
In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care
facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees.
People with violent criminal backgrounds, people who have already been
convicted of murder, rape, and assault, could easily get a job in a
nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being
discovered.
Our legislation will go a long way toward solving this problem.
First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care
employees. States will be required to submit information from their
current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be
required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective
worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will
be prohibited from working in long-term care.
Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect
patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not
contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then
required to initiate a FBI background check. Any conviction for patient
abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working
with patients.
A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with
criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care,
and have subsequently abused patients in their care. In 1997, the
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this
problem. In 1998, at my request, the Senate Special Committee on Aging
held a hearing that focused on how easy it is for known abusers to find
work in long-term care and continue to prey on patients. At that
hearing, the HHS Inspector General presented a report which found that,
in the two States they studied, between 5-10 percent of employees
currently working in nursing homes had serious criminal convictions in
their past. They also found that among aides who had abused patients,
15-20 percent of them had at least one conviction in their past.
In 1998, I offered an amendment which became law that allowed long-
term care providers to voluntarily use the FBI system for background
checks. So far, 7 percent of those checks have come back with criminal
convictions, including rape and kidnapping.
And on July 30, 2001, the House Government Reform Committee's Special
Investigations Division of the Minority staff issued a report which
found that in the past two years, over 30 percent of nursing homes in
the U.S. were cited for a physical, sexual, or verbal abuse violation
that had the potential to harm residents. Even more striking, the
report found that nearly 10 percent of nursing homes had violations
that caused actual harm to residents.
Clearly, this is a critical tool that long-term care providers should
have, they don't want abusive caregivers working for them any more than
families do. I am pleased that the nursing home industry has worked
with me over the years to refine this legislation, and I greatly
appreciate their support of the bill with the changes we are
incorporating today. This bill reflects their input and will help
ensure a smooth transition to an efficient, accurate background check
system. This is a common-sense, cost-effective step we can and should
take to protect patients by helping long-term care providers thoroughly
screen potential caregivers.
I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of
abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the
first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already
abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed
violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from
vulnerable patients.
I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most long-term care
providers and their staff work hard to deliver the highest quality
care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get
rid of those that don't.
This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the health
care industry, patient and employee advocates, who all have the same
goal I do: protecting patients in long-term care. I look forward to
continuing to work with my colleagues, the Administration, and the
health care industry in this effort. Our Nation's seniors and disabled
deserve nothing less than our full attention.
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. 3091

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

[[Page S10364]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Abuse Prevention
Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM TO PREVENT ABUSE OF NURSING
FACILITY RESIDENTS.

(a) Screening of Skilled Nursing Facility and Nursing
Facility Employee Applicants.--
(1) Medicare program.--Section 1819(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(8) Screening of skilled nursing facility workers.--
``(A) Background checks on applicants.--Subject to
subparagraph (B)(ii), before hiring a skilled nursing
facility worker, a skilled nursing facility shall--
``(i) give the worker written notice that the facility is
required to perform background checks with respect to
applicants;
``(ii) require, as a condition of employment, that such
worker--

``(I) provide a written statement disclosing any conviction
for a relevant crime or finding of patient or resident abuse;
``(II) provide a statement signed by the worker authorizing
the facility to request the search and exchange of criminal
records;
``(III) provide in person to the facility a copy of the
worker's fingerprints or thumb print, depending upon
available technology; and
``(IV) provide any other identification information the
Secretary may specify in regulation;

``(iii) initiate a check of the data collection system
established under section 1128E in accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary to determine whether
such system contains any disqualifying information with
respect to such worker; and
``(iv) if that system does not contain any such
disqualifying information--

``(I) request through the appropriate State agency that the
State initiate a State and national criminal background check
on such worker in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (e)(6); and
``(II) submit to such State agency the information
described in subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) not
more than 7 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
public holidays under section 6103(a) of title 5, United
States Code) after completion of the check against the system
initiated under clause (iii).

``(B) Prohibition on hiring of abusive workers.--
``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility may not
knowingly employ any skilled nursing facility worker who has
any conviction for a relevant crime or with respect to whom a
finding of patient or resident abuse has been made.
``(ii) Provisional employment.--After complying with the
requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph
(A), a skilled nursing facility may provide for a provisional
period of employment for a skilled nursing facility worker
pending completion of the check against the data collection
system described under subparagraph (A)(iii) and the
background check described under subparagraph (A)(iv). Such
facility shall maintain direct supervision of the covered
individual during the worker's provisional period of
employment.
``(C) Reporting requirements.--A skilled nursing facility
shall report to the State any instance in which the facility
determines that a skilled nursing facility worker has
committed an act of resident neglect or abuse or
misappropriation of resident property in the course of
employment by the facility.
``(D) Use of information.--
``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility that obtains
information about a skilled nursing facility worker pursuant
to clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A) may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(ii) Immunity from liability.--A skilled nursing facility
that, in denying employment for an applicant (including
during the period described in subparagraph (B)(ii)),
reasonably relies upon information about such applicant
provided by the State pursuant to subsection (e)(6) or
section 1128E shall not be liable in any action brought by
such applicant based on the employment determination
resulting from the information.
``(iii) Criminal penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates the
provisions of clause (i) shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2
years, or both.
``(E) Civil penalty.--
``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility that violates
the provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed--

``(I) for the first such violation, $2,000; and
``(II) for the second and each subsequent violation within
any 5-year period, $5,000.

``(ii) Knowing retention of worker.--In addition to any
civil penalty under clause (i), a skilled nursing facility
that--

``(I) knowingly continues to employ a skilled nursing
facility worker in violation of subparagraph (A) or (B); or
``(II) knowingly fails to report a skilled nursing facility
worker under subparagraph (C),

shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $5,000 for the first such violation, and $10,000 for
the second and each subsequent violation within any 5-year
period.
``(F) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Conviction for a relevant crime.--The term
`conviction for a relevant crime' means any Federal or State
criminal conviction for--

``(I) any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (4)
of section 1128(a); and
``(II) such other types of offenses as the Secretary may
specify in regulations, taking into account the severity and
relevance of such offenses, and after consultation with
representatives of long-term care providers, representatives
of long-term care employees, consumer advocates, and
appropriate Federal and State officials.

``(ii) Disqualifying information.--The term `disqualifying
information' means information about a conviction for a
relevant crime or a finding of patient or resident abuse.
``(iii) Finding of patient or resident abuse.--The term
`finding of patient or resident abuse' means any
substantiated finding by a State agency under subsection
(g)(1)(C) or a Federal agency that a skilled nursing facility
worker has committed--

``(I) an act of patient or resident abuse or neglect or a
misappropriation of patient or resident property; or
``(II) such other types of acts as the Secretary may
specify in regulations.

``(iv) Skilled nursing facility worker.--The term `skilled
nursing facility worker' means any individual (other than a
volunteer) that has access to a patient of a skilled nursing
facility under an employment or other contract, or both, with
such facility. Such term includes individuals who are
licensed or certified by the State to provide such services,
and nonlicensed individuals providing such services, as
defined by the Secretary, including nurse assistants, nurse
aides, home health aides, and personal care workers and
attendants.''.
(2) Medicaid program.--Section 1919(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Screening of nursing facility workers.--
``(A) Background checks on applicants.--Subject to
subparagraph (B)(ii), before hiring a nursing facility
worker, a nursing facility shall--
``(i) give the worker written notice that the facility is
required to perform background checks with respect to
applicants;
``(ii) require, as a condition of employment, that such
worker--

``(I) request through the appropriate State agency that the
State initiate a State and national criminal background check
on such worker in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (e)(8); and
``(II) submit to such State agency the information
described in subclauses (II) through (IV) of clause (ii) not
more than 7 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
public holidays under section 6103(a) of title 5, United
States Code) after completion of the check against the system
initiated under clause (iii).

``(B) Prohibition on hiring of abusive workers.--
``(i) In general.--A nursing facility may not knowingly
employ any nursing facility worker who has any conviction for
a relevant crime or with respect to whom a finding of patient
or resident abuse has been made.
``(ii) Provisional employment.--After complying with the
requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph
(A), a nursing facility may provide for a provisional period
of employment for a nursing facility worker pending
completion of the check against the data collection system
described under subparagraph (A)(iii) and the background
check described under subparagraph (A)(iv). Such facility
shall maintain direct supervision of the worker during the
worker's provisional period of employment.
``(C) Reporting requirements.--A nursing facility shall
report to the State any instance in which the facility
determines that a nursing facility worker has committed an
act of resident neglect or abuse or misappropriation of
resident property in the course of employment by the
facility.
``(D) Use of information.--
``(i) In general.--A nursing facility that obtains
information about a nursing facility worker pursuant to
clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A) may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(ii) Immunity from liability.--A nursing facility that,
in denying employment for an applicant (including during the
period described in subparagraph (B)(ii)), reasonably relies
upon information about such applicant

[[Page S10365]]

provided by the State pursuant to subsection (e)(8) or
section 1128E shall not be liable in any action brought by
such applicant based on the employment determination
resulting from the information.
``(iii) Criminal penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates the
provisions of clause (i) shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2
years, or both.
``(E) Civil penalty.--
``(i) In general.--A nursing facility that violates the
provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed--

``(I) for the first such violation, $2,000; and
``(II) for the second and each subsequent violation within
any 5-year period, $5,000.

``(ii) Knowing retention of worker.--In addition to any
civil penalty under clause (i), a nursing facility that--

``(I) knowingly continues to employ a nursing facility
worker in violation of subparagraph (A) or (B); or

``(II) knowingly fails to report a nursing facility worker
under subparagraph (C),

``(I) an act of patient or resident abuse or neglect or a
misappropriation of patient or resident property; or
``(II) such other types of acts as the Secretary may
specify in regulations.

``(iv) Nursing facility worker.--The term `nursing facility
worker' means any individual (other than a volunteer) that
has access to a patient of a nursing facility under an
employment or other contract, or both, with such facility.
Such term includes individuals who are licensed or certified
by the State to provide such services, and nonlicensed
individuals providing such services, as defined by the
Secretary, including nurse assistants, nurse aides, home
health aides, and personal care workers and attendants.''.
(3) Federal responsibilities.--
(A) Development of standard federal and state background
check form.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
consultation with the Attorney General and representatives of
appropriate State agencies, shall develop a model form that
an applicant for employment at a nursing facility may
complete and Federal and State agencies may use to conduct
the criminal background checks required under sections
1819(b)(8) and 1919(b)(8) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395i-3(b), 1396r(b)) (as added by this section).
(B) Periodic evaluation.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Attorney General,
periodically shall evaluate the background check system
imposed under sections 1819(b)(8) and 1919(b)(8) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b), 1396r(b)) (as
added by this section) and shall implement changes, as
necessary, based on available technology, to make the
background check system more efficient and able to provide a
more immediate response to long-term care providers using the
system.
(4) No preemption of stricter state laws.--Nothing in
section 1819(b)(8) or 1919(b)(8) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)(8), 1396r(b)(8)) (as so added) shall be
construed to supersede any provision of State law that--
(A) specifies a relevant crime for purposes of prohibiting
the employment of an individual at a long-term care facility
(as defined in section 1128E(g)(6) of the Social Security Act
(as added by section 3(f) of this Act) that is not included
in the list of such crimes specified in such sections or in
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to carry out such sections; or
(B) requires a long-term care facility (as so defined) to
conduct a background check prior to employing an individual
in an employment position that is not included in the
positions for which a background check is required under such
sections.
(5) Technical amendments.--Effective as if included in the
enactment of section 941 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2763A-585), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public
Law 106-554, sections 1819(b) and 1919(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b), 1396r(b)), as amended by
such section 941 (as so enacted into law) are each amended by
redesignating the paragraph (8) added by such section as
paragraph (9).
(b) Federal and State Requirements Concerning Background
Checks.--
(1) Medicare.--Section 1819(e) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Federal and state requirements concerning criminal
background checks on skilled nursing facility employees.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receipt of a request by a skilled
nursing facility pursuant to subsection (b)(8) that is
accompanied by the information described in subclauses (II)
through (IV) of subsection (b)(8)(A)(ii), a State, after
checking appropriate State records and finding no
disqualifying information (as defined in subsection
(b)(8)(F)(ii)), shall immediately submit such request and
information to the Attorney General and shall request the
Attorney General to conduct a search and exchange of records
with respect to the individual as described in subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Search and exchange of records by attorney general.--
Upon receipt of a submission pursuant to subparagraph (A),
the Attorney General shall direct a search of the records of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any criminal history
records corresponding to the fingerprints and other positive
identification information submitted. The Attorney General
shall provide any corresponding information resulting from
the search to the State.
``(C) State reporting of information to skilled nursing
facility.--Upon receipt of the information provided by the
Attorney General pursuant to subparagraph (B), the State
shall--
``(i) review the information to determine whether the
individual has any conviction for a relevant crime (as
defined in subsection (b)(8)(F)(i));
``(ii) immediately report to the skilled nursing facility
in writing the results of such review; and
``(iii) in the case of an individual with a conviction for
a relevant crime, report the existence of such conviction of
such individual to the database established under section
1128E.
``(D) Fees for performance of criminal background checks.--
``(i) Authority to charge fees.--

``(I) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may charge a
fee to any State requesting a search and exchange of records
pursuant to this paragraph and subsection (b)(8) for
conducting the search and providing the records. The amount
of such fee shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of
such activities or $50. Such fees shall be available to the
Attorney General, or, in the Attorney General's discretion,
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation until expended.
``(II) State.--A State may charge a skilled nursing
facility a fee for initiating the criminal background check
under this paragraph and subsection (b)(8), including fees
charged by the Attorney General, and for performing the
review and report required by subparagraph (C). The amount of
such fee shall not exceed the actual cost of such activities.

``(ii) Prohibition on charging applicants or employees.--An
entity may not impose on an applicant for employment or an
employee any charges relating to the performance of a
background check under this paragraph.
``(E) Regulations.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the Secretary's authority
to promulgate regulations under this title, the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Secretary, may promulgate
such regulations as are necessary to carry out the Attorney
General's responsibilities under this paragraph and
subsection (b)(9), including regulations regarding the
security confidentiality, accuracy, use, destruction, and
dissemination of information, audits and recordkeeping, and
the imposition of fees.
``(ii) Appeal procedures.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to establish procedures by which
an applicant or employee may appeal or dispute the accuracy
of the information obtained in a background check conducted
under this paragraph. Appeals shall be limited to instances
in which an applicant or employee is incorrectly identified
as the subject of the background check, or when information
about the applicant or employee has not been updated to
reflect changes in the applicant's or employee's criminal
record.
``(F) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall
submit a report to Congress on--
``(i) the number of requests for searches and exchanges of
records made under this section;
``(ii) the disposition of such requests; and
``(iii) the cost of responding to such requests.''.
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1919(e) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) Federal and state requirements concerning criminal
background checks on nursing facility employees.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receipt of a request by a nursing
facility pursuant to subsection (b)(8) that is accompanied by
the information described in subclauses (II) through (IV) of
subsection (b)(8)(A)(ii), a State, after checking appropriate
State

[[Page S10366]]

records and finding no disqualifying information (as defined
in subsection (b)(8)(F)(ii)), shall immediately submit such
request and information to the Attorney General and shall
request the Attorney General to conduct a search and exchange
of records with respect to the individual as described in
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Search and exchange of records by attorney general.--
Upon receipt of a submission pursuant to subparagraph (A),
the Attorney General shall direct a search of the records of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any criminal history
records corresponding to the fingerprints and other positive
identification information submitted. The Attorney General
shall provide any corresponding information resulting from
the search to the State.
``(C) State reporting of information to nursing facility.--
Upon receipt of the information provided by the Attorney
General pursuant to subparagraph (B), the State shall--
``(i) review the information to determine whether the
individual has any conviction for a relevant crime (as
defined in subsection (b)(8)(F)(i));
``(ii) immediately report to the nursing facility in
writing the results of such review; and
``(iii) in the case of an individual with a conviction for
a relevant crime, report the existence of such conviction of
such individual to the database established under section
1128E.
``(D) Fees for performance of criminal background checks.--
``(i) Authority to charge fees.--

``(I) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may charge a
fee to any State requesting a search and exchange of records
pursuant to this paragraph and subsection (b)(8) for
conducting the search and providing the records. The amount
of such fee shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of
such activities or $50. Such fees shall be available to the
Attorney General, or, in the Attorney General's discretion,
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, until expended.
``(II) State.--A State may charge a nursing facility a fee
for initiating the criminal background check under this
paragraph and subsection (b)(8), including fees charged by
the Attorney General, and for performing the review and
report required by subparagraph (C). The amount of such fee
shall not exceed the actual cost of such activities.

``(ii) Prohibition on charging applicants or employees.--An
entity may not impose on an applicant for employment or an
employee any charges relating to the performance of a
background check under this paragraph.
``(E) Regulations.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to the Secretary's authority
to promulgate regulations under this title, the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Secretary, may promulgate
such regulations as are necessary to carry out the Attorney
General's responsibilities under this paragraph and
subsection (b)(8), including regulations regarding the
security, confidentiality, accuracy, use, destruction, and
dissemination of information, audits and recordkeeping, and
the imposition of fees.
``(ii) Appeal procedures.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to establish procedures by which
an applicant or employee may appeal or dispute the accuracy
of the information obtained in a background check conducted
under this paragraph. Appeals shall be limited to instances
in which an applicant or employee is incorrectly identified
as the subject of the background check, or when information
about the applicant or employee has not been updated to
reflect changes in the applicant's or employee's criminal
record.
``(F) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall
submit a report to Congress on--
``(i) the number of requests for searches and exchanges of
records made under this section;
``(ii) the disposition of such requests; and
``(iii) the cost of responding to such requests.''.
(c) Application to Other Entities Providing Home Health or
Long-Term Care Services.--
(1) Medicare.--Part D of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``APPLICATION OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY PREVENTIVE ABUSE PROVISIONS
TO ANY PROVIDER OF SERVICES OR OTHER ENTITY PROVIDING HOME HEALTH OR
LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES

``Sec. 1897. (a) In General.--The requirements of
subsections (b)(8) and (e)(6) of section 1819 shall apply to
any provider of services or any other entity that is eligible
to be paid under this title for providing home health
services, hospice care (including routine home care and other
services included in hospice care under this title), or long-
term care services to an individual entitled to benefits
under part A or enrolled under part B, including an
individual provided with a Medicare+Choice plan offered by a
Medicare+Choice organization under part C (in this section
referred to as a `medicare beneficiary').
``(b) Supervision of Provisional Employees.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to an entity that provides
home health services, such entity shall be considered to have
satisfied the requirements of section 1819(b)(8)(B)(ii) or
1919(b)(8)(B)(ii) if the entity meets such requirements for
supervision of provisional employees of the entity as the
Secretary shall, by regulation, specify in accordance with
paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements.--The regulations required under
paragraph (1) shall provide the following:
``(A) Supervision of a provisional employee shall consist
of ongoing, good faith, verifiable efforts by the supervisor
of the provisional employee to conduct monitoring and
oversight activities to ensure the safety of a medicare
beneficiary.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), monitoring and
oversight activities may include (but are not limited to) the
following:
``(i) Follow-up telephone calls to the medicare
beneficiary.
``(ii) Unannounced visits to the medicare beneficiary's
home while the provisional employee is serving the medicare
beneficiary.
``(iii) To the extent practicable, limiting the provisional
employee's duties to serving only those medicare
beneficiaries in a home or setting where another family
member or resident of the home or setting of the medicare
beneficiary is present.''.
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (64), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (65), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (65) the following:
``(66) provide that any entity that is eligible to be paid
under the State plan for providing home health services,
hospice care (including routine home care and other services
included in hospice care under title XVIII), or long-term
care services for which medical assistance is available under
the State plan to individuals requiring long-term care
complies with the requirements of subsections (b)(8) and
(e)(8) of section 1919 and section 1897(b) (in the same
manner as such section applies to a medicare beneficiary).''.
(3) Expansion of State Nurse Aide Registry.--
(A) Medicare.--Section 1819 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395i-3) is amended--
(i) in subsection (e)(2)--

(I) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Nurse aide
registry'' and inserting ``Employee registry'';
(II) in subparagraph (A)--

(aa) by striking ``By not later than January 1, 1989, the''
and inserting ``The'';
(bb) by striking ``a registry of all individuals'' and
inserting ``a registry of (i) all individuals''; and
(cc) by inserting before the period the following: ``, (ii)
all other skilled nursing facility employees with respect to
whom the State has made a finding described in subparagraph
(B), and (iii) any employee of any provider of services or
any other entity that is eligible to be paid under this title
for providing home health services, hospice care (including
routine home care and other services included in hospice care
under this title), or long-term care services and with
respect to whom the entity has reported to the State a
finding of patient neglect or abuse or a misappropriation of
patient property''; and

(III) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``a nurse aide'' and
inserting ``an individual''; and

(ii) in subsection (g)(1)--

(I) by striking the first sentence of subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following: ``The State shall provide, through
the agency responsible for surveys and certification of
skilled nursing facilities under this subsection, for a
process for the receipt and timely review and investigation
of allegations of neglect and abuse and misappropriation of
resident property by a nurse aide or a skilled nursing
facility employee of a resident in a skilled nursing
facility, by another individual used by the facility in
providing services to such a resident, or by an individual
described in subsection (e)(2)(A)(iii).''; and
(II) in the fourth sentence of subparagraph (C), by
inserting ``or described in subsection (e)(2)(A)(iii)'' after
``used by the facility''; and
(III) in subparagraph (D)--

(I) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Nurse aide
registry'' and inserting ``Employee registry'';
(II) in subparagraph (A)--

(aa) by striking ``By not later than January 1, 1989, the''
and inserting ``The'';
(bb) by striking ``a registry of all individuals'' and
inserting ``a registry of (i) all individuals''; and
(cc) by inserting before the period the following: ``, (ii)
all other nursing facility employees with respect to whom the
State has made a finding described in subparagraph (B), and
(iii) any employee of an entity that is eligible to be paid
under the State plan for providing home health services,
hospice care (including routine home care and other services
included in hospice care under title

[[Page S10367]]

XVIII), or long-term care services and with respect to whom
the entity has reported to the State a finding of patient
neglect or abuse or a misappropriation of patient property'';
and

(III) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``a nurse aide'' and
inserting ``an individual''; and

(ii) in subsection (g)(1)--

(I) by striking the first sentence of subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following: ``The State shall provide, through
the agency responsible for surveys and certification of
nursing facilities under this subsection, for a process for
the receipt and timely review and investigation of
allegations of neglect and abuse and misappropriation of
resident property by a nurse aide or a nursing facility
employee of a resident in a nursing facility, by another
individual used by the facility in providing services to such
a resident, or by an individual described in subsection
(e)(2)(A)(iii).''; and
(II) in the fourth sentence of subparagraph (C), by
inserting ``or described in subsection (e)(2)(A)(iii)'' after
``used by the facility''; and
(III) in subparagraph (D)--

(aa) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``nurse
aide''; and
(bb) in clause (i), in the matter preceding subclause (I),
by striking ``a nurse aide'' and inserting ``an individual'';
and
(cc) in clause (i)(I), by striking ``nurse aide'' and
inserting ``individual''.
(d) Reimbursement of Costs for Background Checks.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall reimburse
nursing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and other
entities for costs incurred by the facilities and entities in
order to comply with the requirements imposed under sections
1819(b)(8) and 1919(b)(8) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-
3(b)(8), 1396r(b)(8)), as added by this section.

SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF ABUSIVE WORKERS IN THE DATABASE
ESTABLISHED AS PART OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
FRAUD AND ABUSE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.

(a) Inclusion of Abusive Acts Within a Long-Term Care
Facility or Provider.--Section 1128E(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
(2) by inserting after clause (iv), the following:
``(v) A finding of abuse or neglect of a patient or a
resident of a long-term care facility, or misappropriation of
such a patient's or resident's property.''.
(b) Coverage of Long-Term Care Facility or Provider
Employees.--Section 1128E(g)(2) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, and
includes any individual of a long-term care facility or
provider (other than any volunteer) that has access to a
patient or resident of such a facility under an employment or
other contract, or both, with the facility or provider
(including individuals who are licensed or certified by the
State to provide services at the facility or through the
provider, and nonlicensed individuals, as defined by the
Secretary, providing services at the facility or through the
provider, including nurse assistants, nurse aides, home
health aides, individuals who provide home care, and personal
care workers and attendants)'' before the period.
(c) Reporting by Long-Term Care Facilities or Providers.--
(1) In general.--Section 1128E(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``and
health plan'' and inserting ``, health plan, and long-term
care facility or provider''.
(2) Correction of information.--Section 1128E(c)(2) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``and health plan'' and inserting ``, health plan,
and long-term care facility or provider''.
(d) Access to Reported Information.--Section 1128E(d)(1) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(d)(1)) is amended
by striking ``and health plans'' and inserting ``, health
plans, and long-term care facilities or providers''.
(e) Mandatory Check of Database by Long-Term Care
Facilities or Providers.--Section 1128E(d) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(d)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Mandatory check of database by long-term care
facilities or providers.--A long-term care facility or
provider shall check the database maintained under this
section prior to hiring under an employment or other
contract, or both, any individual as an employee of such a
facility or provider who will have access to a patient or
resident of the facility or provider (including individuals
who are licensed or certified by the State to provide
services at the facility or through the provider, and
nonlicensed individuals, as defined by the Secretary, that
will provide services at the facility or through the
provider, including nurse assistants, nurse aides, home
health aides, individuals who provide home care, and personal
care workers and attendants).''.
(f) Definition of Long-Term Care Facility or Provider.--
Section 1128E(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
7e(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Long-term care facility or provider.--The term `long-
term care facility or provider' means a skilled nursing
facility (as defined in section 1819(a)), a nursing facility
(as defined in section 1919(a)), a home health agency, a
provider of hospice care (as defined in section 1861(dd)(1)),
a long-term care hospital (as described in section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)), an intermediate care facility for the
mentally retarded (as defined in section 1905(d)), or any
other facility or entity that provides, or is a provider of,
long-term care services, home health services, or hospice
care (including routine home care and other services included
in hospice care under title XVIII), and receives payment for
such services under the medicare program under title XVIII or
the medicaid program under title XIX.''.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the amendments made by this
section, $10,200,000 for fiscal year 2003.

SEC. 4. PREVENTION AND TRAINING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish a demonstration program to provide
grants to develop information on best practices in patient
abuse prevention training (including behavior training and
interventions) for managers and staff of hospital and health
care facilities.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall be a public or private
nonprofit entity and prepare and submit to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
may require.
(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
this section shall be used to--
(1) examine ways to improve collaboration between State
health care survey and provider certification agencies, long-
term care ombudsman programs, the long-term care industry,
and local community members;
(2) examine patient care issues relating to regulatory
oversight, community involvement, and facility staffing and
management with a focus on staff training, staff stress
management, and staff supervision;
(3) examine the use of patient abuse prevention training
programs by long-term care entities, including the training
program developed by the National Association of Attorneys
General, and the extent to which such programs are used; and
(4) identify and disseminate best practices for preventing
and reducing patient abuse.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

SEC. 5. SFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by the Act shall take
effect on the date that is 6 months after the effective date
of final regulations promulgated to carry out this Act and
such amendments.
______

By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 3092. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend the availability of allotments to States for fiscal years 1998
through 2000, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on
this bill with my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has
been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in
the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of
budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of
states and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the
federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the
highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide
health insurance coverage for low-income children.
Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting
from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the
jobless rate at 7.2 percent, we have one of the highest unemployment
rates in the country, 202,000 Washingtonians are unable to find work.
And over the last 12 months, our State has lost 50,000 jobs, and 60
percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector.
In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured
people in Washington state, including 155,000 children. That number has
surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen.
In fact, just last week the Census Bureau reported that the number of
uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are
41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of
whom are children.
The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the
health care system. In September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported
the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990,
while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health
care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time
since that year.
The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that
the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or
forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as
insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance
matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow.
Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion state grant
program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children
who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not
enough to afford private insurance. In most states, the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, has been extremely
successful. Nearly one million children

[[Page S10368]]

gained coverage each year through SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5
million children were enrolled in the program.
Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate
in this success, and perversely, these are the states that had taken
bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low-
income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and
high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have
for children, pregnant women, and low-income individuals is in jeopardy
due to State budget crises.
Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to
our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid
populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in
1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP
When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from
using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made
it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially
penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage
for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP
matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the
Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four
percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP.
Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an
enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids
from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and
cannot use funds like other States, Washington State is sending $95
million back to the Federal treasury or to other States. This defies
common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be
penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment
of SCHIP.
This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and
Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP
funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for
children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may
have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a
commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a
portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access
to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The
bill also ensures that all states that have demonstrated a commitment
to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in
the same manner to support children's health care coverage.
First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 State allotments
``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be
returned to the federal treasury. Our bill allows states to keep their
remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the for the
purposes of this legislation.
Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are
due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those
States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow
the retention and redistribution these funds as was done two years ago
through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act, P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had
an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months
in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP
allotment.
Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying
States would receive the difference between their Medicaid federal
matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP
matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's
current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does
not erode as states face enormous budget deficits. States would be able
to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP
allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments.
Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the
highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain
requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids
that had previously been covered above the mandatory level.
Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our
great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies,
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to
build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic
time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care
coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to
keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of
this bill.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 3093. A bill to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet
jamming and censorship; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the past seven years, Congressman
Chris Cox and I have teamed up several times on legislation affecting
the Internet. The Global Internet Freedom Act that I will introduce
today could be called ``Cox-Wyden V,'' because this is our fifth
collaboration. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in introducing
this bill in the Senate.
This legislation aims to foster the development and deployment of
technologies to defeat state-sponsored Internet jamming and censorship,
and in turn, to help unleash the potential of the Internet to promote
the causes of freedom and democracy worldwide.
This is a time when Americans are acutely focused on security threats
emanating from sources beyond U.S. borders. The terrorist attacks of
September 11 made plain that ignorance, extremism, and hate abroad can
have terrible consequences not just in other countries, but right here
at home. And the daily drumbeat of debate over Iraq emphasizes that
oppressive foreign regimes can pose serious hazards. The world is truly
getting smaller.
In the field of information technology, Americans have rightly
responded with a renewed emphasis on cybersecurity. The interlinked
computer networks that make up the Internet, and on which American's
critical infrastructure increasingly relies, must be secured against
would-be cyberterrorists. This is a matter of top importance, and I
have sponsored legislation, as Chairman of the Science and Technology
Subcommittee, to promote research and innovation in this area. It is my
hope that the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act will be signed
by the President in the coming weeks.
But it is important to remember that the international nature of the
Internet does not just create new threats. It also presents tremendous
new opportunities.
Openness, transparency, and the unfettered flow of information have
always been the allies of freedom and democracy. Over time, nothing
erodes oppression and intolerance like the widespread dissemination of
knowledge and ideas. And technology has often played a key role in this
process. From the printing press to radio, technological advances have
revolutionized the spread information and ideas and opened up new
horizons for people everywhere. Not surprisingly, the foes of freedom,
understanding the threat these technologies pose, have often responded
with such steps as censoring the press, jamming radio broadcasts, and
putting media outlets under state control.
The Internet promises to revolutionize the spread of information yet
again. Unlike its predecessor technologies, it offers a truly worldwide
network that makes geographic distance irrelevant. It enables any
person connected to it to exchange ideas quickly and easily with people
and organizations on the other side of the globe. The quantity and
variety of information it permits access to are virtually unlimited.
So once again, governments that fear freedom are trying to rein in
the technology's potential. They block access to websites. They censor
websites and email. They interrupt Internet search engines when users
try explore the ``wrong'' topics. They closely monitor citizens'
Internet usage and make it known that those who visit the ``wrong''
websites will be punished. Or

[[Page S10369]]

they prevent Internet access altogether, by prohibiting ownership of
personal computers.
For a confirmed example of this, I would simply call attention to the
inaugural report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China,
issued just last week, October 2. This report, the product of a
bipartisan commission with members from the Senate, the House of
Representatives, and the Administration, finds that ``over the last 18
months, the Chinese government has issued an extensive and still
growing series of regulations restricting Internet content and placing
monitoring requirements on industry.'' It goes on to cite accounts of
the Chinese government using high-tech software and hardware to
``block, filter, and hack websites and e-mail.'' Offshore dissident
websites, foreign news websites, search engines, and Voice of America's
weekly e-mail to China are all subject to being blocked. Internet users
attempting to access foreign web-
sites often find themselves redirected
to Chinese government-approved websites.
Other countries, from Cuba to Burma to Tunisia to Vietnam, engage in
similar activity.
There are technologies that can help defeat the firewalls and filters
that these governments choose to erect. Proxy servers, intermediaries,
``mirrors,'' and encryption may all have useful applications in this
regard. But the U.S. Government has done little to promote
technological approaches. This country devotes considerable resources
to combat the jamming of Voice of America broadcasting abroad. But to
date, it has budgeted only about $1 million for technologies to counter
Internet jamming and censorship.
This country can and should do better. The Internet is too important
a communications medium, and its potential as a force for freedom and
democracy is too great, to make a second-rate effort in this area.
That is why Senator Kyl and I are introducing the Global Internet
Freedom Act today. It is time for the U.S. Government to make a serious
commitment to support technology that can help keep the Internet open,
available, and free of political censorship for people all over the
world.
This legislation would establish an Office of Global Internet
Freedom, with the express mission of promoting technology to combat
state-sponsored Internet jamming. The office would be based in the
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, NTIA, to take advantage of NTIA's extensive expertise
in international telecommunications and Internet issues. Location
within the Department of Commerce will also help ensure close ties with
American technology companies, whose active involvement will be
essential for any technology-based effort to succeed. Cooperation with
the International Broadcasting Bureau will be indispensable as well,
and is required in the legislation.
Funding for the new office would be authorized at $30 million for
each of the next two fiscal years. The office would make an annual
report to Congress on its activities, and on the extent of state-
sponsored Internet blocking in different countries around the world.
Finally, the bill would express the sense of Congress that the United
States should denounce the practice of state-sponsored blocking of
access to the Internet, should submit a resolution on the topic to the
United Nations Human Rights Convention, and should deploy technologies
to address the problem as soon as practicable.
As I mentioned at the outset, Representatives Chris Cox and Tom
Lantos have already introduced companion legislation in the House, and
I strongly applaud them for taking the lead on this issue. Here in the
Senate, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kyl and myself in this
important, bipartisan effort.
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. 3093

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 ``Global Internet Freedom
Act''.

SEC. 2 FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of
association are fundamental characteristics of a free
society. The first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States guarantees that ``Congress shall make no law .
. . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble.'' These
constitutional provisions guarantee the rights of Americans
to communicate and associate with one another without
restriction, including unfettered communication and
association via the Internet. Article 19 of the United
Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly
guarantees the freedom to ``receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers''.
(2) All people have the right to communicate freely with
others, and to have unrestricted access to news and
information, on the Internet.
(3) With nearly 10 percent of the world's population now
online, and more gaining access each day, the Internet stands
to become the most powerful engine for democratization and
the free exchange of ideas ever invented.
(4) Unrestricted access to news and information on the
Internet is a check on repressive rule by authoritarian
regimes around the world.
(5) The governments of Burma, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, the
People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Vietnam,
among others, are taking active measures to keep their
citizens from freely accessing the Internet and obtaining
international political, religious, and economic news and
information.
(6) Intergovernmental, nongovernmental, and media
organizations have reported the widespread and increasing
pattern by authoritarian governments to block, jam, and
monitor Internet access and content, using technologies such
as firewalls, filters, and ``black boxes''. Such jamming and
monitoring of individual activity on the Internet includes
surveillance of e-mail messages, message boards, and the use
of particular words; ``stealth blocking'' individuals from
visiting websites; the development of ``black lists'' of
users that seek to visit these websites; and the denial of
access to the Internet.
(7) The Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, as well as
hundreds of news sources with an Internet presence, are
routinely being jammed by repressive governments.
(8) Since the 1940s, the United States has deployed anti-
jamming technologies to make Voice of America and other
United States Government sponsored broadcasting available to
people in nations with governments that seek to block news
and information.
(9) The United States Government has thus far commenced
only modest steps to fund and deploy technologies to defeat
Internet censorship. To date, the Voice of America and Radio
Free Asia have committed a total of $1,000,000 for technology
to counter Internet jamming by the People's Republic of
China. This technology, which has been successful in
attracting 100,000 electronic hits per day from the People's
Republic of China, has been relied upon by Voice of America
and Radio Free Asia to ensure access to their programming by
citizens of the People's Republic of China, but United States
Government financial support for the technology has lapsed.
In most other countries there is no meaningful United States
support for Internet freedom.
(10) The success of United States policy in support of
freedom of speech, press, and association requires new
initiatives and technologies to defeat totalitarian and
authoritarian controls on news and information over the
Internet.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to adopt an effective and robust global Internet
freedom policy;
(2) to establish an office within the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration with the
sole mission of promoting technological means of countering
Internet jamming and blocking by repressive regimes;
(3) to expedite the development and deployment of
technology to protect Internet freedom around the world;
(4) to authorize the commitment of a substantial portion of
United States Government resources to the continued
development and implementation of technologies to counter the
jamming of the Internet;
(5) to utilize the expertise of the private sector in the
development and implementation of such technologies, so that
the many current technologies used commercially for securing
business transactions and providing virtual meeting space can
be used to promote democracy and freedom; and
(6 to bring to bear the pressure of the free world on
repressive governments guilty of Internet censorship and the
intimidation and persecution of their citizens who use the
Internet.

SEC. 4. DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO DEFEAT
INTERNET JAMMING AND CENSORSHIP.

(a) Establishment of Office of Global Internet Freedom.--
There is established in the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration the Office of Global Internet
Freedom (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the
``Office''). The Office shall be

[[Page S10370]]

headed by a Director who shall develop and implement, in
consultation with the International Broadcasting Bureau, a
comprehensive global strategy for promoting technology to
combat state-sponsored and state-directed Internet jamming
and persecution of those who use the Internet.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Office $30,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
(c) Corporation of Other Federal Departments and
Agencies.--Each department and agency of the United States
Government shall cooperate fully with, and assist in the
implementation of, the strategy developed by the Office and
shall make such resources and information available to the
Office as is necessary to the achievement of the purposes of
this Act.
(d) Report to Congress.--On March 1 following the date of
the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the
Director of the Office shall submit to the Congress a report
on the status of state interference with Internet use and of
efforts by the United States to counter such interference.
Each report shall list the countries that pursue policies of
Internet censorship, blocking, and other abuses; provide
information concerning the government agencies or quasi-
governmental organizations that implement Internet
censorship; and describe with the greatest particularity
practicable the technological means by which such blocking
and other abuses are accomplished. In the discretion of the
Director, such report may be submitted in both a classified
and nonclassified version.
(e) Limitation on Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be
interpreted to authorize any action by the United States to
interfere with foreign national censorship for the purpose of
protecting minors from harm, preserving public morality, or
assisting with legitimate law enforcement aims.

SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
should--
(1) publicly, prominently, and consistently denounce
governments that restrict, censor, ban, and block access to
information on the Internet;
(2) direct the United States Representative to the United
Nations to submit a resolution at the next annual meeting of
the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning all
governments that practice Internet censorship and deny
freedom to access and share information; and
(3) deploy, at the earliest practicable date, technologies
aimed at defeating state-directed Internet censorship and the
persecution of those who use the Internet.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator
Wyden, the Global Internet Freedom Act.
The Internet is one of the most powerful tools to promote the
exchange of ideas and to disseminate information. In that regard, it is
a key component in our efforts to reach populations living under
undemocratic governments that continue to restrict freedom of speech,
the press, and association. Unfortunately, however, many authoritarian
governments including the regimes in the People's Republic of China,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea aggressively block
and censor the Internet, often subjecting to torture and imprisonment
those individuals who dare to resist the controls.
In Vietnam, for example, the Prime Minister issued a decree in August
2000 that prohibits individuals from using the Internet ``for the
purpose of hostile actions against the country or to destabilize
security, violate morality, or violate other laws and regulations.''
The Communist government owns and controls the sole Internet access
provider, which is authorized to monitor the sites that subscribers
use. It erects firewalls to block sites it deems politically or
culturally inappropriate. And it is seeking additional authority to
monitor some 4,000 Internet cafes in Vietnam, and hold responsible the
owners of these cafes for customer use of the Internet.
The situation in Syria is no better. Like Vietnam, that country has
only one government-run Internet service provider. The Government
blocks access to Internet sites that contain information deemed
politically sensitive including pro-Israel sites and also periodically
blocks access to servers that provide free e-mail services. In 2000,
the Syrian Government which monitors e-mail detained one individual for
simply forwarding via e-mail a political cartoon.
The Chinese Government is one of the worst offenders. Beijing has
passed sweeping regulations in the past 2 years prohibiting news and
commentary on Internet sites in China that are not state-sanctioned.
The Ministry of Information Industry regulates Internet access, and the
Ministries of Public and State Security monitor its use. According to
the State Department's most recent Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices.

Despite the continued expansion of the Internet in the
country, the Chinese government maintained its efforts to
monitor and control content on the Internet. . . . The
authorities block access to Web sites they find offensive.
Authorities have at times blocked politically sensitive Web
sites, including those of dissident groups and some major
foreign news organizations, such as the VOA, the Washington
Post, the New York Times, and the BBC.

The U.S.-China Security Review Commission noted in its recent report
that China has even convinced American companies like Yahoo! to assist
in its censorship efforts, and others, like America Online, to leave
open the possibility of turning over names, e-mail addresses, or
records of political dissidents if the Chinese Government demands them.
Those who attempt to circumvent Internet restrictions in China are
often subject to harsh punishment. For example, Huang Qi, the operator
of an Internet site that posted information about missing persons,
including students who disappeared in the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, was
tried secretly and found guilty of ``subverting state power.''
According to the State Department, Huang was bound hand and foot and
beaten by police while they tried to force him to confess.
These are but a few examples of the incredible lengths that
authoritarian governments will go to in order to preserve control over
their populations and prevent change. Voice of America, Radio Free
Asia, Amnesty International, and the National Endowment for Democracy--
just to name a few--all utilize the Internet to try to provide news,
spread democratic values, and promote human rights in these countries.
But the obstacles they face are great.
The U.S. private sector is developing a number of techniques and
technologies to combat Internet blocking. Unfortunately, however, the
U.S. Government has contributed few resources to assist these efforts
and to put the new techniques to use. For example, Voice of America and
Radio Free Asia have budgeted only $1 million for technology to counter
Chinese Government Internet jamming, and that funding has now expired.
This is why I am pleased to introduce the Global Internet Freedom
Act. This bill will take an important step toward promoting Internet
freedom throughout the world. Specifically, it establishes, within the
Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, the Office of Global Internet Freedom. It authorizes
$30 million per year in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for this office,
which would be responsible for developing and implementing a
comprehensive global strategy to combat state-sponsored Internet
jamming and persecution of Internet users. Additionally, the director
of the office would be required to submit to Congress an annual report
on U.S. efforts to counter state interference with Internet use.
Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressmen Cox and Lantos.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the Internet in promoting
the flow of democratic ideas. If the benefits of the Internet are able
to reach more and more people around the globe, repressive governments
will begin to be challenged by individuals who are freely exchanging
views and getting uncensored news and information.
The United States should take full advantage of the opportunities
inherent in worldwide access to the Internet, and should make clear to
the international community that fostering Internet freedom is a top
priority. Creation of an Office of Global Internet Freedom will enable
us to do just that.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Allard, Mr. Brownback,
and Mr. Campbell):
S. 3094. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 to clarify the rates applicable to marketing assistance loans
and loan deficiency payments for other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and
small chickpeas; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

[[Page S10371]]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today along with Senators Roberts, Conrad,
Crapo, Craig, Burns, Johnson, Allard, Brownback, and Campbell I am
introducing legislation to clarify Congressional intent regarding minor
oilseed and pulse crop loan rates in the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act, FSRIA, of 2002. This is a redraft of legislation
introduced last July.
In June, the United States Department of Agriculture incorrectly
interpreted the intent of the new farm bill when the Farm Service
Agency arbitrarily announced a wide range of minor oilseed loan rates.
For some minor oilseed crops, the loan rate increased substantially,
while for others, the rates plunged. A few months later, in early
September, the Farm Service Agency continued to err when it announced
the loan rates for dry peas, lentils and small chickpeas that
completely ignored the instructions laid down by the Statement of
Managers that accompanied the conference report of the new farm bill.
Not once during the farm bill debate was there ever discussion of
splitting apart minor oilseed loan rates. In fact, the minor oilseed
industry and farmers alike anticipated a county-level increase in loan
rates from $9.30 to 9.60/cwt. The announcement by the Farm Service
Agency caught virtually everyone in the agriculture community by
surprise.
This legislation is intended to correct this misinterpretation of the
new farm bill, and to prevent what will certainly be extreme acreage
shifts among these crops in the coming years should these rates be
allowed to stand. These acreage shifts will destroy segments of the
minor oilseed and pulse crop industry that have been painstakingly
developed over a number of years.
For instance, already, users of the oil derived from oil sunflowers
anticipate supply shortages next year and have indicated they may
remove sunflower oil from their product mix. Conversely, incentives
caused by the much higher confectionery sunflower loan rate could
deluge USDA with massive loan forfeitures of low quality confectionery
sunflowers if farmers simply grow for the loan rate rather than a
quality crop that has a market.
The legislation amends the new farm bill by simply and redundantly
listing each minor oilseed crop after the stated loan rate. The
legislation reinstates the cramby and sesame seed loan rates that were
eliminated by USDA. The legislation also puts into bill language the
instructions that were spelled out in the Statement of Managers
regarding a single loan rate for all sunflowers and the quality grades
for the loan rates for dry peas, lentils and small chickpeas.
This legislation should not be needed. USDA could easily repeal the
current announcement of minor oilseed and pulse crop loan rates in
favor of rates consistent with this legislation and the new farm bill,
as I and my colleagues have asked in recent meetings and letters on
this issue.
I request 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. 3094

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

SECTION 1. MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER OILSEEDS, DRY PEAS, LENTILS,
AND SMALL CHICKPEAS.

(a) Definition of Other Oilseed.--Section 1001(9) of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
7901(9)) is amended by inserting ``crambe, sesame seed,''
after ``mustard seed,''.
(b) Loan Rates for Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance
Loans.--Section 1202 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7932) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (10) and
inserting the following:
``(10) In the case of other oilseeds, $.0960 per pound for
each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
``(A) Sunflower seed.
``(B) Rapeseed.
``(C) Canola.
``(D) Safflower.
``(E) Flaxseed.
``(F) Mustard seed.
``(G) Crambe.
``(H) Sesame seed.
``(I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (10) and
inserting the following:
``(10) In the case of other oilseeds, $.0930 per pound for
each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
``(A) Sunflower seed.
``(B) Rapeseed.
``(C) Canola.
``(D) Safflower.
``(E) Flaxseed.
``(F) Mustard seed.
``(G) Crambe.
``(H) Sesame seed.
``(I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Single County Loan Rate for Other Oilseeds.--The
Secretary shall establish a single loan rate in each county
for each kind of other oilseeds described in subsections
(a)(10) and (b)(10).
``(d) Quality Grades for Dry Peas, Lentils, and Small
Chickpeas.--The loan rate for dry peas, lentils, and small
chickpeas shall be based on--
``(1) in the case of dry peas, United States feed peas;
``(2) in the case of lentils, United States number 3
lentils; and
``(3) in the case of small chickpeas, United States number
3 small chickpeas that drop below a 20/64 screen.''.
(c) Repayment of Loans.--Section 1204 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7934) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and extra long staple
cotton'' and inserting ``extra long staple cotton, and
confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed (other
than oil sunflower seed)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (h); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Repayment Rates For Confectionery and Other Kinds of
Sunflower Seeds.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on
a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section
1201 for confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed
(other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser
of--
``(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
``(2) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower
seed.
``(g) Quality Grades for Dry Peas, Lentils, and Small
Chickpeas.--The loan repayment rate for dry peas, lentils,
and small chickpeas shall be based on the quality grades for
the applicable commodity specified in section 1202(d).''.
(d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section take effect as if included in the provisions
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-171) to which this section and the amendments relate.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3095. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
require premarket consultation and approval with respect to genetically
engineered foods, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would strengthen consumer confidence in the safety of genetically
engineered foods and genetically engineered animals that may enter the
food supply. This bill, known as the Genetically Engineered Foods Act,
requires an FDA review of all genetically engineered foods, and
requires an environmental review to be conducted as part of the safety
review for genetically engineered animals. In addition, the Genetically
Engineered Foods Act creates a transparent process that will better
inform and involve the public as decisions are made regarding the
safety of all genetically engineered foods and animals.
Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with one of the safest
and most abundant food supplies in the world, but we can always do
better. Genetically engineered foods have become a major part of the
American food supply in recent years. Many of the foods we consume now
contain genetically engineered ingredients such as corn and soy. These
foods have been enhanced with important qualities that help farmers
grow crops more efficiently. However, their development has raised
important questions about the safety of these foods and the adequacy of
government oversight.
Currently, genetically engineered foods are screened by the Federal
Food and Drug Administration under a voluntary consultation program.
The Genetically Engineered Foods Act will make this review program
mandatory, and will strengthen government oversight in several
important ways.
Mandatory Review: Producers of genetically engineered foods must
receive approval from the FDA before introducing their products into
interstate

[[Page S10372]]

commerce. The FDA will scientifically ensure that genetically
engineered foods are just as safe as comparable food products before
allowing them on the market.
Public Involvement: Scientific studies and other materials submitted
to the FDA as part of the mandatory review of genetically engineered
foods will be made available for public review and comment. Members of
the public can submit any new information on genetically engineered
foods not previously available to the FDA and request a new review of a
particular genetically engineered food product even if that food is
already on the market.
Testing: The FDA, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, will be
given the authority to conduct scientifically-sound testing to
determine whether genetically engineered foods are inappropriately
entering the food supply.
Communication: The FDA and other Federal agencies will establish a
registry of genetically engineered foods for easy access to information
about those foods that have been cleared for market. The genetically
engineered food review process will be fully transparent so that the
public has access to all non-confidential information.
Environmental Review with respect to Animals: While genetically
engineered foods such as corn and soy are already part of our food
supply, genetically engineered animals will also soon be ready for
market approval. These animals hold much promise for serving as an
additional source of food for our nation. However, in the case of
animals, we must ensure not only the safety of these products as they
enter the food supply, but also the safety of these products as they
come in contact with the environment.
The FDA has a mandatory review process in place that will be used to
review the safety of genetically engineered animals before they enter
the food supply. However, this bill will provide the FDA will
additional oversight authorities to be used during the safety approval
of genetically engineered animals.
Environmental issues have been identified as a major science-based
concern associated with genetically engineered animals. Therefore, to
obtain approval to market a genetically engineered animal, an
environmental assessment must be conducted that analyzes the potential
effects of the genetically engineered animal on the environment. A plan
must also be in place to reduce or eliminate any negative effects. If
the environmental assessment is not adequate, approval will not be
granted.
Transparency: In order to gain the benefits that genetically
engineered animals can offer as an additional source of food, public
confidence must be maintained in the safety of the product. This bill
will provide for public involvement in the approval process by
providing information to consumers, as well as the opportunity to
provide comments. Adding transparency will increase the public's
understanding and confidence in the safety of these animals as they
enter the food supply.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to strengthen consumer
confidence in the safety of genetically engineered foods and
genetically engineered animals that may enter the food supply. The
Genetically Engineered Foods Act can help provide the public with the
added assurance that genetically engineered foods and animals are safe
to produce and consume. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3095

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 ``Genetically Engineered Foods
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) genetically engineered food is rapidly becoming an
integral part of domestic and international food supplies;
(2) the potential positive effects of genetically
engineered foods are enormous;
(3) the potential for both anticipated and unanticipated
effects exists with genetic engineering of foods;
(4) genetically engineered food not approved for human
consumption has, in the past, entered the human food supply;
(5) environmental issues have been identified as a major
science-based concern associated with animal biotechnology;
(6) it is essential to maintain--
(A) public confidence in--
(i) the safety of the food supply; and
(ii) the ability of the Federal Government to exercise
adequate oversight of genetically engineered foods; and
(B) the ability of agricultural producers and other food
producers of the United States to market, domestically and
internationally, foods that have been genetically engineered;
(7) public confidence can best be maintained through
careful review and formal determination of the safety of
genetically engineered foods, and monitoring of the positive
and negative effects of genetically engineered foods as the
foods become integrated into the food supply, through a
review and monitoring process that--
(A) is scientifically sound, open, and transparent;
(B) fully involves the general public; and
(C) does not subject most genetically engineered foods to
the lengthy food additive approval process; and
(8) because genetically engineered foods are developed
worldwide and imported into the United States, it is
imperative that imported genetically engineered food be
subject to the same level of oversight as domestic
genetically engineered food.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) This Act.--In this Act, the terms ``genetic engineering
technique'', ``genetically engineered animal'', ``genetically
engineered food'', ``interstate commerce'', ``producer'',
``safe'', and ``Secretary'' have the meanings given those
terms in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321) (as amended by subsection (b)).
(b) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.--Section 201 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (v)--
(A) by striking ``(v) The term'' and inserting the
following:
``(v) New Animal Drug.--
``(1) In general.--The term'';
(B) by striking ``(1) the composition'' and inserting ``(A)
the composition'';
(C) by striking ``(2) the composition'' and inserting ``(B)
the composition''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Inclusion.--The term `new animal drug' includes--
``(A) a genetic engineering technique intended to be used
to produce an animal; and
``(B) a genetically engineered animal.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ll) Genetic Engineering Technique.--The term `genetic
engineering technique' means the use of a transformation
event to derive food from a plant or animal or to produce an
animal.
``(mm) Genetically Engineered Animal.--The term
`genetically engineered animal' means an animal that--
``(1) is intended to be used--
``(A) in the production of a food or dietary supplement; or
``(B) for any other purpose;
``(2)(A) is produced in the United States; or
``(B) is offered for import into the United States; and
``(3) is produced using a genetic engineering technique.
``(nn) Genetically Engineered Food.--
``(1) In general.--The term `genetically engineered food'
means a food or dietary supplement, or a seed, microorganism,
or ingredient intended to be used to produce a food or
dietary supplement, that--
``(A)(i) is produced in the United States; or
``(ii) is offered for import into the United States; and
``(B) is produced using a genetic engineering technique.
``(2) Inclusion.--The term `genetically engineered food'
includes a split use food.
``(3) Exclusion.--The term `genetically engineered food'
does not include a genetically engineered animal.
``(oo) Producer.--The term `producer', with respect to a
genetically engineered animal, genetically engineered food,
or genetic engineering technique, means a person, company, or
other entity that--
``(1) develops, manufactures, or imports the genetically
engineered animal, genetically engineered food, or genetic
engineering technique; or
``(2) takes other action to introduce the genetically
engineered animal, genetically engineered food, or genetic
engineering technique into interstate commerce.
``(pp) Safe.--The term `safe', with respect to a
genetically engineered food, means as safe as comparable food
that is not produced using a genetic engineering technique.
``(qq) Split Use Food.--The term `split use food' means a
product that--
``(1)(A) is produced in the United States; or
``(B) is offered for import into the United States;
``(2) is produced using a genetic engineering technique;
and
``(3) could be used as food by both humans and animals but
that the producer does not intend to market as food for
humans.
``(rr) Transformation Event.--The term `transformation
event' means the introduction into an organism of genetic
material that has been manipulated in vitro.''.

SEC. 4. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended--

[[Page S10373]]

(1) by inserting after the chapter heading the following:

``Subchapter A--General Provisions''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``Subchapter B--Genetically Engineered Foods

``SEC. 421. PREMARKET CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL.

``(a) In General.--A producer of genetically engineered
food, before introducing a genetically engineered food into
interstate commerce, shall first obtain approval through the
use of a premarket consultation and approval process.
``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations that describe--
``(1) all information that is required to be submitted for
the premarketing approval process, including--
``(A) specification of the species or other taxonomic
classification of plants for which approval is sought;
``(B) identification of the genetically engineered food;
``(C)(i) a description of each type of genetic manipulation
made to the genetically engineered food;
``(ii) identification of the manipulated genetic material;
and
``(iii) the techniques used in making the manipulation;
``(D) the effect of the genetic manipulation on the
composition of the genetically engineered food (including
information describing the specific substances that were
expressed, removed, or otherwise manipulated);
``(E) a description of the actual or proposed applications
and uses of the genetically engineered food;
``(F) information pertaining to--
``(i) the safety of the genetically engineered food as a
whole; and
``(ii) the safety of any specific substances introduced or
altered as a result of the genetic manipulation (including
information on allergenicity and toxicity);
``(G) test methods for detection of the genetically
engineered ingredients in food;
``(H) a summary and overview of information and issues that
have been or will be addressed by other regulatory programs
for the review of genetically engineered food;
``(I) procedures to be followed to initiate and complete
the premarket approval process (including any preconsultation
and consultation procedures); and
``(J) any other matters that the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
``(2) Split use food.--
``(A) In general.--The regulations under paragraph (1)
shall provide for the approval of--
``(i) split use foods that are not approved for human
consumption;
``(ii) split use foods that are intended for human use but
are marketed under restricted conditions; and
``(iii) other categories of split use food.
``(B) Issues.--For each category of split use food, the
regulations shall address--
``(i)(I) whether a protocol is needed for segregating a
restricted split use food from the food supply; and
``(II) if so, what the protocol shall be;
``(ii)(I) whether action is needed to ensure the purity of
any seed to prevent unintended introduction of a genetically
engineered trait into a seed that is not designed for that
trait; and
``(II) if so, what action is needed and what industry
practices represent the best practices for maintaining the
purity of the seed;
``(iii)(I) whether a tolerance level should exist regarding
cross-mixing of segregated split use foods; and
``(II) if so, the means by which the tolerance level shall
be determined;
``(iv) the manner in which the food safety analysis under
this section should be conducted, specifying different
standards and procedures depending on the degree of
containment for that product and the likelihood of the
product to enter the food supply;
``(v)(I) the kinds of surveillance that are needed to
ensure that appropriate segregation of split use foods is
being maintained;
``(II) the manner in which and by whom the surveillance
shall be conducted; and
``(III) the manner in which the results of surveillance
shall be reported; and
``(vi) clarification of responsibility in cases of
breakdown of segregation of a split use food.
``(C) Recall authority.--The regulations shall provide
that, in addition to other authority that the Secretary has
regarding split use food, the Secretary may order a recall of
any split use food (whether or not the split use food has
been approved under this section) that--
``(i) is not approved, but has entered the food supply; or
``(ii) has entered the food supply in violation of a
condition of restriction under an approval.
``(c) Application.--The regulations shall require that, as
part of the consultation and approval process, a producer
submit to the Secretary an application that includes a
summary and a complete copy of each research study, test
result, or other information referenced by the producer.
``(d) Review.--
``(1) In general.--After receiving an application under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall--
``(A) determine whether the producer submitted information
that appears to be adequate to enable the Secretary to fully
assess the safety of the genetically engineered food, and
make a description of the determination publicly available;
and
``(B) if the Secretary determines that the producer
submitted adequate information--
``(i) provide public notice regarding the initiation of the
consultation and approval process;
``(ii) make the notice, application, summaries submitted by
the producer, and research, test results, and other
information referenced by the producer publicly available,
including, to the maximum extent practicable, publication in
the Federal Register and on the Internet; and
``(iii) provide the public with an opportunity, for not
less than 45 days, to submit comments on the application.
``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may withhold information in
an application from public dissemination to protect a trade
secret if--
``(A) the information is exempt from disclosure under
section 522 of title 5, United States Code, or applicable
trade secret law;
``(B) the applicant--
``(i) identifies with specificity the trade secret
information in the application; and
``(ii) provides the Secretary with a detailed justification
for each trade secret claim; and
``(C) the Secretary--
``(i) determines that the information qualifies as a trade
secret subject to withholding from public dissemination; and
``(ii) makes the determination available to the public.
``(3) Determination.--Not later than 180 days after
receiving the application, the Secretary shall issue and make
publicly available a determination that--
``(A) summarizes the information referenced by the producer
in light of the public comments; and
``(B) contains a finding that the genetically engineered
food--
``(i) is safe and may be introduced into interstate
commerce;
``(ii) is safe under specified conditions of use and may be
introduced into interstate commerce if those conditions are
met; or
``(iii) is not safe and may not be introduced into
interstate commerce, because the genetically engineered
food--

``(I) contains genes that confer antibiotic resistance;
``(II) contains an allergen; or
``(III) presents 1 or more other safety concerns described
by the Secretary.

``(4) Extension.--The Secretary may extend the period
specified in paragraph (3) if the Secretary determines that
an extension of the period is necessary to allow the
Secretary to--
``(A) review additional information; or
``(B) address 1 or more issues or concerns of unusual
complexity.
``(e) Rescission of Approval.--
``(1) Reconsideration.--On the petition of any person, or
on the Secretary's own motion, the Secretary may reconsider
an approval of a genetically engineered food on the basis of
information that was not available before the approval.
``(2) Finding for reconsideration.--The Secretary shall
conduct a reconsideration on the basis of the information
described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary finds that the
information--
``(A) is scientifically credible;
``(B) represents significant information that was not
available before the approval; and
``(C)(i) suggests potential impacts relating to the
genetically engineered food that were not considered in the
earlier review; or
``(ii) demonstrates that the information considered before
the approval was inadequate for the Secretary to make a
safety finding.
``(3) Information from the producer.--In conducting the
reconsideration, the Secretary may require the producer to
provide information needed to facilitate the reconsideration.
``(4) Determination.--After reviewing the information by
the petitioner and the producer, the Secretary shall issue a
determination that--
``(A) revises the finding made in connection with the
approval with respect to the safety of the genetically
engineered food; or
``(B) states that, for reasons stated by the Secretary, no
revision of the finding is needed.
``(5) Action by the secretary.--If, based on a
reconsideration under this section, the Secretary determines
that the genetically engineered food is not safe, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) rescind the approval of the genetically engineered
food for introduction into interstate commerce;
``(B) recall the genetically engineered food; or
``(C) take such other action as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
``(f) Exemptions.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may by regulation exempt a
category of genetically engineered food from the regulations
under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that the
category of food does not pose a food safety risk.
``(2) Requirements.--A regulation under paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) contain a narrowly specified definition of the
category that is exempted;
``(B) describe with specificity the genetically engineered
foods that are included in the category; and
``(C) describe with specificity the genes, proteins, and
adjunct technologies (including

[[Page S10374]]

use of markers or promoters) that are involved in the genetic
engineering of the foods included in the category.
``(3) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide an
opportunity for the submission of comments by interested
persons on a proposed regulation under paragraph (1).

``SEC. 422. MARKETPLACE TESTING.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish a program to
conduct testing that the Secretary determines to be necessary
to detect, at all stages of production and distribution (from
agricultural production to retail sale), the presence of
genetically engineered ingredients in food.
``(b) Permissible Testing.--Under the program, the
Secretary may conduct tests on foods to detect genetically
engineered ingredients--
``(1) that have not been approved for use under this Act,
including foods that are developed in foreign countries that
have not been approved for marketing in the United States
under this Act; or
``(2) the use of which is restricted under this Act
(including approval for use as animal feed only, approval
only if properly labeled, and approval for growing or
marketing only in certain regions).

``SEC. 423. REGISTRY.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of other
agencies, as appropriate, shall establish a registry for
genetically engineered food that contains a description of
the regulatory status of all genetically engineered foods
approved under section 421.
``(b) Requirements.--The registry under subsection (a)
shall contain, for each genetically engineered food--
``(1) the technical and common names of the genetically
engineered food; and
``(2) a description of the regulatory status, under all
Federal programs pertaining to the testing and approval of
genetically engineered foods, of the genetically engineered
food;
``(3) a technical and nontechnical summary of the type of,
and a statement of the reason for, each genetic manipulation
made to the genetically engineered food;
``(4) the name, title, address, and telephone number of an
official at each producer of the genetically engineered food
whom members of the public may contact for information about
the genetically engineered food;
``(5) the name, title, address, and telephone number of an
official at each Federal agency with oversight responsibility
over the genetically engineered food whom members of the
public may contact for information about the genetically
engineered food; and
``(6) such other information as the Secretary determines
should be included.
``(c) Public Availability.--The registry under subsection
(a) shall be made available to the public, including
availability on the Internet.''.

SEC. 5. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS.

Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 512
the following:

``SEC. 512A. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS.

``(a) In General.--Section 512 shall apply to genetic
engineering techniques intended to be used to produce an
animal, and to genetically engineered animals, as provided in
this section.
``(b) Application.--An application under section 512(b)(1)
shall include--
``(1) specification of the species or other taxonomic
classification of the animal for which approval is sought;
``(2) an environmental assessment that analyzes the
potential effects of the genetically engineered animal on the
environment, including the potential effect on any
nongenetically engineered animal or other part of the
environment as a result of any intentional or unintentional
exposure of the genetically engineered animal to the
environment; and
``(3) a plan to eliminate or mitigate the potential effects
to the environment from the release of the genetically
engineered animal.
``(c) Dissemination of Application and Opportunity for
Public Comment.--
``(1) In general.--On receipt of an application under
section 512(b)(1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) provide public notice regarding the application,
including making the notice available on the Internet;
``(B) make the application and all supporting material
available to the public, including availability on the
Internet; and
``(C) provide the public with an opportunity, for not less
than 45 days, to submit comments on the application.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may withhold information
in an application from public dissemination to protect a
trade secret if--
``(i) the information is exempt from disclosure under
section 522 of title 5, United States Code, or applicable
trade secret law;
``(ii) the applicant--

``(I) identifies with specificity the trade secret
information in the application; and
``(II) provides the Secretary with a detailed justification
for each trade secret claim; and

``(iii) the Secretary--

``(I) determines that the information qualifies as a trade
secret subject to withholding from public dissemination; and
``(II) makes the determination available to the public.

``(B) Risk assessment information.--This paragraph does not
apply to information that assesses risks from the release
into the environment of a genetically engineered animal
(including any environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement performed to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)).
``(d) Denial of Application.--Under section 512(d)(1), the
Secretary shall deny an application if--
``(1) the environmental assessment for a genetically
engineered animal is not adequate; or
``(2) the plan to eliminate or mitigate the potential
environmental effects to the environment from the release of
the genetically engineered animal does not adequately protect
the environment.
``(e) Environmental Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--Before determining whether to approve an
application under section 512 for approval of a genetic
engineering technique intended to be used to produce an
animal, or of a genetically engineered animal, the Secretary
shall--
``(A) conduct an environmental assessment to evaluate the
potential effects of such a genetically engineered animal on
the environment; and
``(B) determine that the genetically engineered animal will
not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
``(2) Consultation.--In conducting an environmental
assessment under paragraph (1), the Secretary may consult, as
appropriate, with the Department of Agriculture, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and any other Federal
agency that has expertise relating to the animal species that
is the subject of the application.
``(f) Safety Determination.--In determining the safety of a
genetic engineering technique or genetically engineered
animal, the Secretary shall consider the potential effects of
the genetically engineered animal on the environment,
including the potential effect on nongenetically engineered
animals.
``(g) Progeny.--If an application for approval of a genetic
engineering technique to produce an animal of a species or
other taxonomic classification, or genetically engineered
animal, has been approved, no additional application shall be
required for animals of that species or other taxonomic
classification produced using that genetic engineering
technique or for the progeny of that genetically engineered
animal.
``(h) Conditions of Approval.--The Secretary may require as
a condition of approval of an application that any producer
of a genetically engineered animal that is the subject of the
application--
``(1) take specified actions to eliminate or mitigate any
potential harm to the environment that would be caused by a
release of the genetically engineered animal, including
actions specified in the plan submitted by the applicant; and
``(2) conduct post-approval monitoring for environmental
effects of any release of the genetically engineered animal
``(i) Recall; Suspension of Approval.--
``(1) Recall.--The Secretary may order a recall of any
genetically engineered animal (whether or not the genetically
engineered animal, or a genetic engineering technique used to
produce the genetically engineered animal, has been approved)
that the Secretary determines is harmful to--
``(A) humans;
``(B) the environment;
``(C) any animal that is subjected to a genetic engineering
technique; or
``(D) any animal that is not subjected to a genetic
engineering technique.
``(2) Suspension of approval.--If the Secretary determines
that a genetically engineered animal is harmful to the health
of humans or animals or to the environment, the Secretary
may--
``(A) immediately suspend the approval of application for
the genetically engineered animal;
``(B) give the applicant prompt notice of the action; and
``(C) afford the applicant an opportunity for an expedited
hearing.
``(j) Rescission of Approval.--
``(1) Reconsideration.--On the motion of any person, or on
the Secretary's own motion, the Secretary may reconsider an
approval of a genetic engineering technique or genetically
engineered animal on the basis of information that was not
available during an earlier review.
``(2) Finding for reconsideration.--The Secretary shall
conduct a reconsideration on the basis of the information
described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary finds that the
information--
``(A) is scientifically credible;
``(B) represents significant information that was not
available before the approval; and
``(C)(i) suggests potential impacts relating to the
genetically engineered animal that were not considered before
the approval; or
``(ii) demonstrates that the information considered before
the approval was inadequate for the Secretary to make a
safety finding.
``(3) Information from the producer.--In conducting the
reconsideration, the Secretary may require the producer to
provide information needed to facilitate the reconsideration.

[[Page S10375]]

``(4) Determination.--After reviewing the information by
the petitioner and the producer, the Secretary shall issue a
determination that--
``(A) revises the finding made in connection with the
approval with respect to the safety of the genetically
engineered animal; or
``(B) states that, for reasons stated by the Secretary, no
revision of the finding is needed.
``(5) Action by the secretary.--If, based on a review under
this subsection, the Secretary determines that the
genetically engineered animal is not safe, the Secretary
shall--
``(A) rescind the approval of the genetic engineering
technique or genetically engineered animal for introduction
into interstate commerce;
``(B) recall the genetically engineered animal; or
``(C) take such other action as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.''.

SEC. 6. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) Unlawful Use of Trade Secret Information.--Section
301(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
331(j)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by inserting ``421,'' after ``414,''; and
(2) by inserting ``512A,'' after ``512,''.
(b) Adulterated Food.--Section 402 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(i) Genetically Engineered Animals.--If it is a
genetically engineered animal, or is a genetically engineered
animal produced using a genetic engineering technique, that
is not approved under sections 512 and 512A.
``(j) Genetically Engineered Foods.--
``(1) In general.--If it is a genetically engineered food,
or is a genetically engineered food produced using a genetic
engineering technique, that is not approved under section
421.
``(2) Split use foods.--If it is a split use food that does
not maintain proper segregation as required under regulations
promulgated under section 421.''.

SEC. 7. TRANSITION PROVISION.

(a) In General.--A genetic engineering technique,
genetically engineered animal, or genetically engineered food
that entered interstate commerce before the date of enactment
of this Act shall not require approval under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), but
shall be considered to have been so approved, if--
(1) the producer, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, submits to the Secretary--
(A) a notice stating that the genetic engineering
technique, genetically engineered animal, or genetically
engineered food entered interstate commerce before the date
of enactment of this Act, providing such information as the
Secretary may require; and
(B) a request that the Secretary conduct a review of the
genetic engineering technique, genetically engineered animal,
or genetically engineered food under subsection (b); and
(2) the Secretary does not issue, on or before the date
that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a
notice under subsection (b)(2) that an application for
approval is required.
(b) Review by the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 21 months after the date on
which the Secretary receives a notice and request for review
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall review all relevant
information in the possession of the Secretary, all
information provided by the producer, and other relevant
public information to determine whether a review of new
scientific information is necessary to ensure that the
genetic engineering technique, genetically engineered animal,
or genetically engineered food is safe.
(2) Notice that application is required.--If the Secretary
determines that new scientific information is necessary to
determine whether a genetic engineering technique,
genetically engineered animal, or genetically engineered food
is safe, the Secretary, not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, shall issue to the producer a
notice stating that the producer is required to submit an
application for approval of the genetic engineering
technique, genetically engineered animal, or genetically
engineered food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
(c) Failure To Submit Application.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
genetically engineered animal or genetically engineered food
with respect to which the Secretary issues a notice that an
application is required under subsection (b)(2) shall be
considered adulterated under section 402 or 501, as the case
may be, of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 342, 351) unless--
(A) not later than 45 days after the producer receives the
notice, the producer submits an application for approval; and
(B) the Secretary approves the application.
(2) Pending application.--A genetically engineered animal
or genetically engineered food with respect to which the
producer submits an application for approval shall not be
considered to be adulterated during the pendency of the
application.

SEC. 8. REPORTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years, 4 years, and 6
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
and the heads of other Federal agencies, as appropriate,
shall jointly submit to Congress a report on genetically
engineered animals, genetically engineered foods, and genetic
engineering techniques.
(b) Contents.--A report under subsection (a) shall
contain--
(1) information on the types and quantities of genetically
engineered foods being offered for sale or being developed,
domestically and internationally;
(2) a summary (including discussion of new developments and
trends) of the legal status and acceptability of genetically
engineered foods in major markets, including the European
Union and Japan;
(3) information on current and emerging issues of concern
relating to genetic engineering techniques, including issues
relating to--
(A) the ecological impact of, antibiotic markers for,
insect resistance to, nongerminating or terminator seeds for,
or cross-species gene transfer for genetically engineered
foods;
(B) foods from genetically engineered animals;
(C) nonfood crops (such as cotton) produced using a genetic
engineering technique; and
(D) socioeconomic concerns (such as the impact of
genetically engineered animals and genetically engineered
foods on small farms);
(4) a response to, and information concerning the status of
implementation of, the recommendations contained in the
reports entitled ``Genetically Modified Pest Protected
Plants'', ``Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants'', and
``Animal Biotechnology Identifying Science-Based Concerns'',
issued by the National Academy of Sciences;
(5) an assessment of the need for data relating to
genetically engineered animals and genetically engineered
foods;
(6) a projection of--
(A) the number of genetically engineered animals,
genetically engineered foods, and genetic engineering
techniques that will require regulatory review during the 5-
year period following the date of the report; and
(B) the adequacy of the resources of the Food and Drug
Administration; and
(7) an evaluation of the national capacity to test foods
for the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in
food.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Reed):
S. 3096. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to require ballistics testing of all firearms manufactured and all
firearms in custody of Federal agencies; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator
Feinstein, Senator Schumer, and Senator Reed to introduce ``BLAST'',
the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act.
Never before have the tremendous law enforcement benefits of
ballistics testing been so apparent. We have the technology to
``fingerprint'' every new gun, and if we were using it today, we would
be well on our way toward stopping the serial killer who even now is
preying on the residents of suburban Washington.
Every gun has a unique ``fingerprint'', the distinct patterns left on
spent casings and bullets after it is fired. What we need to do is
create a comprehensive library of the ballistic images of all new guns
sold in the U.S. as they come off the assembly line and a library of
the images of all guns used in crimes. With those libraries in place,
new technology would allow us to compare those ``gun prints'' with
bullets found at crime scenes, bullets like those found from the
Washington area sniper's gun.
By keeping a computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police
can compare the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun
until they find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can
begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used
it to commit the crime.
Police tell of solving multiple crimes simply by comparing bullets
and shell casings found at the scene of a crime to a gun seized in a
seemingly unrelated incident. Let me explain how ballistics testing
works and how our measure is crucial to the fight against crime.
The only evidence at the scene of a recent brutal homicide in
Milwaukee was 9 millimeter cartridge casings, there were no other
clues. But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an
unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of the firearm that
had discharged those casings. Ballistics linked the two cases.
Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the
homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court.

[[Page S10376]]

On September 9, 2000, several suspects were arrested in Boston for
the illegal possession of three handguns. Each of the guns was test
fired, and the ballistics information was compared to evidence found at
other crime scenes. The police quickly found that the three guns were
used in the commission of 15 felonies in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. This routine arrest for illegal possession of firearms provided
police with new leads in the investigation of 15 unsolved crimes.
Without the ballistics testing, these crimes would not have been linked
and might have never been solved.
Since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement
agencies in more than 40 states have been operating independent
ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI. Together,
ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System, ``IBIS'', and the
FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to
two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking.
While success stories are increasingly frequent, the potential of
ballistics testing is still untapped. One way that the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is making ballistics testing more
accessible to State and local law enforcement is through the
installation of a new network of ballistics imaging machines. The final
introduction of the machines across the country is almost complete and,
once it is, the computers will be able to access each other and search
for a greater number of images. The National Integrated Ballistics
Information network, better know as ``NIBIN,'' will permit law
enforcement in one locality access to information stored in other gun
crime databases around the entire country. This will help law
enforcement exponentially in their efforts to solve gun crimes.
But ballistics testing is only as useful as the number of images in
the database. Today, almost all jurisdictions are limited to images of
bullets and cartridge casings that come from guns used in crimes. Our
bill would dramatically expand the scope of that database by mandating
that all guns manufactured or imported would be test fired before being
placed into the stream of commerce. The images collected from the test
firing would then be collected and accessible to law enforcement, and
law enforcement only, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting
gun crimes.
As local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities search for
the deranged murderer who has been terrorizing the Washington D.C.
metropolitan area, they are using ballistics testing to determine
whether the bullets and shell casings found at the scene of each crime
are from the same gun. They can then identify the gun, giving them a
better idea of what, and who, they are looking for in their manhunt.
Had the gun used in these crimes been subject to a test fire before
being placed in the stream of commerce, authorities would be able to
identify the gun based on the bullets and casings. With that
information, law enforcement could then trace the sale and transfer of
the firearm in an effort to identify the owner of the gun and solve the
crime.
Today, police can find out more about a human being than they can
about a gun used in a crime. Law enforcement can use DNA testing, take
fingerprints and blood samples, search a person's health records,
peruse bank records and credit card statements, obtain phone records
and get a list of book purchases to link a suspect to a crime. Yet, the
bullets found at the scene of a crime often cannot be traced back to
the gun used because our ballistics images database is not
comprehensive. We are unnecessarily limiting law enforcement's ability
to track the criminals who have used guns in the commission of a crime.
The BLAST bill will change all that. by making gun crimes easier to
solve, all of us will be safer.
The burden on manufacturers is minimal, we authorize funds to
underwrite the cost of testing, and the assistance to law enforcement
is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun
manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice-
president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said in reference to
ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime
control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want
this.'' In their agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all
new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATF,
emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative
device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a
haystack.''
To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters
and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics
database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics
information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for
the investigation of a gun crime.
The BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps
solve crime. BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation.
I hope that the Senate will quickly move to pass it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3096

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 ``Ballistics, Law Assistance,
and Safety Technology Act'' or the ``BLAST Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to increase public safety by assisting law enforcement
in solving more gun-related crimes and offering prosecutors
evidence to link felons to gun crimes through ballistics
technology;
(2) to provide for ballistics testing of all new firearms
for sale to assist in the identification of firearms used in
crimes;
(3) to require ballistics testing of all firearms in
custody of Federal agencies to assist in the identification
of firearms used in crimes; and
(4) to add ballistics testing to existing firearms
enforcement programs.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF BALLISTICS.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(35) Ballistics.--The term `ballistics' means a
comparative analysis of fired bullets and cartridge casings
to identify the firearm from which bullets and cartridge
casings were discharged, through identification of the unique
characteristics that each firearm imprints on bullets and
cartridge casings.''.

SEC. 4. TEST FIRING AND AUTOMATED STORAGE OF BALLISTICS
RECORDS.

(a) Amendment.--Section 923 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m)(1) In addition to the other licensing requirements
under this section, a licensed manufacturer or licensed
importer shall--
``(A) test fire firearms manufactured or imported by such
licensees as specified by the Secretary by regulation;
``(B) prepare ballistics images of the fired bullet and
cartridge casings from the test fire;
``(C) make the records available to the Secretary for entry
in a computerized database; and
``(D) store the fired bullet and cartridge casings in such
a manner and for such a period as specified by the Secretary
by regulation.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection creates a cause of action
against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for
any civil liability except for imposition of a civil penalty
under this section.
``(3)(A) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall
assist firearm manufacturers and importers in complying with
paragraph (1) through--
``(i) the acquisition, disposition, and upgrades of
ballistics equipment and bullet and cartridge casing recovery
equipment to be placed at or near the sites of licensed
manufacturers and importers;
``(ii) the hiring or designation of personnel necessary to
develop and maintain a database of ballistics images of fired
bullets and cartridge casings, research and evaluation;
``(iii) providing education about the role of ballistics as
part of a comprehensive firearm crime reduction strategy;
``(iv) providing for the coordination among Federal, State,
and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies and the
firearm industry to curb firearm-related crime and illegal
firearm trafficking; and
``(v) any other steps necessary to make ballistics testing
effective.
``(B) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall--
``(i) establish a computer system through which State and
local law enforcement agencies can promptly access ballistics
records stored under this subsection, as soon as such a
capability is available; and
``(ii) encourage training for all ballistics examiners.
``(4) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this subsection and annually

[[Page S10377]]

thereafter, the Attorney General and the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report regarding the impact of this
section, including--
``(A) the number of Federal and State criminal
investigations, arrests, indictments, and prosecutions of all
cases in which access to ballistics records provided under
this section served as a valuable investigative tool in the
prosecution of gun crimes;
``(B) the extent to which ballistics records are accessible
across jurisdictions; and
``(C) a statistical evaluation of the test programs
conducted pursuant to section 6 of the Ballistics, Law
Assistance, and State Technology Act.
``(5) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, $20,000,000 to carry
out this subsection, including--
``(A) installation of ballistics equipment and bullet and
cartridge casing recovery equipment;
``(B) establishment of sites for ballistics testing;
``(C) salaries and expenses of necessary personnel; and
``(D) research and evaluation.
``(6) The Secretary and the Attorney General shall conduct
mandatory ballistics testing of all firearms obtained or in
the possession of their respective agencies.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
on the date on which the Attorney General and the Secretary
of the Treasury, in consultation with the Board of the
National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, certify
that the ballistics systems used by the Department of Justice
and the Department of the Treasury are sufficiently
interoperable to make mandatory ballistics testing of new
firearms possible.
(2) Ballistics testing.--Section 923(m)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take
effect 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Effective on date of enactment.--Section 923(m)(6) of
title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. PRIVACY RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Ballistics information of individual guns in any form or
database established by this Act may not be used for
prosecutorial purposes unless law enforcement officials have
a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that
ballistics information would assist in the investigation of
that crime.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator
Kohl in introducing the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety
Technology Act. This legislation would build on the success of the
existing National Integrated Ballistic Information Network by
requiring, for the first time, ballistics testing of all new firearms
so that law enforcement can more effectively trace bullets or cartridge
casings recovered from shootings.
As we have learned from the horrific series of sniper shootings in
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area over the past week, law
enforcement already has the technology to link bullets or casings found
at separate crime scenes back to a single gun. Every firearm has
individual characteristics that are as unique to it as fingerprints are
to human beings. When a gun is fired, it transfers these
characteristics, in the form of small, sometimes microscopic scratches
and dents, to the projectiles and cartridge casings fired in it.
These unique fingerprints offer a great crime-solving tool for law
enforcement. When bullets or cartridge casings are found at a crime
scene, firearms examiners can use the marks for comparison, to
determine whether or not the bullets or casings were expelled from a
suspect's firearm. If a firearm is recovered at the scene, a test fire
of the weapon creates example bullets and cartridge casings for
comparison to those found in or near a victim. Bullets and casings
found at one crime scene can also be compared with those found at
another in order to link the crimes.
On the national level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently combined their
ballistics identification programs into the National Integrated
Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN, which provides for the
installation and networking of automated ballistic imaging equipment in
state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. Because
thousands more pieces of recovered ballistic evidence can be compared
using digital automation than would be possible using only manual
comparisons, links between otherwise seemingly unrelated crimes are
discovered, and investigative leads are generated for police followup.
Ballistics imaging technology is already demonstrating its potential
to revolutionize criminal investigation. But a major tool for law
enforcement is missing here, and that is a national ballistics
fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement to trace crime
scene evidence back to a suspect. The current NIBIN system provides
valuable information on guns that have been used in crime, but unless
such a gun was used in a previous crime for which ballistics evidence
was collected and entered, the bullets or casings from the crime scene
will find no match in the NIBIN system. No ballistics data are
available for most of the estimated 200 million guns in this country,
and no ballistics fingerprint information is being collected on the
three to five million new guns coming into commerce in the United
States each year. As a result, law enforcement usually has no way to
trace the evidence back to a specific firearm and, ultimately, a
suspect.
The bill we are introducing today would give law enforcement the
tools it needs to fight violent crime by requiring gun manufacturers
and importers to test fire all new firearms, prepare ballistics images
of the fired bullet and cartridge casings, and make these records
available to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for entry in a
computerized database which would be shared with state and local law
enforcement agencies across the country. The bill also provides $20
million per year for ATF to help gun manufacturers and importers comply
with these requirements by installing or upgrading ballistics equipment
at or near the places of business of manufacturers and importers.
I have no doubt that the National Rifle Association and some in the
gun industry are going to say that what we are proposing is tantamount
to establishing a national registry of gun owners. I want to point out
that this bill does not require the submission to law enforcement of
any information beyond the ballistic images produced by test firing the
gun. The names of any people or businesses that buy guns from federally
licensed manufacturers or importers will continue to be kept in the
files of those manufacturers and importers just as the law requires
today. Law enforcement would only have access to this information in
the context of a criminal investigation, for example when the evidence
from a crime scene matches a ballistics fingerprint record for a gun
produced and sold by a certain manufacturer or importer.
We should have taken these steps years ago. If we had, maybe the
ballistic evidence from this week's sniper shootings would match an
image in the law enforcement database, and we could save lives by
identifying and arresting this cold-blooded killer before he strikes
again. But the gun lobby has prevented the creation of an effective
ballistics database by portraying this as a national gun registry. In
fact, they have been so successful that even though two States,
Maryland and New York, have created a ballistics fingerprint system for
all guns sold in those States, the ATF's NIBIN system is not even
allowed to access those records, nor can law enforcement agencies in
other States look at the records through the NIBIN network. We will
never know how many violent crimes may go unsolved because of this
insane restriction on law enforcement's ability to do its job.
We have a responsibility to give law enforcement authorities the
tools they need to quickly track down and bring to justice those who
would use firearms to prey on our communities. The bill we are
introducing today will do that by taking full advantage of the crime-
fighting benefits that ballistic imaging and analysis can provide. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 3097. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a nonrefundable credit for holders of qualified highway bonds; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the MEGA
INNOVATE ACT. Maximum Economic Growth for America through Innovative
Financing.
MEGA Innovate is part of a series of bi-partisan bills that Senator
Crapo

[[Page S10378]]

and I have introduced that serve as our proposals for TEA 21
Reauthorization.
I was privileged to have been an author of TEA 21, and I look forward
to working with my fellow Finance Committee members, EPW Committee
members, as well as members on other Committees, as we craft the next
highway bill under the leadership of Senator Jeffords.
The Finance Committee has held hearings that examined how to provide
funding for our highway system. We heard about projections for Trust
Fund income over the next 10 years.
As successful as standard financing has been, our transportation
needs far outweigh our resources.
The MEAGA INNOVATE ACT is about increasing financing to the Highway
Trust Fund without raising taxes. I am looking at additional means of
financing to supplement the Highway Trust Fund in order to meet our
Nation's transportation needs.
In recent years there has been increased recognition, throughout the
country, of the important contribution that a strong highway program
makes to our nation's economic prosperity and quality of life.
In Montana it is our economy's ``golden egg'' so to speak.
As we prepare to reauthorize the highway program next year, a
fundamental question for the Congress is how to increase the level of
investment, for the benefit of all citizens and all States.
Earlier this year Senator Crapo and I introduced bi-partisan
legislation with 12 co-sponsors, S. 2678--the MEGA TRUST Act, Maximum
Economic Growth for America through the Highway Trust Fund. This bill
laid out some ways to increase investment in the highway program
without raising taxes.
That legislation would allow the Highway Trust Fund to be properly
credited with taxes either paid or foregone with respect to gasohol
consumption.
It would also reinstate the principle that the highway and mass
transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund should be credited with
interest on their respective balances.
Those are important reforms that I believe we must enact as soon as
possible. But we must continue to work to find additional ways to
enable a stronger level of highway investment, because that investment
is so important and beneficial to the country.
Today I am introducing the MEGA INNOVATE Act--Maximum Economic Growth
for America Through Innovative Financing.
Under this legislation the Secretary of the Treasury would sell Tax
Credit Bonds with the proceeds being placed in the Highway Account of
the Highway Trust Fund. The Treasury would be responsible for the
principal and interest.
The bond proceeds will enable the basic highway program to grow and
would help the citizens of every state.
Administration of this initiative will be simple. No new structures
are required. This is a new idea that does not raise taxes, but would
advance our national interest in a strong highway program.
As this is a new idea for highways, the bill introduces this concept
at a very modest level, in the range of $3 billion annually in bond
sales.
However, when combined with the provisions of the MEGA TRUST Act, and
the continuation of current sources of revenue, this legislation should
enable the highway program to achieve an obligation level of
approximately $41 to 42 billion by fiscal year 2009.
Many other officials and organizations have shown interest in both
MEGA TRUST and MEGA INNOVATE, such as the State DOTs of Montana, Idaho,
North and South Dakota and Wyoming. Highway Advocate groups, such as
the Highway Users Alliance have also shown support for both bills.
I very much appreciate the support of these groups, as well as the
support of others for these two important initiatives.
A well-funded highway program is certainly essential to the economic
future of my State of Montana and to other States.
So, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the MEGA INNOVATE
ACT, on the MEGA TRUST ACT, and all my other MEGA bills. I also look
forward to looking at other ways to help our citizens benefit from
increased levels of highway investment.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Gramm):
S. 3098. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a program for the competitive acquisition of items and
services under the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague
from Texas, Mr. Gramm, to introduce the Medicare Competition
Acquisition Act of 2002.
Today, we are faced with the reality that the Medicare program must
be reformed for the 21st Century. In the 37 years since Medicare was
created, several medical advances have been achieved. It is time to
reap the full benefits of those advances and shift the focus of the
Medicare program to one that promotes wellness. For that, a
prescription drug benefit is mandatory. It is the single most important
reform we can make to Medicare.
However, the absence of a prescription drug benefit for America's
seniors is not the only archaic aspect of the Medicare program.
Congress has required Medicare to use an arbitrary method of payment
for certain items and services, which costs the program and its
beneficiaries much more than it should.
We think America's seniors deserve better. They deserve to pay fair
market price for high-quality medical products instead of being subject
to an outdated fee schedule that often reflects unreasonably high
markups above actual cost.
The Medicare Competitive Acquisition Act applies high-quality
standards and fiscal discipline to the Medicare program. Under this
bill, Medicare will be able to use the same competitive tools the
private sector has in place to control costs, while maintaining
beneficiary access to quality medical supplies and services. This
proposal was included in President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget, and
the Clinton Administration long advocated this fiscally responsible,
high quality approach to improve Medicare.
Several studies by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO)
and the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Inspector General
indicate that the Medicare program and Medicare beneficiaries have been
paying far too much for some medical equipment and supplies. Take pre-
fabricated orthotics, for example. The most recent GAO data available
indicates that the Medicare allowance for a pre-fabricated, self-
adjusting hand/wrist brace is more than 140% higher than its average
retail price. For an intermittent urinary catheter, the difference
between the Medicare allowance and the average retail price is 93
percent.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that our bill will save
Medicare $1.8 billion over 5 years and $6.9 billion over 10 years. This
means savings for beneficiaries of $450 million over 5 years and $1.72
billion over 10 years.
I was pleased that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a
modified version of my competitive bidding proposal. It gave HHS the
authority to conduct competitive bidding demonstrations for Medicare
Part B items and services other than physician services. The Medicare
Competitive Acquisition Act builds upon successful demonstration
projects in Polk County, Florida and San Antonio, Texas by allowing the
HHS Secretary to establish a competitive bidding system for durable
medical equipment and supplies in appropriate parts of the country.
I want to thank my colleague from the great State of Georgia, Mr.
Cleland, for his leadership on this issue. The Senator not only helped
us develop significant beneficiary protections, he worked to ensure
flexibility for rural areas. Senator Cleland was also instrumental in
our request for a GAO study on the introduction of new and innovative
medical equipment and supplies to the Medicare market.
The Medicare Competitive Acquisition Act allows the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to award contracts to multiple
suppliers in each region in order to enhance beneficiary freedom of
choice and promote quality among competitors. The number of suppliers
selected will be based on product demand, the number of suppliers
selected will be based on product

[[Page S10379]]

demand, the number of suppliers who bid and the service capacity of
bidding suppliers. This ensures that the number of suppliers selected
will be more than sufficient to supply a given area and that
beneficiaries will have access to the products and services they need.
CMS will have the authority to replace any winning supplier whose
product or service quality deteriorates after the contract is awarded.
Small businesses are vital to the success of competitive bidding. In
both rounds of the Polk County demonstration, small businesses received
12 of the 16 willing contracts. In the San Antonio demonstration, they
received 40 of the 51 winning contracts.
To ensure a level playing field in the future, we continue small
business protections implemented under the demonstration by CMS. For
example, we give suppliers the option to bid for a portion of an
expansion area as opposed to having to bid for an entire expansion
area. We also allow suppliers to bid for only one or a few product
categories in a competitive acquisition area as opposed to having to
bid for all of the product categories in a particular area.
The introduction of competitive bidding into the Medicare program
will not only ensure beneficiary access to high-quality medical
equipment and supplies, it will also reduce fraud and abuse. Suppliers
who are under sanctions for fraud and abuse will be ineligible to
participate in the bidding process. On-site reviews will be conducted
prior to awarding contracts, ensuring that the suppliers are valid and
operating businesses.
Contrary to what the nay-sayers will tell you, competitive bidding
for durable medical equipment and suppliers has nothing to do with
cutting services to beneficiaries or lowering quality standards. It has
everything to do with improving access to high-quality medical
equipment for America's seniors in a cost-effective manner.
As we search for ways to secure Medicare for the long term, we must
take prudent steps to improve the efficiency of the program.
Implementation of competitive bidding for certain Part B items and
services is one way in which Congress can show that we are serious
about preserving the integrity of Medicare.
I urge the Senate to support this measure.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3100. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the
misuse of social security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for
such misuse, and for other purposes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly speak in favor of the
legislation introduced today by Senators Feinstein and Gregg titled
``The Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2002,'' indeed, I
am an original cosponsor of this legislation. If enacted, this bill
will reduce the misuse of individuals' Social Security numbers, SSNs,
by others.
As you well know, the Social Security number is increasingly being
used for purposes not related to the administration of the Social
Security program, because it is, in many cases, our national
identification number. As a result, many people can gain access to the
number, and this facilitates its use as a tool for illegal activity,
most significantly for the crime of identity theft. In a report issued
by the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector
General, OIG, in May 1999, investigators concluded that most identity-
related crimes involved the fraudulent use of a Social Security number.
Additionally, the introduction of the SSN into the arena of electronic
commerce has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in SSN misuse.
Given the upward trend in SSN misuse, I feel that the Congress must
take a fresh look at options for safeguarding Social Security numbers.
I believe that the bill introduced by Senators Feinstein, Gregg and
myself today is an important development in that effort. However, I
want to make it clear that this bill will not eliminate all misuse of
Social Security numbers. There are many legitimate and necessary uses
of Social Security numbers and this bill does not prohibit such uses.
Unfortunately, the absence of such prohibitions makes it easier for
those who seek to misuse Social Security numbers.
The legislation being introduced today is very similar to a bill, S.
848, that was introduced by Senators Feinstein and Gregg during the
first session of the 107th Congress. Although S. 848 was referred to
the Judiciary Committee, the bill deals extensively with sections of
the US Code concerning Social Security numbers, legislative changes to
these sections are in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
Therefore, Senator Grassley and I expressed our concern that S. 848
should have been referred to the Finance Committee and we initiated a
successful unanimous consent request, with the support of Senators
Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, and Gregg, to sequentially refer the bill to
the Finance Committee. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported the
bill on May 16th of this year and it was immediately referred to the
Finance Committee.
We at the Finance Committee examined the problems which this
legislation tries to address and found potential solutions to these
problems to be very complex. In addition, as the legislation could
potentially affect all of the uses and availabilities of SSNs many
interested parties contacted the Finance Committee to express their
views.
Given the complexity of the issues and the large number of
stakeholders involved, the Finance Committee decided to schedule a
subcommittee hearing in advance of a mark-up in order to better inform
Committee members and their staffs about these issues. Special
attention was focused on the core set of solutions embodied in the bill
reported by the Judiciary Committee. After a long series of
discussions, we reached agreement with Senator Feinstein on legislation
which makes a number of changes to the reported version of S. 848. We
then scheduled a mark-up of this substitute for S. 848, but were unable
to proceed with the mark-up because some members of the Committee
planned to offer amendments that were extraneous and controversial. As
a result, in order to move this legislation forward expeditiously, I
asked Senators Feinstein and Gregg to introduce the substitute for S.
848 as new legislation with me as an original cosponsor. Moreover, I
intend to use procedures in Rule XIV of the Senate to have it placed on
the calendar, rather than have it referred to Committee. Once on the
calendar, the bill is eligible to be brought up for debate on the
Senate floor.

As reported by the Judiciary Committee, S. 848 would:
Prohibit the sale, purchase, or display of a Social Security
number to the general public without the individual's
consent, with exceptions for legitimate business and
government activity; prohibit the release of certain key
public records to the general public unless Social Security
numbers are first redacted, this provision applies only to
records created after the bill is enacted; require Social
Security numbers to be removed from government checks,
drivers' licenses, and motor vehicle registrations; prohibit
the employment of prisoners in any capacity that would give
them access to Social Security numbers; make it a crime to
obtain an SSN for the purpose of locating or identifying a
person with the intent to physically harm that person; give
consumers the right to refuse to give out their Social
Security numbers when purchasing a good or service from a
commercial entity, unless the entity has a legitimate need as
specified in the law; and create new civil monetary
penalties, criminal penalties, and civil actions to help
prevent misuse of Social Security numbers; requires all new
credit card payment processing machines to truncate the
credit card account numbers to the last five digits on the
printed receipt.
The substitute for S. 848 that is being introduced today
retains the basic structure and objectives of the Judiciary
Committee-reported bill, but makes several substantive
changes that improve the bill. The substitute bill: makes
clear that it is permissible to sell, purchase or display
Social Security numbers for any legitimate use required,
authorized or excepted by any Federal law. Stops new public
records containing Social Security numbers from being posted
on the Internet and calls for a study by the General
Accounting Office of issues pertaining to the display of
Social Security numbers on any public records. Permits State
Attorneys General to enforce the new ``right to refuse'' to
provide a Social Security number, but prohibits class action
lawsuits to enforce this new ``right.'' Sunsets the ``right
to refuse'' after six years, and calls for a report by the
Attorney General, six months after the sunset regarding the
effectiveness of this ``right to refuse'' and whether it
should be reauthorized.

To conclude, I think that the introduction of this revised version of
S. 848 and the placement of it on the calendar are two very important
steps in our fight to reduce the misuse of Social Security numbers and
reduce the theft of

[[Page S10380]]

identities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this
important piece of legislation.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Biden):
S. 3101. A bill to amend title IV of the Missing Children's
Assistance Act to provide for increased funding for the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Missing
Children's Assistance Act of 2002, which doubles the funding for the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and reauthorizes the
Center through fiscal year 2006. I am pleased to have Senators Hatch
and Biden as cosponsors.
Due to tragic circumstances, the importance of the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, ``NCMEC'', has become even more
pronounced over the past year. We have seen repeated media coverage of
missing children from every corner of our nation, and parents and
children alike have slept less easily. As a father and grandfather, I
know that an abducted child is every parent's or grandparent's worst
nightmare.
The Justice Department estimates that between 3,000 and 4,000
children are taken by strangers every year. This legislation will
strengthen our efforts to return those children to their homes, and
relieve their parents of unimaginable grief.
The Center for Missing and Exploited Children assists parents,
children, law enforcement, schools, and the community in their efforts
to recover missing children. The professionals at NCMEC have
disturbingly busy jobs, they have worked on more than 73,000 cases of
missing and exploited children since NCMEC's founding in 1984, helping
to recover more than 48,000 of them. They also raise awareness about
preventing child abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.
As part of its mission, NCMEC runs: 1. a 24-hour telephone hotline to
take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their
recovery, 2. a national child pornography tipline, and 3. a program
that assists families in the reunification process. NCMEC also helps
runaway children, including through attempts to reduce child
prostitution.
NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with only a $10 million
authorization, which expires after fiscal year 2003. We should act now
both to extend its authorization and provide additional funds so that
it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around
the nation.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 3102. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify
and reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of broadcast transmission facilities,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 3103. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify
and reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless services facilities, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer two pieces of
legislation that would close a loophole that allows Federal regulators
to overrule local officials on the building of cellular and broadcast
towers. I am proud to be joined by Senator Jeffords, and Senator Murray
in introducing legislation that will return decision-making power on
the siting of towers to local communities.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I opposed, contained a
provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt
the decisions of local authorities. Over the last five years, a small
loophole in the 1996 Act has spurred David versus Goliath battles
across the country. Small communities that pride themselves in deciding
what their towns will look like, now have few options when they try to
stop or even negotiate a different site for broadcast or cellular
towers. In Vermont, we have had several communities, Shelburne, Bethel,
and Charlotte, run directly into this problem. What used to be their
right to decide these decisions under zoning laws was up-ended.
These communities understand that there will be new towers. Demand
for wireless services has skyrocketed over the last few years. The
mountains and hills of Vermont make many Vermonters joke that cell
phones are more useful as paper weights than as a way to talk with
friends and family. However, Vermonters and people across the country
do not believe that we have to sacrifice our scenic views and
residential areas to ensure wireless coverage.
As a Vermonter, I do not want to wake up ten years from now and see
my State turned into a pincushion of antennas and towers. That is why I
am introducing these bills today. In a way, these bills are the
culmination of a long battle with the Federal Communications Commission
and in the courts to protect local authority.
In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the
legislative loophole and proposed an expansive new rule to prevent
State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cell and
broadcast towers on the basis of environmental considerations, aviation
safety, or other locally-determined matters. I fought this proposed
rule and was joined by many Vermonters, Governor Dean, the Vermont
Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials and others. I also joined
with many Vermonters and the rest of the Vermont Congressional
Delegation to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that
the preemption of local power to issue building permits was a clear
violation of the 10th Amendment.
Unfortunately, that petition failed and now I am introducing
legislation to fix a problem Congress created. The preemption of local
authority should never have happened. Health, safety, and local land
use issues should be left in the hands of those who know these issues
best and can find a way to balance the needs of their community--the
local zoning authorities.
In Vermont, we actually have a very well-tested and successful way of
finding a balance between protecting the environment, the health and
safety of Vermonters, and meeting economic demands. It's called Act
250. It was adopted over three decades ago when Vermonters realized
that our cherished hillsides and New England towns could be overrun
with homes. Now, the same realization has occurred with cell and
broadcast towers.
My bill will not prohibit new towers. It will simply let local
officials use their state and local protections, like Act 250, find the
best solution for their community.
I think that many of my colleagues would agree that it is not too
much to ask that telecommunication companies follow the zoning laws
that apply to everyone else.
In fact, we already have ways to meet the needs of telecommunication
companies and communities. There are other viable alterative
communication technologies to massive towers. I have in the past
discussed how PCS-Over-Cable and PCS-Over-Fiber technologies can
provide digital cellular service using small antennas, eliminating the
need for large towers. These small antennas can be attached to an
existing telephone pole or lamp post. Not only is this technology more
aesthetically pleasing, but because the companies do not need to buy
land for these antennas, these delivery mechanisms are cheaper as well.
We should allow local government to require the usage of these less
intrusive technologies,
This is ultimately a very simple issue. It's an issue of local
control. I believe that it is local authorities, not Federal
regulators, who should determine when and where these structures are
built. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills and
two section-by-section analyses be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3102

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

[[Page S10381]]

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Local Control of Broadcast
Towers Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The placement, construction, and modification of
broadcast transmission facilities near residential
communities and facilities such as schools can greatly reduce
the value of residential properties, destroy the views from
properties, produce radio frequency interference, raise
concerns about potential long-term health effects of such
facilities, and reduce substantially the desire to live in
the areas of such facilities.
(2) States and local governments have traditionally
regulated development and should be able to exercise control
over the placement, construction, and modification of
broadcast transmission facilities through the use of zoning
and other land use regulations relating to the protection of
the environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes
policies to govern interstate and international
communications by television, radio, wire, satellite and
cable. The Commission ensures compliance of such activities
with applicable Federal laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic
Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such activities.
(4) The Commission defers to State and local authorities
which regulate the placement, construction, and modification
of broadcast transmission facilities through the use of
zoning, construction and building, and environmental and
safety regulations in order to protect the environment and
the health, safety, and general welfare of communities and
the public.
(5) On August 19, 1997, the Commission issued a proposed
rule, MM Docket No. 97-182, which would preempt the
application of most State and local zoning, environmental,
construction and building, and other regulations affecting
the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast
transmission facilities.
(6) The telecommunications industry and its experts should
be expected to have access to the best and most recent
technical information and should therefore be held to the
highest standards in terms of their representations,
assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to confirm that
State and local governments are the appropriate entities--
(1) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of broadcast transmission facilities consistent
with State and local zoning, construction and building,
environmental, and land use regulations;
(2) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of broadcast transmission facilities so that
their placement, construction, or modification will not
interfere with the safe and efficient use of public airspace
or otherwise compromise or endanger the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public; and
(3) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the
placement, construction, or modification of broadcast
transmission facilities, and providers of services using such
facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of
representations and statements placed in the record of
hearings for such permits, licenses, or approvals.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION
OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal
Communications Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or
otherwise directly or indirectly implement any portion of the
proposed rule set forth in ``Preemption of State and Local
Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on Siting, Placement and
Construction of Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities'',
MM Docket No. 97-182, released August 19, 1997.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES.

Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 340. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

``(a) Authority To Require Least Intrusive Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--A State or local government may deny an
application to place, construct, or modify broadcast
transmission facilities on the basis that alternative
technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of
delivering broadcast signals comparable to that proposed to
be delivered by such facilities in a manner that is less
intrusive to the community concerned than such facilities.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining under paragraph (1)
the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or
structures for the transmission of broadcast signals, a State
or local government may consider the aesthetics of such
technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental
impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the
radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such
technologies, systems, or structures.
``(3) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of the
exercise of the authority in paragraph (1), the burden shall
be on the applicant.
``(b) Radio Interference.--A State or local government may
regulate the location, height, or modification of broadcast
transmission facilities in order to address the effects of
radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on
local communities and the public.
``(c) Authority To Require Studies and Documentation.--No
provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State
or local government from--
``(1) requiring a person seeking authority to place,
construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities to
produce--
``(A) environmental, biological, and health studies,
engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance
of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits,
radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects
of such facilities on the environment, public health and
safety, and the general welfare of the community and the
public; and
``(B) documentation of the compliance of such facilities
with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety
standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects
effecting navigable airspace; or
``(2) refusing to grant authority to such person to place,
construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction
of such government if such person fails to produce studies,
reports, or documentation required under paragraph (1).
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a
State or local government to ensure compliance with or
otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or
representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an
applicant with the State or local government for authority to
place, construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities
within the jurisdiction of the State or local government.
``(e) Broadcast Transmission Facility Defined.--In this
section, the term `broadcast transmission facility' means the
equipment, or any portion thereof, with which a broadcaster
transmits and receives the radiofrequency waves that carry
the services of the broadcaster, regardless of whether the
equipment is sited on one or more towers or other structures
owned by a person or entity other than the broadcaster, and
includes the location of such equipment.''.

Section-by-Section Summary of Local Control of Broadcast Towers Act

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

The subtitle may be cited as the ``Local Control of
Broadcast Towers Act.''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

The bill finds that as the placement of broadcast towers or
other broadcast structures (heretofore referred to as
``broadcast transmission facilities'') can reduce property
values, create radio frequency interference, and raise
potential long-term health concerns. It also finds that state
and local authorities should have the same control to
regulate the placement of broadcast transmission facilities
as they would with any other type of construction. The
purpose of the bill is to reinstate the right of state and
local governments to regulate the placement, construction,
and modification of these facilities.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION
OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

Section 3 prohibits the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) from implementing ``Preemption of State and Local
Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on Siting, Placement and
Construction of Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities.''
This rule prevents state and local governments from
regulating the construction or modification of broadcast
transmission facilities.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES.

Section 4 adds a new section to Part I of title III. It
gives state and local governments the power to deny
applications to place, construct, or modify broadcast
transmission facilities on the basis that less intrusive
technologies are available to provide comparable service.
Denials can be issued for reasons of aesthetics,
environmental impact, radio frequency interference, or
radiation emissions. Burden of proof lies with the applicant.
Section 4(b) also stipulates that state and local
governments are empowered to regulate the location, height,
or modification of broadcast transmission facilities to
reduce the effects of radio interference. State and local
governments may also require environmental, biological, and
health studies, engineering studies, or other comparable
documentation from any person seeking to build or modify a
broadcast transmission facility. In addition, state and local
governments may require documentation of compliance with any
applicable Federal, State, or local regulation regarding
aviation safety standards. Failure to provide such
documentation or studies is grounds for a denial to construct
or modify a facility.
Section 4(e) defines broadcast transmission facilities.

[[Page S10382]]

S. 3103

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 ``Local Control of Cellular
Towers Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless services facilities (also known as wireless
facilities) near residential communities and facilities such
as schools can greatly reduce the value of residential
properties, destroy the views from properties, produce radio
frequency interference, raise concerns about potential long-
term health effects of such facilities, and reduce
substantially the desire to live in the areas of such
facilities.
(2) States and local governments have traditionally
regulated development and should be able to exercise control
over the placement, construction, and modification of
wireless facilities through the use of zoning and other land
use regulations relating to the protection of the
environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes
policies to govern interstate and international
communications by television, radio, wire, satellite and
cable. The Commission ensures the compliance of such
activities with a variety of Federal laws, including the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National
Historic Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such
activities.
(4) Under section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A)), the Commission defers to State
and local authorities that regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless facilities through
the use of zoning and other land use regulations.
(5) Alternative technologies for the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless facilities may
meet the needs of a wireless services provider in a less
intrusive manner than the technologies proposed by the
wireless services provider, including the use of small towers
that do not require blinking aircraft safety lights, break
skylines, or protrude above tree canopies.
(6) It is in the interest of the Nation that the
requirements of the Commission with respect to the
application of State and local ordinances to the placement,
construction and modification of wireless facilities (for
example WT Docket No. 97-192, ET Docket No. 93-62, RM-8577,
and FCC 97-303, 62 F.R. 47960) be modified so as--
(A) to permit State and local governments to exercise their
zoning and other land use authorities to regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of such facilities;
and
(B) to place the burden of proof in civil actions, and in
actions before the Commission and State and local authorities
relating to the placement, construction, and modification of
such facilities, on the person that seeks to place,
construct, or modify such facilities.
(7) PCS-Over-Cable, PCS-Over-Fiber Optic, and satellite
telecommunications systems, including Low-Earth Orbit
satellites, offer a significant opportunity to provide so-
called ``911'' emergency telephone service throughout much of
the United States without unduly intruding into or effecting
the environment, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(8) The Federal Aviation Administration must rely upon
State and local governments to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of telecommunications
facilities near airports or high-volume air traffic areas
such as corridors of airspace or commonly used flyways. The
proposed rules of the Commission to preempt State and local
zoning and other land-use regulations for the siting of such
facilities will have a serious negative impact on aviation
safety, airport capacity and investment, the efficient use of
navigable airspace, public health and safety, and the general
welfare of the community and the public.
(9) The telecommunications industry and its experts should
be expected to have access to the best and most recent
technical information and should therefore be held to the
highest standards in terms of their representations,
assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To repeal certain limitations on State and local
authority regarding the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless services facilities under
section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
(2) To permit State and local governments--
(A) to regulate the placement, construction, or
modification of personal wireless services facilities with
respect to their impacts on land use, including radio
frequency interference and radio frequency radiation, in
order to protect the environment, public health and safety,
and the general welfare of the community and the public;
(B) to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless services facilities so that
they will not interfere with the safe and efficient use of
public airspace or otherwise compromise or endanger the
public health and safety and the general welfare of the
community and the public; and
(C) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the
placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless
services facilities, and providers of services using such
facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of
representations and statements placed in the record of
hearings for permits, licenses, or approvals for such
facilities.

SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES

(a) Limitations on State and Local Regulation of
Facilities.--Subparagraph (B) of section 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (iv);
(2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
(3) in clause (iv), as so redesignated--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``may, within 30
days'' and all that follows through the end of the sentence
and inserting ``may commence an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction. Such action shall be commenced within
30 days after such action or failure to act unless the State
concerned has established a different period for the
commencement of such action.''; and
(B) by striking the third sentence and inserting the
following: ``In any such action in which a person seeking to
place, construct, or modify a personal wireless services
facility is a party, such person shall bear the burden of
proof, regardless of who commences such action.''.
(b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule Regarding Relief From
State and Local Regulation of Facilities.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Federal Communications
Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or otherwise
directly or indirectly implement any portion of the proposed
rule set forth in ``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for
Relief From State and Local Regulation Pursuant to Section
332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934'', WT
Docket No. 97-192, released August 25, 1997.
(c) Authority Over Placement, Construction, and
Modification of Facilities.--Such section 332(c)(7) is
further amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph (C):
``(C) Additional limitations.--
``(i) Authority to require least intrusive facilities.--

``(I) In general.--A State or local government may deny an
application to place, construct, or modify personal wireless
services facilities on the basis that alternative
technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of
delivering a personal wireless services signal comparable to
that proposed to be delivered by such facilities in a manner
that is less intrusive to the community concerned than such
facilities.
``(II) Considerations.--In determining under subclause (I)
the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or
structures for personal wireless services facilities, a State
or local government may consider the aesthetics of such
technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental
impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the
radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such
technologies, systems, or structures.
``(III) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of
the exercise of the authority in subclause (I), the burden
shall be on the applicant.

``(ii) Radio interference.--A State or local government may
regulate the location, height, or modification of personal
wireless services facilities in order to address the effects
of radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on
local communities and the public.
``(iii) Authority to require studies and documentation.--No
provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State
or local government from--

``(I) requiring a person seeking authority to place,
construct, or modify personal wireless services facilities to
produce--

``(aa) environmental, biological, and health studies,
engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance
of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits,
radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects
of such facilities on the environment, public health and
safety, and the general welfare of the community and the
public; and
``(bb) documentation of the compliance of such facilities
with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety
standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects
effecting navigable airspace; or

``(II) refusing to grant authority to such person to place,
construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction
of such government if such person fails to produce studies,
reports, or documentation required under subclause (I).

``(iv) Construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph may be
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a
State or local government to ensure compliance with or
otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or
representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an
applicant with the State or local government for authority to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless

[[Page S10383]]

services facilities within the jurisdiction of the State or
local government.''.

Section-by-Section Summary of Local Control of Cellular Towers Act

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The subtitle may be cited as the ``Local Control of
Cellular Towers Act.''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

The bill finds that as the placement of cellular towers can
reduce property values, create radio frequency interference,
and raise potential long-term health concerns. It also finds
that state and local authorities should have the same control
to regulate the placement of cellular facilities as they
would with any other type of construction. The purpose of the
bill is to reinstate the right of state and local governments
to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of
these facilities.

SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES.

This section of the bill amends title 47 of the U.S. Code.
Section 3(a) strikes 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), clause iv, which
prevented state and local governments from regulating the
placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions. Clause v of the same section of
the Code is amended to allow States to determine the timeline
for any appeal of a State or local decision that adversely
affects a personal wireless service provider. A personal
wireless service provider is no longer allowed to make a
further appeal to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Furthermore, the bill clarifies that the party that
wishes to build a personal wireless service facility bears
the burden of proof in any appeal of state or local law.
Section 3(b) prohibits the FCC from implementing
``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and
Local Regulation Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).'' This
rule stipulated the procedures for appealing state and local
regulations to the FCC.
Section 3(c) adds a new subparagraph (C) to Section
332(c)(7) to give State and local governments the power to
deny applications to place, construct, or modify personal
wireless service facilities on the basis that less intrusive
technologies are available that provide comparable service.
Denials can be issued for reasons of aesthetics,
environmental impact, radio frequency interference, or
radiation emissions.
Section 3(c) also stipulates that state and local
governments are empowered to regulate the location, height,
or modification of personal wireless service facilities to
reduce the effects of radio interference. State and local
governments may also require environmental, biological, and
health studies, engineering studies, or other comparable
documentation from any person seeking to build or modify a
personal wireless service facility. In addition, state and
local governments may require documentation of compliance
with any applicable Federal, State, or local regulation
regarding aviation safety standards. Failure to provide such
documentation or studies is grounds for a denial to construct
or modify a facility.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to rise today to express my
support for the Local Control of Cellular Towers Bill, as well as the
Local Control of Broadcast Towers Bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor
of these two pieces of legislation and commend my colleague from
Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his continued work on this issue.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts State and local zoning laws,
transferring jurisdiction away from State and local authorities to the
Federal government. The legislation that we are introducing today would
return that jurisdiction to the State and local authorities that are
best equipped to make decisions regarding the placement and
construction of cellular and broadcast towers.
In Vermont, new development and construction is governed by Act 250,
an environmental land use law specifically written to control and
manage development, while maintaining a balance between environmental
protection and economic growth. Act 250 maintains this equilibrium by
placing the permitting rights in the hands of local environmental
review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board.
Act 250 is therefore administered by men and women who are directly
involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local
concerns.
The state of Vermont established Act 250 in response to a period of
unchecked development that began in the 1960's. As the Attorney General
for the state at the time, I was one of the primary drafters of the
environmental land use law. Since 1969, Act 250 has protected our
environment, managed development, and provided a forum for neighbors,
municipalities and other interest groups to voice their concerns about
new development. I see no reason why the construction of cellular and
broadcast towers should not be governed by Act 250 as well, and I
remain hopeful that these two bills will reverse what the 1996 Act set
forth.
Although I recognize the importance of building a sound and
functional wireless network, I urge Congress to allow states and local
communities to build that network so the negative impacts of tower
construction are kept to a minimum. Among Vermont's greatest assets are
its mountain ranges and beautiful views. Giving local communities
authority over tower construction and placement is a step towards
preserving and protecting those assets.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 3104. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to
repeal the long-term goal for reducing to zero the incidental mortality
and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations,
and to modify the goal of take reduction plans for reducing such
takings; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3104

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF GOALS FOR REDUCING INCIDENTAL TAKE
OF MARINE MAMMALS IN COMMERCIAL FISHING.

(a) Repeal of Zero Mortality Goal.--Section 118 of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1387) is
amended by striking subsection (b), and by redesignating
subsections (c) through (l) in order as subsections (b)
through (k).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such Act is further amended as
follows:
(1) In section 101(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)) by striking
the third sentence.
(2) In section 101(a)(5)(E)(i)(III) (16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(E)(i)(III) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and
inserting ``subsection (c)''.
(3) In section 115(b)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1384(b)(4)) by striking
``section 118(f)(1)'' and inserting ``section 118(e)(1)''.
(4) In section 117(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1386(a)(4)) in
subparagraph (D) by striking ``, and an analysis'' and all
that follows through the end of the subparagraph and
inserting a semicolon.
(5) In section 118 (16 U.S.C. 1387) by striking
``subsection (c)(1)(A) (i)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A) (i)''.
(6) In section 118 (16 U.S.C. 1387) by striking
``subsection (c)(1)(A)(i)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)''.
(7) In section 118(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1387(a)(1)) by striking
the last sentence.
(8) In section 118(b), as redesignated by this subsection
(16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)(B)), by striking ``subsection (e)''
each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(9) In section 118(c)(1)(B), as redesignated by this
subsection (16 U.S.C. 1387(d)(1)(B)), by striking
``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(10) In section 118(e)(9)(D), as redesignated by this
subsection (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(9)(D)), by striking
``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)''.
(11) In section 118(f)(1), as redesignated by this
subsection (16 U.S.C. 1387(g)(1)), by striking ``subsection
(c)(1)(A)(iii)'' each place it appears and inserting
``subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii)''.
(12) In section 118(g), as redesignated by this subsection
(16 U.S.C. 1387(h)), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)''.
(13) In section 120(j)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1389(j)(2)) by
striking ``118(f)(5)(A)'' and inserting ``118(e)(5)(A)''.
(c) Modification of Goal of Take Reduction Plans.--Section
118(e)(2) of such Act, as redesignated by subsection (a) of
this section (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(2)), is amended by striking
the last sentence and inserting the following: ``The long-
term goal of the plan shall be to reduce, within 5 years of
its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious
injury of marine mammals incidentally taken in the course of
fishing operations taking into account the economics of the
fishery, the availability of existing technology, and
existing State and regional fishery management plans.''.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Dewine):
S. 3105. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
grants for the operation of enhanced mosquito control programs to
prevent and control mosquito-borne diseases; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page S10384]]

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``West Nile
Virus and Arboviral Disease Act''--a bill to help strengthen our public
health system and improved research so that we can better respond to
West Nile virus and other arboviruses. I want to thank Senators Dodd,
Santorum, Bayh, Cochran, and DeWine for their work in helping craft
this important legislation.
This year, nearly 3000 Americans have been diagnosed with West Nile
Virus, WNV. At least 146 have died. While this virus is transmitted to
humans primarily through migratory birds and mosquitoes, recent
evidence strongly suggests that WNV can be transmitted through blood
transfusions, organ donations, and possibly even breast milk. Further,
the latest studies indicate that some patients may experience polio-
like symptoms as a result of WNV infection.
WNV first appeared in North America in 1999 with reports of
encephalitis in birds, humans and horses. Prior to this summer, there
had been only 149 cases and 18 deaths from this virus. Now, WNV has
spread as far south as Florida and as far west as California,
encompassing areas with warmer climates that will allow a year-round
transmission cycle. In three years, we have lost the opportunity to
contain the disease to the northeastern region of the United States,
where mosquitos do not breed year-round. As a result, many more people
will die and become ill.
Clearly, the increasing spread of the disease and these new findings
require an enhanced response at the Federal level. We must do more to
support State and local public health efforts to combat the spread of
West Nile. And we must also intensify research at the federal level to
better understand the etiology of the virus, develop improved abatement
tools, and prevent the spread of the illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, has published
national guidelines for surveillance, prevention and control of WNV.
CDC also developed a national electronic surveillance system, ArboNET,
to track West Nile in humans, birds, mosquitoes, horses, and other
animals. However, the data available to the ArboNET system likely
underestimates actual geographic distribution of WNV transmission in
the United States because the data are provided by up to 54 ArboNet by
local health unit surveillance efforts which vary according to capacity
and ability. We need to do more to strengthen the capacity of those
surveillance efforts. One only needs to examine the map of the spread
of WNV to determine that there may be gaps in our surveillance when
some States, like Kansas and West Virginia, are surrounded by other
states with similar arbovirus patterns but still not indicating the
presence of human disease. One of the peculiarities of great
surveillance systems is the increased incidence of disease, simply
because better information is being collected.

Although strengthening our surveillance and response capabilities
will help, we must also do more to increase the number of appropriately
trained entomologists. There is clearly a need for more individuals who
can understand the disease vectors, identify their breeding areas, and
take action to eliminate the mosquito population before WNV season.
In response to these obvious deficiencies, this legislation
establishes a temporary program for the containment of WNV and related
arboviral diseases. Through this grant program, which is authorized for
two years, but can be extended by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services for an additional year, the CDC is authorized to make grants
to states. States can use the funds to develop, implement, and evaluate
comprehensive, community-based mosquito control plans. Additionally,
states can work with local communities to develop and implement
programs to support longer term prevention and control efforts,
including training to develop a competent public health workforce.
Finally, States are encouraged to work with local health entities to
develop prevention and control programs.
As part of the requirement under the grant program, the CDC is
charged with developing, in consultation with public and private health
and mosquito control organizations, guidelines for State and local
communities for a sustainable, locally managed, integrated mosquito
control programs, as well as otherwise increasing CDC's capacity to
provide technical assistance.
We also need to learn more about this virus and how it is spread. To
combat WNV, we must develop: 1. improved insecticides; 2. rapid tests
for the presence of WNV in human blood products; 3. pathogen
inactivation technologies; and 4. additional methodologies to contain
the spread of WNV or other related arboviruses, including the
development of an appropriate WNV vaccine for humans and other mammals
and better antiviral treatments.
In 1972, the FDA banned the general use of the pesticide DDT, ending
nearly three decades of application. During which time, the once-
popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest
lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial
purposes. DDT was developed as the first of the modern insecticides
early in World War II. It was initially used with great effect to
combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among
both military and civilian populations. A persistent, broad-spectrum
compound often termed the ``miracle'' pesticide, DDT came into wide
agricultural and commercial usage in this country in the late 1940s,
but was banned by the FDA when the Director at that time determined
that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks of the
environment and potential harm to human health. Since that time, we
have not developed a replacement for DDT. We have become complacent,
assuming that there would be no need to continue to reducing the insect
population. We can no longer be complacent.
We have not yet developed a rapid diagnostic WNV test for blood
products. There are two types of tests available, a serologic test or a
polymerase chain reaction, PCR, test, but only the PCR test would be
feasible for screening purposes. Experts have suggested that a new PCR
test could be available within 18 months if the appropriate market
incentives were in place. We need to determine the best way to expedite
the development of this test.
Pathogen inactivation techniques could be used to purify blood
samples by removing all DNA and RNA particles from the blood. However,
we have not yet performed a larger assessment to determine the overall
health benefit of this technique. Because the process relies on adding
additional chemicals to the blood product, those chemicals, or
derivatives thereof, may have a particular health effect. Therefore,
given that there will be other emerging infectious diseases in our
future, we need to develop a proactive, not reactive, mode to dealing
with those infections.
Currently, scientists have developed an equine vaccine for WNV, but
there is no human vaccine. Given the limited vaccine options, many
veterinarians are even using the equine vaccine for avians and other
mammals. Therefore, we need to focus efforts on developing vaccines for
a host of susceptible mammals.
In conducting that research, given the nature of all arboviruses and
the fact that WNV also infects a host of mammals, we need to build more
bridges between veterinary health and public health. Already, avian
experts are asked to assist our public health experts to help identify
how bird migration would affect the spread of WNV. Additionally, any
new vaccine or diagnostic test for WNV may have broader applicability
to the host of other mammals affected by the virus.
Given the multitude of federal agencies that should be involved with
relevant research, the legislation charges the President with
expanding, intensifying, and enhancing research related to the
identification or the development of insecticides, the development of a
screening tools for WNV in both blood and organs, the development of
pathogen inactivation technologies, technologies that safety and cost-
effectively remove RNA and DNA from blood, and the development of
additional methodologies for containing the spread of West Nile Virus
and other related arboviruses. This research program is authorized for
five years.
More should be done to continuously support the development of a
capable public health infrastructure and increased response
coordination at all levels. At the Federal level, we have

[[Page S10385]]

significantly increased our resources for these purpose by providing
nearly $1 billion for bioterrorism-related activities, activities which
should focus on ``dual use'' capabilities to strengthen our ability to
respond to all infectious diseases. However, we need to ensure a
continued investment if we are to stabilize our public health
infrastructure and continue to focus on means by which to increase
coordination.
Again, I want to commend Senators Dodd, Santorum, Bayh, Cochran, and
DeWine for their contributions to the development of this legislation.
It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with my distinguished
colleagues on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to working
with them and others to find better solutions to combating WNV.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 3106. A bill to amend the Denali Commission Act of 1998 to
establish the Denali transportation system in the State of Alaska; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to establish
the Denali Transportation System for my State of Alaska. I am pleased
to be joined by the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, on
this important legislation. I understand that a companion measure is to
be introduced in the House.
This bill authorizes the Secrtary of Transportation to establish a
program to fund the costs of construction of the Denali Transportation
System, at a level of $440 million per year for the next 5 years. It is
patterned after similar statutory language establishing the Appalachian
Commission, which provides for transportation construction in that area
of the nation.
As my colleagues are aware, Alaska lags far behind the rest of the
country in its transportation infrastructure. Our road system is still
in its infancy and our highway system reaches only the major cities of
the State.
As we all know, the key to a thriving and self-sufficient economy for
any State or Nation is commerce. But commerce itself cannot thrive
without transportation. We must be able to travel from one place to
another, to move goods from one place to another, to harvest our
resources and craft our merchandise and get them both to market.
The Denali transportation system will provide benefits far
outweighing its costs, not only to Alaska but to the Nation. It will
make it possible to provide Alaska's valuable resources to those who
need them. It will allow significant savings for residents of Alaska's
remote areas, who today must pay the nation's highest prices for even
basic things that you and I take for granted, for food, for energy to
heat our houses, for access to a doctor's care when we need it, and
access to reasonable educational opportunities for our children.
None of these things are universally available in Alaska as they are
in other States. We have children who must board an aircraft every day,
at least when the weather permits, just to be flown across a river that
separates them from their only area school. We have villages where fuel
arrives barrel by barrel, because there is no other way to get it
there. We have communities where butter, and eggs, and milk, and fresh
vegetables are still luxury items. We have towns where injured workers
and pregnant women in need of care have access to a doctor only when
the weather permits them to undertake an arduous journey by boat and
small aircraft.
Alaska has much to offer the rest of the Nation. We have incomparable
resources and energetic, innovative citizens. It is time we have a
transportation system that will allow us to fully enter the world of
the 21st Century, and this bill will help us accomplish that goal.
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. 3106

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 ``Denali Transportation System
Act''.

SEC. 2. DENALI TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277; 42
U.S.C. 3121 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 309 as section 310; and
(2) by inserting after section 308 the following:

``SEC. 309. DENALI TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

``(a) Construction.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish a program under which the Secretary may pay the
costs of construction (including the costs of design) in the
State of Alaska of the Denali transportation system.
``(2) Design standards.--Any design carried out under this
section shall use technology and design standards determined
by the Commission.
``(b) Designation of System by Commission.--The Commission
shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation--
``(1) designations by the Commission of the general
location and termini of highways, port and dock facilities,
and trails on the Denali transportation system;
``(2) priorities for construction of segments of the
system; and
``(3) other criteria applicable to the program established
under this section.
``(c) Connecting Infrastructure.--In carrying out this
section, the Commission may construct marine connections
(such as connecting small docks, boat ramps, and port
facilities) and other transportation access infrastructure
for communities that would otherwise lack access to the
National Highway System.
``(d) Addition to National Highway System.--On completion,
each highway on the Denali transportation system that is not
already on the National Highway System shall be added to the
National Highway System.
``(e) Preference to Alaska Materials and Products.--In the
construction of the Denali transportation system under this
section, the Commission may give preference--
``(1) to the use of materials and products indigenous to
the State; and
``(2) with respect to construction projects in a region, to
local residents and firms headquartered in that region.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 310 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-277; 42 U.S.C. 3121 note) (as redesignated by section
2(1)) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Commission--
``(1) to carry out the duties of the Commission under this
title (other than section 309), and in accordance with the
work plan approved under section 304, such sums as are
necessary for fiscal year 2003; and
``(2) to carry out section 309 $440,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2003 through 2008.''.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 3107. A bill to improve the security of State-issued driver's
licenses, enhance highway safety, verify personal identity, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Driver's License
Fraud Prevention Act. This is a timely bill that would provide much
needed Federal assistance to the States to help make their driver's
licenses more reliable and secure than they are today. I am pleased
that my colleagues, Senator McCain, has joined me in this effort.
Since September 11, 2001, we have learned much about our society. We
learned in the most painful way that those aspects of our open society
that we, as Americans, value the most, are the very same
characteristics exploited by people who hate freedom.
Our open borders welcome millions of visitors and immigrants each
year. Our civil society is based on the integrity of our citizens to
self regulate their behaviors and to abide by the rule of law. And our
very informal system of personal identification relies on the honesty
of people to represent themselves as who they are, and to not hide
their true identities.
Yet, after September 11, we learned that it was the very openness of
our society that the nineteen terrorists took advantage of by slipping
into our country and mingling among us for months before embarking on
their evil tasks.
Since that tragic day, as a price for enhancing national security, we
have imposed numerous measures across the country, including erecting
barricades in front of buildings and requiring tougher screenings at
airports. But there is one area that we need further improvements on,
which is what our bill would address.
It seems that everywhere we turn today, we are asked to present photo
identification. And what is the most common identification that we
show? It's the State-issued driver's license.

[[Page S10386]]

The purpose of the driver's license has changed dramatically over the
years. The driver's license was originally created by States for a
public safety purpose, to permit a qualified person to operate a motor
vehicle. Today, however, the license has become the most widely-used
form of identification that is accepted by a wide variety of private
and public entities. In an April 2002 poll conducted by Public Opinion
Strategies, 83 percent of the American public noted that they used
their driver's license for purposes other than driving.
A driver's license has undoubtedly become a key that can open many
doors, yet the current framework that States rely on in issued licenses
was not designed for the cards to be used for identification purposes.
Today, the 50 States follow 50 different methods for verifying a
person's identification when they process driver's license
applications. They apply different standards for defining what the
acceptable documentation are that they require from applicants.
Additionally, the level of security in the driver's licenses and
identification cards varies widely, from those states that incorporate
high tech biometric identifiers to ones that are simply laminated. In
fact, law enforcement officials estimate that there are more than 240
different formats of valid driver's licenses in circulation today.
Because of the disparity in the State issuance processes and the
varying degrees of security of the cards themselves, it is extremely
easy for individuals today to abuse the system by shopping around for
licenses in those States with the weakest practices.
Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing in the Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, where we learned
that eighteen of the nineteen hijackers involved in the September 11th
attacks probably used State-issued driver's licenses or identification
cards to board those doomed airplanes.
We also learned that these terrorists specifically went to motor
vehicle agencies in States that, at that time, employed some of the
most lenient processes and requirements in issuing licenses and
identification cards.
For example, on August 1, 2001, two of the terrorists, Hani Hanjour
and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, drove a van from New Jersey to the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV, office in Arlington. In the parking
lot, they asked around until they found someone willing to lie and
vouch for their Virginia residency. They met Luis Martinez-Flores and
Herbert Villalobos who, for a price, were willing to help.
Hanjour and Al-Mihdhar paid these strangers $50 each and received
notarized forms which claimed that the two transients were in fact
Virginia residents. Using these fake documents, Hanjour and Al-Mihdhar
walked into the DMV, stood in line, had their photos taken, and walked
out with authentic State-issued Virginia photo identification cards.
The next day, on August 2, 2001, Hanjour and Al-Mihdhar returned to
the same Arlington DMV with two other September 11 terrorists, Salem
Al-Hazmi and Majed Moqed. Hanjour and Al-Mihdhar helped Al-Hazmi and
Moqed obtain Virginia identification cards of their own by vouching
that they lived together in Virginia.
On the same day, two more terrorists, Abdul Al-Omari and Ahmed Al-
Ghamdi, who were renting a room at a Maryland motel, contacted Kenys
Galicia, a Virginia legal secretary and notary public, through a
referral from Luis Martinez-Flores, the same person who was loitering
near the Arlington DMV the day before.
Al-Omari and Al-Ghamdi paid Galicia to have her prepare false
notarized affidavits stating that the two men lived in Virginia. Using
these fake documents, these two also went to a Virginia motor vehicles
office and received State-issued identification cards.
In addition to exploiting the lax Virginia system, at least thirteen
of the nineteen terrorists held driver licenses or identification cards
from Florida, a State that, at that time, did not require proof of
residency from applicants.
A few of the September 11 terrorists held licenses or identification
cards from more than one State, including from California, Arizona, and
Maryland, while only one did not appear to hold any form of American-
issued identification. Some received duplicate cards from the same
State within months of September.
Some of them used these licenses to rent automobiles and check into
motels, which provided them with constant mobility. Others used
licenses as identification to receive wire transferred funds and to
register for flight schools.
Yet had they not held these valuable commodities, would they have
been successful in carrying out their evil final acts?
At the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing, we heard testimony
from a Maryland police chief that, just two days before September 11th,
Ziad Jarrah, one of the terrorists, was stopped for speeding on
Interstate 95, north of Baltimore. During this traffic stop, Jarrah
produced an apparently valid driver's license from the State of
Virginia, and as a result, the stop proceeded in a typical fashion.
However, while Jarrah's license indicated a resident address in
Virginia, Jarrah was in fact resting overnights at motels along the way
to Newark, New Jersey, from where he boarded Flight 93, which
ultimately crashed in Pennsylvania. Had he been unable to produce a
license when he was pulled over, or if he had produced a license that
the trooper could have identified as having been issued fraudulently,
who knows how that stop may have concluded.
What we do know is that these terrorists bought their way into our
shaky, unreliable, and dangerous system of government-issued
identification. With the identification cards that they obtained under
phony pretenses, doors opened across America, including the doors of
the four doomed aircrafts on the morning of September 11, 2001.
More troubling is that it appears what the terrorists did in
obtaining the multiple identification cards was a part of an official
strategic plan that terrorists employ as they seek to infiltrate our
society.
Last year, Attorney General Ashcroft presented to the Senate
Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, a copy of an Al Qaeda Terrorists
Manual that was found by Manchester, England, police officials during
the search of an Al Qaeda member's home.
Contained in it is a page that reads as follows:

Forged Documents (Identity Cards, Record Books, Passports)

The following security precautions should be taken:

* * * * *

2. All documents of the undercover brother, such as
identity cards and passport, should be falsified.
3. When the undercover brother is traveling with a certain
identity card or passport, he should know all pertinent
[information] such as the name, profession, and place of
residence.

* * * * *

5. The photograph of the brother in these documents should
be without a beard. It is preferable that the brother's
public photograph [on these documents] be also without a
beard. If he already has one [document] showing a photograph
with a beard, he should replace it.
6. When using an identity document in different names, no
more than one such document should be carried at one time.

* * * * *

It is obvious to me that the September 11 terrorists were trained
very well by Al Qaeda. They followed these instructions flawlessly as
they sought, and successfully obtained, multiple State-issued driver's
licenses and identification cards in America.
The use of fake IDs is one of the oldest tricks in the book for
criminals, and now we know that this is a page in the book for
terrorists as well.
It is also one of the oldest traditions of adolescence, and a rite of
passage for many teenagers who casually use a borrowed or tampered ID
to buy alcohol or tobacco products, or to get into a nightclub. But
underage drinking not only endangers the lives of those consuming the
alcohol, it threatens the lives of others as well.
According to a 2001 survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, SAMHSA, more than 10 million individuals aged
between 12 to 20 years old reported consuming alcohol in the year prior
to the survey. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, reports that in the United States, drivers between the ages of
16 and 21 account

[[Page S10387]]

for just seven percent of all drivers in the Nation, yet are involved
in fifteen percent of all alcohol-related fatalities.
Drunk drivers are perhaps the most dangerous drivers on the road. But
there are others who should not be allowed on the road.
We learned that thousands of drivers each year operate motor vehicles
using multiple licenses issued under different identities from multiple
states, which enable them to evade enforcement of driving restrictions
imposed on them.
They know that under the current license issuance process, no State
checks the background of license applicants with its sister States to
see if that person may have already been issued a license by another
State. So it is quite easy for individuals who have had their license
suspended or revoked in one State to travel to a neighboring State and
acquire a new license.
A reprentative of the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, AAMVA, who testified at our hearing stated it this way:
``Although the current system allows for reciprocity among the States,
it lacks uniformity. Individuals looking to undermine the system,
whether it is a terrorist, a drunk driver or an identity thief, shop
around for licenses in those States that have become the weakest
link.''
AAMVA is a nonprofit voluntary association representing all motor
vehicle agency administrators and chief law enforcement officials
throughout the United States and Canada.
At the hearing, we also heard from a representative of the National
Governors Association, NGA, who testified that the NGA has not yet
developed an official position on the subject of identity security or
enhancing the driver's license systems.
However, he acknowledged that the current system employed by States
is broken, and is more likely to actually enable identity theft and
fraud rather than prevent it.
He and others on the panel referenced several initiatives that some
states were currently undertaking to improve their driver's license
systems. For example, Virginia and Florida adopted revised procedures
since last year to prevent the types of abuses we all recognized since
September 11. And many other State legislatures have adopted, and are
still in the process of debating, various reform measures, which, I
believe, are all steps in the right direction.
I was especially encouraged to hear that the states were willing and
ready to work with the Federal Government to address their problem
together.
At our hearing, the AAMVA representative also testified that:

Seventy-seven percent of the American public support
Congress passing legislation to modify the driver's licensing
process and identification security. And, we need Congress to
help in five areas: (1) support minimum compliance standards
and requirements that each state must adopt when issuing a
license; (2) help us identify fraudulent documents; (3)
support an interstate network for confirming a person's
driving history; (4) impose stiffer penalties on those
committing fraudulent acts; (5) and, provide funding to
make this happen. Funding so states can help ensure a
safer America.

Thus, following this hearing, I reached out to, and worked with a
number of groups and individuals representing States, motor vehicle
agencies, privacy advocates, immigrant communities, and the technology
industry, to consider an appropriate federal legislation on this issue.
We also reached out to various agencies in the Bush Administration,
including the Office of Homeland Security, to seek their input on
legislation.
Then, in July of this year, President Bush unveiled his ``National
Strategy for Homeland Security.'' In that report the President wrote:

Major Initiatives (State)

Given the states' major role in homeland security, and
consistent with the principles of federalism inherent to
American government, the following initiatives constitute
suggestions, not mandates, for state initiatives.
Coordinate suggested minimum standards for state driver's
licenses. The licensing of drivers by the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the United States terrorities
varies widely. There is no national or agreed upon state
standards for content, format, or license acquisition
procedures. Terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda
operatives involved in the September 11 attacks, have
exploited these differences. While the issuance of drivers'
licenses fall squarely within the powers of the states, the
federal government can assist the states in crafting
solutions to curtail the future abuse of drivers' licenses by
terrorist organizations. Therefore, the federal government,
in consultation with state government agencies and non-
governmental organizations, should support state-led efforts
to develop suggested minimum standards for driver's licenses,
recognizing that many states should and will exceed these
standards.

I fully agree with the President that the issuance of driver's
licenses is within the province of the States. In fact, our bill
explicitly recognizes and preserves the right of states to determine
the qualification or eligibility for obtaining driver's licenses, the
terms of its validity, and how the license should look.
But I also agree with the President that there is an important role
for the Federal Government to play in assisting the states to address
the national problem of fraud and abuse. I therefore believe this bill
that we are introducing today strikes an appropriate balance between
the states' authority and federal interests.
Our bill is narrowly drafted to improve the process by which licenses
are issued. First, I note that there are two already existing federal
programs that address driver's licenses.
The National Driver Register, NDR, which was first created by
Congress in 1960 and revised in 1982, serves as a central file of state
reports on drivers whose licenses have been suspended, revoked,
canceled, or denied, or who have been convicted of serious traffic-
related offenses. The NDR's primary purpose is to enable State motor
vehicle agencies to share driver record information with each other so
that they can make informed decisions about issuing driver's licenses
to individuals, particularly those who move into their states from
other jurisdictions.
The Commercial Driver License Information System is the second
Federal program, which was established by Congress in 1986, to keep
problem commercial drivers off the roads, and to prevent traffic
violations from being hidden behind multiple licenses.
Every State today participates in both federal programs, and all
States currently share certain information with each other in order to
make informed decisions before issuing driver's licenses. However, the
current limited scope of these programs leave a gaping loophole: One
deals only with records of problem drivers, while the other deals only
with records of commercial drivers. What about the records of non-
problem drivers who are not commercial drivers?
Our bill closes this loophole by consolidating the appropriate
functionalities of these two programs and by adding new security
measures that would allow every State to check all other States'
records of all drivers before issuing commercial or regular driver's
licenses. This new process will help prevent States from issuing more
than one license to any one individual, which will end forum shopping,
abuse, and fraud.
In recognizing the federal responsibilities of this program, our bill
would provide Federal funding for the upgrades as well as direct
Federal funding to states to assist their continued participating in
the new integrated system.
While the goals of the bill are specific and firm, we are also
mindful of the jurisdiction of the states to regulate who is eligible
to receive driver's licenses, and what the licenses should look like.
We thus provide authority to the Secretary of Transportation to engage
in a negotiated rulemaking which would include all the appropriate
affected entities and individuals, in order to collectively develop the
required minimum standards on the issuance process.
This program can be successful only if every state participates
enthusiastically. Therefore, to provide maximum input from the states,
the bill specifically requires that the Secretary consult with the
states and entities representing the interest of the states, and, as
necessary, with interested groups and individuals in developing
consensus implementing regulations.
I should note, as the White House has, that many States should and
will exceed these minimum standards set forth in this bill. So for
states that are already above the curve, our bill provides federal
grants to highlight innovative pilot programs designed to verify
driver's identity, prevent fraud,

[[Page S10388]]

or demonstrate the use of technology to create tamper resistant
licenses.
Our bill also requires States to make their driver's licenses and
identification cards more resistant to tampering, altering, or
counterfeiting then they are today. But, again, the bill does not
specify what those security features ought to be. Instead, it requires
the Secretary of Transportation to engage in rulemaking with the States
and with experts to collectively develop the required minimum standards
for all states to adopt.
The bill also cracks down on internal fraud and bribery that,
unfortunately, occur behind the DMV counters. We impose tough penalties
for unauthorized access to or use of DMV equipment used to manufacture
licenses, and also creates penalties for persons who fraudulently
issue, obtain, renew, or transfer a driver's license. The bill also
requires States to conduct internal audits of license issuance
processes to identify and address these fraudulent activities.
Finally, our bill enhances privacy protection for license holders by
significantly strengthening the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which
Congress last amended in 1994. The bill protects the privacy of
driver's information by expanding the definitions of sensitive
``personal information'' and by tightening up the current set of
permissible disclosures.
Additionally, under this bill, State motor vehicle agencies would be
prohibited from disclosing or displaying social security numbers on any
driver's license, motor vehicle registration, or any other document
issued for the purpose of identification.
With Federal financial and technical assistance and a narrowly
tailored common-sense approach, I believe this bill can close the
loopholes that continue to leave all of us vulnerable. By working
together, we can assist states to adopt a new system that will ensure
integrity in the issuance process, integrity in the cards themselves,
and protection of privacy of drivers across the country. I urge my
colleagues to support this important bill.
______

By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 3110. A bill to require further study before amendment 13 to the
Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Management Plan is implemented; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fisheries
Management Fairness Act in order to provide New England fishermen with
a guarantee that the fisheries management decisions that affect their
lives will not be made without the benefit of sound, reliable data.
Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a
way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by
excessive regulations and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific
evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, fishermen are suffering under
ever more burdensome restrictions. As a result of recent litigation,
fishermen have seen their days at sea slashed, struggle to implement
new gear changes, and are squeezed into ever smaller fishing areas.
Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their
families because they have been deprived of their right to make an
honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our
communities are in danger of disappearing, likely to be replaced by
tourism and development. Once the culture of fishing is lost, it will
be all but impossible ti replace.
On September 11, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service
announced that the trawler gear used on the NOAA research vessel
Albatross IV had been calibrated incorrectly, casting suspicion over
the data it had collected since February of 2000. The miscalibrated
gear had been used to conduct the last eight stock abundance surveys,
which measure long-term increases and decreases in stock populations.
Data gathered by these surveys are the basis for regulations in
fisheries management plans governing the rebuilding of overfished
stocks. These regulations take the form of ``amendments'' to the New
England's overall groundfish management plan, covering a complex of
thirteen groundfish species. Amendment 13, the next set of regulations,
is supposed to be ready for implementation by August 22, 2003.
Although the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted an
observation cruise and a performance review workshop with industry to
examine the extent of the damage in the survey, the agency has
concluded that additional research is required to determine the full
extent of the damage caused by the flawed gear. The Service has pledged
to conduct a ``short-term experiment'' to determine the extent of the
damage to the survey. This short-term experiment will rely on video and
sensor equipment to gather data, and a subsequent workshop to examine
the data and produce a report that can be used in updating groundfish
assessments.
It is unlikely that this experiment will provide the quality of data
necessary to develop Amendment 13 by its court-ordered deadline. The
type of data necessary to develop fisheries management plans can be
produced only after years of research that demonstrate long-term stock
trends. Theoretical modeling of past data of questionable quality is
simply not good enough to develop the regulations of a plan that will
affect the survival of our fishermen.
When fishermen's livelihoods depend on the quality of survey data, we
owe it to them to get the data collection right. There is no room for
second-rate science and faulty data.
My bill addresses these problems by preventing Amendment 13 from
being implemented for two years, enough time to allow the Northeast
Fishery Science Center and the National Marine Fishery Center to
determine the reliability of the data collected by the Albatross IV and
to collect accurate data on which to base future amendments.
I will not stand idly by and let New England's fishing community die
without a fight. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate to
work to pass this legislation. If we cannot pass it as a rider to
another bill during this session, then I plan to reintroduce it and
fight for its passage when we reconvene next year.

____________________