[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countries are outdated and when applied to Ukraine, inappropriate.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) 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)(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),

     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 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) 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)--

       (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''.
       (B) Medicaid.--Section 1919 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r) 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 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.

                          ____________________