[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10573-S10587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 3114. A bill to ensure that a public safety officer who suffers a 
fatal heart attack or stroke while on duty shall be presumed to have 
died in the line of duty for purposes of public safety officer survivor 
benefits; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Jeffords and 
Collins to introduce the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 
2002. Our bipartisan legislation will improve the Department of 
Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Program by allowing 
families of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or 
strokes to qualify for Federal survivor benefits.
  Public safety officers are among our most brave and dedicated public 
servants. I applaud the efforts of all members of fire, law 
enforcement, and rescue organizations nationwide who are the first to 
respond to more than 1.6 million emergency calls annually, whether 
those calls involve a crime, fire, medical emergency, spill of 
hazardous materials, natural disaster, act of terrorism, or 
transportation accident, without reservation. They act with an 
unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow 
citizens, and are forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own 
lives to provide safe and reliable emergency services to their 
communities. Sadly, this dedication to service can result in tragedy, 
as was evident by the bravery displayed on September 11th.
  In the days and months since September 11th, I have been particularly 
touched by the stories of unselfish sacrifices made by scores of New 
York City first responders who bravely entered the World Trade Center 
that day with the singular goal of saving lives. More than one hundred 
firefighters in America lose their lives every year and thousands are 
injured in the line of duty. While PSOB benefits can never be a 
substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all our fallen 
heroes deserve to collect these funds.
  The PSOB Program provides a one-time financial benefit to the 
eligible survivors of federal, state, and local public safety officers 
whose deaths are the direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury 
sustained in the line of duty. Last year, Congress improved the PSOB 
Program by streamlining the process for families of public safety 
officers killed or injured in connection with prevention, 
investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to a terrorist 
attack. We also retroactively increased the total benefits available by 
$100,000 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. The PSOB Program now provides 
approximately $250,000 in benefits to the families of law enforcement 
officers, firemen, emergency response squad members, and ambulance crew 
members who are killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, the issue of 
including heart attack and stroke victims in the PSOB Program was not 
addressed at that time.
  The PSOB Program does not cover deaths resulting from occupational 
illness or pulmonary or heart disease unless a traumatic injury is a 
substantial factor to the death. However, if toxicology reports 
demonstrate a carbon monoxide level of 10 percent or greater, 15 
percent or greater for the smoker, at the onset of a heart attack 
benefits are paid. The PSOB Program has developed a formula that 
addresses oxygen therapy provided to the victim prior to the death.
  Heart attack and cardiac related deaths account for almost half of 
all firefighter fatalities, between 45-50 deaths, and an average of 13 
police officer deaths each year. Yet the families of these fallen 
heroes are rarely eligible to receive PSOB benefits. In January 1978, 
special Deputy Sheriff Bernard Demag of the Chittenden County Sheriff's 
Office suffered a fatal heart attack within two hours of his chase and 
apprehension of an escaped juvenile whom he had been transporting. Mr. 
Demag's family spent nearly two decades fighting in court for workers' 
compensation death benefits all to no avail. Clearly, we should be 
treating surviving family members with more decency and respect.
  Public safety is dangerous, exhausting, and stressful work. A first 
responder's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke greatly 
increase when he or she puts on heavy equipment and rushes into a 
burning building to fight a fire and save lives. The families of these 
brave public servants deserve to participate in the PSOB Program if 
their loved ones die of a heart attack or other cardiac related 
ailments while selflessly protecting us from harm.
  First responders across the country now face a new series of 
challenges as they respond to over 1.6 million emergency calls this 
year, from responding to fires and hazardous material spills to 
providing emergency medical services to reacting to weapons of mass 
destruction. They do this with an unwavering commitment to the safety 
of their fellow citizens, and are forever willing to selflessly 
sacrifice their own lives to protect the lives and property of their 
fellow citizens. It is time for Congress to show its support and 
appreciation for these extraordinarily brave and heroic public safety 
officers. We should quickly work to pass the Hometown Heroes Survivors 
Benefit Act.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Leahy 
and Collins in introducing the Senate counterpart of the Hometown 
Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2002. This legislation closes a gap in 
the survivor benefits the Federal Government provides to the families 
of public safety officers who die in the line of duty.
  These public safety officers are the people that keep our streets 
safe, help to fight fires, and respond to emergency calls. The Federal 
Government has rightfully created a one-time financial benefit for the 
families of public safety officers who die in the line of duty to 
recognize the sacrifice and importance of public safety officers in our 
society.
  Unfortunately, due to a technicality in the law some families of 
public safety officers that die of a heart attack or stroke are being 
denied this important financial benefit. This is unacceptable and we 
need to make sure that we enact this legislation to ensure that the 
families of these public safety officers are covered.
  Many years ago I was a volunteer firefighter in my small town of 
Shrewsbury, VT. It was a very demanding, stressful, and exhausting job. 
Every year almost half the firefighter fatalities in the United States 
are from heart attack or cardiac related reasons. Not all of these 
deaths occur while fighting the fire, but are related to their 
unselfish dedication to the task at hand.
  This legislation would provide that a public safety officer who dies 
as the result of a heart attack or stroke suffered while on duty or 
within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or 
responding to an emergency situation shall be presumed to have died as 
the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the 
line of duty for purposes of survivor benefits. These public safety 
officers are out there everyday ensuring our safety; Congress needs to 
ensure that the surviving families receive this important financial 
benefit.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the heroism and 
sacrifice of public safety officers by co-sponsoring this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 3116. A bill to permanently eliminate a procedure under which the 
Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

[[Page S10574]]

can waive prohibitions on the possession of firearms and explosives by 
convicted felons, drug offenders, and other disqualified individuals; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important gun 
control legislation that would shut down permanently the guns for 
felons program.
  For too many years the Federal Government spent millions of dollars a 
year to restore the gun privileges of convicted felons. Fortunately, 
for the last ten years, Congress has seen fit to defund the program, 
through annual funding restrictions.
  Congress was right to defund a program that, according to the 
Violence Policy Center, restored gun privileges for thousands of 
convicted felons, at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayer. As 
the Violence Policy Center demonstrated, a number of these felons went 
on to commit violent crimes.
  I believe strongly that we must do all we can to keep guns out of 
criminals' hands. I am pleased that every year Congress has renewed the 
funding ban, which prohibits ATF from processing firearms applications 
from convicted felons. Indeed, by introducing this legislation today, I 
do not in any way intend to imply that the annual funding bans are not 
sufficient to shut down the guns for felons program.
  Today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could 
jeopardize our efforts to ensure that convicted felons do not have 
access to guns by possibly giving Federal judges the power to rearm 
those felons regardless of the Congressional funding ban. I have been 
active in pushing for the funding ban, and it certainly was not my 
intention, nor do I believe it was anyone else's intention, to give 
judges power to unilaterally give felons their firearm privileges back. 
It is hard enough for ATF, after conducting an intensive investigation, 
to make judgments about an individual felon; for a court to do it on 
its own is completely inappropriate. To put it simply, courts will lack 
the resources to make an informed judgment in this regard. In any case, 
Congress' intent, and the appropriate rule, is that felons should be 
prohibited from owning guns period. Enacting my legislation will 
eliminate the guns for felons program permanently and prevent the need 
for Congress to revisit this issue every year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 3117. A bill to extend the cooling off period in the labor dispute 
between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International 
Longshore and Warehouse Union; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last year our Nation's economy was briefly 
held hostage by an attack on American soil. We have overcome that 
challenge and are now charging ahead in the right direction.
  It is this kind of American resolve that has built this Nation into 
the thriving world power it is today.
  However, recent developments on the West Coast have created a 
different kind of crisis but no less damaging to America's economy.
  On Sunday, September 29, the Pacific Maritime Association, PMA, 
locked out workers in twenty-nine West Coast ports for more than a week 
in response to a reported work-slow down by members of the 
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, ILWU.
  Last week, President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act that ended the 
lock out allowing workers to go back to work and negotiators to work 
through these problems over the course of an 80-day cooling-off period.
  I applaud the President's action. However, I am concerned about 
conflicting messages being sent by the ILWU and the PMA. More 
importantly, I am concerned about the lack of interest either party, 
management or labor, has regarding the economic fate of America's 
workers and America's agricultural economy.
  The economic impact of this labor dispute has temporarily crippled 
our Nation's economy. This dispute has threatened America's national 
health and safety. In many economic sectors, jobs were lost, workers 
were sent home and Americans will temporarily pay higher prices for 
consumer goods.
  However, once the President made his intention known to invoke Taft-
Hartley, the AFL-CIO issued an Oct. 7 press release charging the 
President's action: ``preempts the collective bargaining process and 
undermines the rights of workers with union representation to negotiate 
on equal footing with their employers''.
  Neither side in a collective bargaining negotiating process should be 
able to leverage the nation's economy in an attempt to control the 
debate. Doing so is a very selfish act. And criticizing the President 
for his action is a very shortsighted approach to these negotiations.
  The ILWU claims they want to go back to work. Due to the only 
recourse available on behalf of the American economy, they are, today, 
back at work.
  I question the AFL-CIO's interest in the American economy. Does the 
AFL-CIO not recognize the impact this labor disruption has on the 
nation's economy? At stake are thousands of jobs and millions of 
dollars in commerce. Let me clarify that impact and put a Montana stamp 
on it.
  Exports are critical to the American economy. American exporters ship 
their products overseas, including agricultural exports such as wheat, 
corn, soybeans, and pork products, and manufactured goods of all shapes 
and sizes.
  West Coast ports are crucial to U.S. trade, handling over $300 
billion in trade each year. These ports handle more than half of 
all containerized imports and exports.

  West Coast ports handle 25 percent of all U.S. grain exports, 40 
percent of all wheat, 14 percent of all corn, and seven percent of all 
soybeans exports.
  Sixty-five percent of all U.S. containerized food trade moved through 
these ports in 2001. During the lockout, the dispute was estimated to 
have cost the America's economy $2 billion a day.
  Trade with Asia is particularly affected. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong 
Kong, China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, India, and Malaysia 
are the top 10 destinations for containerized U.S. agriculture 
products. Together, these nations receive 85 percent of all 
agricultural shipments from the West Coast.
  If these countries cannot count on U.S. exports, they will turn to 
our competitors. Our farmers and ranchers spend precious resources on 
market development activities. It's very frustrating to lose shares of 
those markets solely because a small group of labor and management 
representatives cannot agree on a resolution.
  Again, I applaud President Bush's decision last week. I encouraged 
his action and stand by him now. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the only 
short-term remedy for the dispute that temporarily closed the West 
Coast ports.
  Furthermore, during the cooling off period, I urge the President to 
use his powers to judicially enforce productivity is not purposely 
restricted.
  I do not stand here today in support of the PMA's position, nor do I 
stand here today in support of the ILWU's position. Rather, I stand 
here today in support of the Nation's economy, the American worker, the 
Montana farmer, the retailer, the food distributor, the truck and rail 
operators, the consumer, and every other American that is being harmed 
by this action.
  I believe collective bargaining can and has worked more often than 
not. However, it is arrogant for any management or labor group to 
paralyze commerce in our nation.
  Reopening the ports, even if only for 80 days, will benefit the 
economy. The parties will be given time to settle the dispute. 
Manufacturers and retailers will be given additional time to adjust and 
prepare.
  Invoking Taft-Hartley was the right thing to do. It was the 
appropriate action to take to protect our economy, to protect American 
workers, to ensure we have a healthy and happy holiday season.
  The 80-day cooling-off period will allow both parties to re-evaluate 
their respective positions. Furthermore, it will give the ports an 
opportunity to clear up a mounting backlog that has

[[Page S10575]]

paralyzed much of our West Coast export and import commerce. And 
finally, it will allow the ILWU workers to go back to work earning a 
living for their families.
  Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would extend the 
cooling-off period thirty days until the end of January. At present the 
80 day cooling off period will end between Christmas Day and New Years 
Day.
  This is a move that will not impact the negotiations between the two 
parties. However, it will allow the cooling-off period to end at the 
end of January rather than the end of December and between Christmas 
and New Years.
  Extending the deadline beyond the Holiday season will help to unsnarl 
the mess created by this dispute; give the ports another thirty days to 
clear up the backlog. Finally, it will give Congress and the American 
people an ability to approach the end of this cooling-off period fully 
aware of the importance of this negotiation and uninterrupted by the 
holiday season.
  If negotiators are able to work out a resolution, we have lost 
nothing. However, if in the case, there is no resolution by the end of 
the cooling-off period, this extension could save thousands of American 
jobs and millions of dollars in economic losses.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Allard, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 3118. A bill to strengthen enforcement of provisions of the Animal 
Welfare Act relating to animal fighting, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Allard and Cantwell to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Act. I 
would like to thank my colleagues for their support in this endeavor to 
protect the welfare of animals. This legislation targets the troubling, 
widespread and sometimes underground activities of dogfighting and 
cockfighting where dogs and birds are bred and trained to fight to the 
death. This is done for the sheer enjoyment and illegal wagering of the 
animals' handlers and spectators.
  These activities are reprehensible and despicable. Our States' laws 
reflect this sentiment. All 50 States have prohibited dogfighting. It 
is considered a felony in 46 States. Cockfighting is illegal in 47 
States, and it is a felony in 26 States. In my home State of Nevada, 
both dogfighting and cockfighting are considered felonies. In fact, it 
is a felony to even attend a dogfighting or cockfighting match.
  Unfortunately, in spite of public opposition to extreme animal 
suffering, these animal fighting industries thrive. There are 11 
underground dogfighting publications, and several above-ground 
cockfighting magazines. These magazines advertise and sell animals and 
the materials associated with animal fighting. They also seek to 
legitimize this shocking practice.
  During the consideration of the Farm Bill, a provision was included 
that closed loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the 
House and the Senate increased the maximum jail time for individuals 
who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act from 
one year to two years, making any violation a Federal felony. However, 
during the conference, the jail time increase was removed.
  The legislation that I am introducing today seeks to do three things. 
First, it restores the jail time increase to treat the violations as a 
felony. I am informed by U.S. Attorneys that they are hesitant to 
pursue animal fighting cases with merely a misdemeanor penalty. To 
illustrate this, it is important to note that only three cases since 
1976 have advanced, even though the USDA has received innumerable tips 
from informants and requests to assist with state and local 
prosecutions. Increased penalties will provide a greater incentive for 
federal authorities to pursue animal fighting cases.
  Second, the bill prohibits the interstate shipment of cockfighting 
implements, such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs. The specific knives 
are commonly known as ``slashers.'' The slashers and ice-pick-like 
gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make the cockfights more 
violent and to induce bleeding of the animals. These weapons are used 
only in cockfights. Since Congress has restricted shipment of birds for 
fighting, it should also restrict implements designed specifically for 
fights.
  Finally, the bill updates language regarding the procedures that 
enforcement agents follow when they seize the animals. This regards the 
proper care and transportation of the animals that are seized. It also 
states that the court may order the convicted person to pay for the 
costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the 
animals.
  I appreciate the support of both Senators Allard and Cantwell in this 
effort, and look forward to the overwhelming support of my other 
colleagues in the Senate. I also wish to recognize Representative 
Robert Andrews for his leadership on the House version of this bill. 
Surely, this is an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. We 
cannot allow this barbaric practice to continue in our civilized 
society.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 3119. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the 
guaranteed renewability of individual health insurance coverage 
regardless of the health status-related factors of an enrollee; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Health 
Insurance Fairness Act of 2002'' and I am very pleased to have Senator 
Fitzgerald join me as an original cosponsor. This legislation would 
prohibit the insurance practice of reunderwriting at renewal, thereby 
protecting the millions of Americans relying on individual health 
insurance policies.
  The need for this legislation was brought to my attention by an 
excellent April 9, 2002 article in the Wall Street Journal that 
documented the impact of reunderwriting on a married couple from 
Florida.
  Shaneen Wahl of Port Charlotte, FL was diagnosed with breast cancer 
in 1996. At that time, she and her husband Tom were paying $417 a month 
for health insurance. In addition to coping with cancer, the Wahls 
began to face rapidly increasing premiums, and by August 2000 their 
insurer informed them that their new rate would be $1,881 a month. This 
premium increase wasn't due to non-payment of premiums or any other 
action of the Wahls. It was the result of reunderwriting conducted by 
the Wahl's insurance company.
  Reunderwriting at renewal is a practice that forces people who have 
become ill to pay substantial premium increases or lose their health 
insurance. While most insurers evaluate an individual's medical history 
only at the outset, some have adopted the practice of reviewing 
customers' health status annually. The purpose of this review is to 
determine if the individual has developed a medical condition or has 
filed claims; if such a determination is made, the company raises the 
individual's premium. This practice contributes enormously to the 
instability of health insurance by making it difficult, it not 
impossible, for people who have paid insurance premiums for years to 
continue that health insurance at the very time they need it the most.
  How does it work? Carriers reunderwriting at renewal charge 
substantially higher renewal premiums to policyholders who have been 
diagnosed with an illness or had medical claims than they charge other 
policyholders. The carriers do this by transferring a policyholder to a 
higher risk class than the policyholder was in when the policy was 
issued or in some cases by manually adjusting the policyholder's rate 
based on his or her medical claims. In either case, the individual's 
premium is based on his or her claims or health status during the 
policy year. For example, in another case from Florida, Bruce and Wanda 
Chambers of St. Augustine saw their rates increase from $300 per month 
to $780 per month in just one year after Wanda was diagnosed with 
diabetes.
  Consumers purchase insurance so that they will have access to health 
care should they become ill, as in the example of Wanda Chambers. If 
carriers are allowed to increase premium rates based on health status 
at renewal, consumers face a choice between the very two outcomes they 
had

[[Page S10576]]

planned to avoid by purchasing insurance in the first place: they can 
drop the insurance policy and thus likely forgo access to health care 
in times of illness, or they can pay the grossly inflated premiums and 
thus face financial ruin.
  The practice of reunderwriting at renewal violates the spirit of 
health insurance guaranteed renewability requirements under state and 
federal law. In the 1990's, the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners, NAIC, developed model laws to prohibit insurance 
companies from canceling policies once an individual became sick. In 
1997, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, 
applied this requirement to all health insurance policies subject to 
HIPAA. As a result, carriers can no longer cancel individuals because 
of their medical claims.
  Reunderwriting is a way to circumvent these requirements, and has 
been justified as a means of holding down premiums, for the healthy. 
However, a July 17, 2002 memo to all NAIC Members from Steven B. 
Larsen, Chair of the Health Insurance & Managed Care (B) Committee 
clarifies that the practice of reunderwriting is illegal under NAIC 
Model Laws:

       The committee also noted that the practice is contrary to 
     adopted NAIC policy, and is illegal under NAIC Model Laws 
     governing the individual market. The Small Employer and 
     Individual Health Insurance Availability Model Act (Model 
     #35) provides for adjusted community rating, and health 
     status is not one of the factors that can be used to set 
     rates. The Individual Health Insurance Portability Model Act 
     (Model #37) provides for the use of rating characteristics, 
     and health status is not one of the listed characteristics. 
     More specifically that model also provides that changes in 
     health status after issue, and durational rating, are not to 
     be used in setting premiums for individual policies.

  Insurance companies should not be allowed to manage health-care costs 
by targeting individuals for premium increases because an individual 
was diagnosed with an illness or has had medical claims. Doubling or 
tripling premiums for only the individuals who have been diagnosed with 
an illness forces those individuals to drop their policies and is 
functionally the same as not renewing coverage.
  Not only is reunderwriting bad for consumers, but it creates a 
competitive disadvantage to the many reputable insurance companies that 
agree that this practice is contrary to the public interest and 
undermines the theory behind insurance. Faced with the practice being 
used by some companies, the Wall Street Journal has reported that other 
carriers are ``closely watching'' this practice intending to adopt a 
similar practice either to avoid a competitive disadvantage or to 
improve their bottom line. While selective targeting improves the 
profitability of the reunderwriter, it shifts the responsibility for 
higher risk people to other insurers or employers or local and state 
government health programs.
  The legislation we are introducing today would make health insurance 
more secure. The legislation would clarify that guaranteed renewal of 
health insurance means that insurers cannot target individuals for 
premium increases because the have had claims or a new disease 
diagnosis. The bill would ensure that individuals will not be priced 
out of the market for health insurance at the very time that they need 
it most.
  The goals of this legislation are simple: 1. To strengthen HIPAA's 
promise of guaranteed renewable coverage and make private health 
insurance more secure for millions of Americans, and 2. to hold all 
insurers accountable to a level playing field of reasonable standards 
so they can compete fairly without dumping customers when they get 
sick.
  The ``Health Insurance Fairness Act'' will help the many millions of 
people who rely on the individual health insurance market: those that 
are self-employed, those employed by small businesses unable to get 
group coverage, early retirees who rely disproportionately on 
individual health insurance if their COBRA runs out before Medicare 
begins, and others whose employers don't provide health benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the ``Health Insurance Fairness 
Act'' and I thank the Chair.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 3120. A bill to impose restrictions on the ability of officers and 
employees of the United States to enter into contracts with 
corporations or partnerships that move outside the United States while 
retaining substantially the same ownership; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf 
of Sen. Baucus and myself to address the issue of inverting 
corporations that are awarded contracts by the federal government. Our 
bill is the ``Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits'', RECAP, 
Act.
  Inverting corporations set up a folder in a foreign filing cabinet or 
a mail box overseas and call that their new foreign ``headquarters.'' 
This allows companies to escape millions of dollars of Federal taxes 
every year. In April of this year, Sen. Baucus and I introduced the 
``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore'', REPO, Act to shut 
down these phony corporate inversions. Today, our REPO bill sits in the 
Care Act, awaiting Senate passage.
  You would think that the ``greed-grab'' of corporate inversions would 
satisfy most companies, but unfortunately it is not enough. After these 
corporations invert and save millions in taxes, they then come back 
into the United States to obtain juicy contracts with the Federal 
Government.
  Imagine the nerve. They create phony foreign headquarters to escape 
taxes and then use other peoples' taxes to turn a profit. That's really 
something, something that needs to be stopped.
  Let's look at some of the numbers. Tyco had over 1700 contracts in 
2001, worth over $286 million dollars. Accenture had contracts worth 
nearly $279 million. Ingersoll Rand left the United States for Bermuda, 
where it reportedly pays less than $28,000 a year to register its phony 
headquarters and receives $40 million in U.S. tax savings. Ingersoll 
Rand had more than 200 government contracts in 2001, worth over $12 
million.
  I was the first member of Congress to disclose that inverting 
corporations were receiving Federal contracts, back in March of this 
year. Out of respect for the committee system, I have waited for the 
committees with jurisdiction over government contracts to act on this 
issue. They have not. Instead, we have seen a series of politically-
inspired amendments offered in Congress, all of which are ineffective, 
easily evaded, and, if enacted, could cost thousands of Americans their 
jobs. I then read in the paper last week that the Defense 
Appropriations conferees dropped one of those amendments, rather than 
try to rewrite it. I decided enough is enough. It is time for serious 
legislation on this issue.
  Chairman Baucus and I offer our bipartisan RECAP bill as a compliment 
to our earlier REPO bill on corporate inversions. For future corporate 
inversions, our RECAP bill will bar the inverting company from 
receiving Federal contracts. For the inversions that have already 
gotten out before the REPO bill can be enacted, our RECAP bill will 
make them send back their ill-gotten tax savings by forcing them to 
lower their bids in order to obtain government contracts. The RECAP 
bill does not unwind Federal contracts that were legal when they were 
entered into. Therefore, unlike the other proposals, our RECAP bill 
will not throw thousands of Americans out of a job. The bill we submit 
today has only one objective: to permanently place corporate inversions 
on the endangered species list.
  I am aware that many of my colleagues believe this measure is 
unnecessary because inverting corporations pay U.S. taxes on their 
profits from Federal contracts. It is generally true that profits 
earned from a Federal contract are taxable in the United States, but 
those profits are easily reduced when an inverter creates phony 
deductions through its inversion structure. For example, most inverted 
companies create phony interest deductions for interest that is 
fictitiously paid to the ``file folder'' foreign headquarters. 
Objections to this bill simply overlook the real insult to the American 
people: these inverted companies take other peoples' tax dollars to 
make a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America 
strong. And that's just wrong.
  So let me be clear to everyone developing or contemplating one of 
these inversion deals, you proceed at your own peril. We are not only 
going after the

[[Page S10577]]

corporate expatriation abuse, but also the abusers who seek big 
government contracts while skirting their U.S. tax obligations. I 
intend to pursue this issue throughout the remainder of this Congress 
and into the next.
  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. 3120

       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 ``Reclaiming Expatriated 
     Contracts and Profits Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON FEDERAL CONTRACTS WITH CERTAIN 
                   INVERTED ENTITIES.

       (a) Restrictions.--
       (1) Ban on certain inverted entities.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law--
       (A) no officer or employee of the United States may enter 
     into, extend, or modify a contract with a foreign 
     incorporated entity treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation under subsection (c) during the restriction 
     period for the entity, and
       (B) any officer or employee of the United States entering 
     into a contract after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall include in the contract a prohibition on the 
     subcontracting of any portion of the contract to any foreign 
     incorporated entity treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation under subsection (c) during the restriction 
     period for the entity.
       (2) Mandatory reduction in contract evaluation of certain 
     entities.--
       (A) In general.--If, during the restriction period for an 
     acquired entity to which this section applies, the entity 
     makes an offer in response to a solicitation of offers for a 
     contract with the United States, any officer or employee of 
     the United States evaluating the offer shall, solely for 
     purposes of awarding the contract, adjust the evaluation as 
     follows:
       (i) In the case of a contract to be entered into with an 
     offeror selected solely on the basis of price, the price 
     offered by such acquired entity shall be deemed to be equal 
     to 110 percent of the price actually offered.
       (ii) In the case of a contract to be entered into with an 
     offeror on the basis of two or more evaluation factors, the 
     quantitative evaluation of the offer made by such acquired 
     entity shall be deemed to be reduced by 10 percent.
       (B) Application to certain contractors.--If a person other 
     than an entity to which this paragraph applies makes an offer 
     for a contract with the United States, and it is reasonable 
     to assume at the time of the offer that any portion of the 
     work will be subcontracted to such an entity, subparagraph 
     (A) shall be applied to such offer in the same manner as if 
     the person making the offer were such an entity.
       (3) Application to related entities.--Paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) shall also apply during the restriction period for an 
     entity to--
       (A) a member of an expanded affiliated group which includes 
     the entity, and
       (B) any other related person with respect to the entity.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Presidential waiver.--The President of the United 
     States may waive the application of subsection (a) with 
     respect to any contract if the President determines that the 
     waiver is necessary in the interest of national security.
       (2) Exception where no tax avoidance purpose.--
       (A) In general.--This section shall not apply to a foreign 
     incorporated entity or an acquired entity if the entity 
     requests, and the Secretary of the Treasury issues, a 
     determination letter that the acquisition described in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to the entity did not have 
     as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of Federal 
     income taxation.
       (B) Procedures.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     prescribe the time and manner of filing a request under this 
     paragraph.
       (C) Stay of restriction period.--
       (i) In general.--The restriction period with respect to an 
     entity filing a request under this paragraph shall not begin 
     until the Secretary of the Treasury notifies the entity that 
     it will not issue a determination letter with respect to the 
     request.
       (ii) No action.--If the Secretary takes no action with 
     respect to a request during the 1-year period beginning on 
     the date of the request (or such longer period as the 
     Secretary and the entity may agree upon), the Secretary shall 
     be treated as having issued a determination letter described 
     in subparagraph (A). This clause shall not apply to a request 
     if the entity does not submit the request in proper form or 
     the entity does not provide the information the Secretary 
     requests to process the request.
       (c) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) In general.--A foreign incorporated entity shall be 
     treated as an inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a 
     plan (or a series of related transactions)--
       (A) the entity completes after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act the direct or indirect acquisition of substantially 
     all of the properties held directly or indirectly by a 
     domestic corporation or substantially all of the properties 
     constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership,
       (B) after the acquisition at least 80 percent of the stock 
     (by vote or value) of the entity is held--
       (i) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation, or
       (ii) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership, and
       (C) the expanded affiliated group which after the 
     acquisition includes the entity does not have substantial 
     business activities in the foreign country in which or under 
     the law of which the entity is created or organized when 
     compared to the total business activities of such expanded 
     affiliated group.
       (2) Rules for application of subsection.--In applying this 
     subsection, the following rules shall apply:
       (A) Certain stock disregarded.--There shall not be taken 
     into account in determining ownership for purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated group 
     which includes the foreign incorporated entity, or
       (ii) stock of such entity which is sold in a public 
     offering related to the acquisition described in paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       (B) Plan deemed in certain cases.--If a foreign 
     incorporated entity acquires directly or indirectly 
     substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation 
     or partnership during the 4-year period beginning on the date 
     which is 2 years before the ownership requirements of 
     paragraph (1)(B) are met with respect to such corporation or 
     partnership, such actions shall be treated as pursuant to a 
     plan.
       (C) Certain transfers disregarded.--The transfer of 
     properties or liabilities (including by contribution or 
     distribution) shall be disregarded if such transfers are part 
     of a plan a principal purpose of which is to avoid the 
     purposes of this section.
       (D) Special rule for related partnerships.--For purposes of 
     applying this subsection to the acquisition of a domestic 
     partnership, except as provided in regulations, all 
     partnerships which are under common control (within the 
     meaning of section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
     shall be treated as 1 partnership.
       (E) Treatment of certain rights.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary--
       (i) to treat warrants, options, contracts to acquire stock, 
     convertible debt instruments, and other similar interests as 
     stock, and
       (ii) to treat stock as not stock.
       (d) Acquired Entity to Which Section Applies.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall apply to an acquired 
     entity if a foreign incorporated entity would be treated as 
     an inverted domestic corporation with respect to the acquired 
     entity if subsection (c)(1)(B) were applied by substituting 
     ``50 percent'' for ``80 percent''.
       (2) Application to certain acquisitions before enactment.--
     This section shall apply to an acquired entity if a foreign 
     incorporated entity would be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if subsection (c)(1) were applied--
       (A) by substituting ``after December 31, 1996, and on or 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act,'' for ``after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act'' in subparagraph (A), 
     and
       (B) by substituting ``50 percent'' for ``80 percent'' in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (3) Acquired entity.--For purposes of this section--
       (A) In general.--The term `acquired entity' means the 
     domestic corporation or partnership substantially all of the 
     properties of which are directly or indirectly acquired in an 
     acquisition described in subsection (c)(1)(A) to which this 
     subsection applies.
       (B) Aggregation rules.--Any domestic person bearing a 
     relationship described in section 267(b) or 707(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to an acquired entity shall be 
     treated as an acquired entity with respect to the acquisition 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Expanded affiliated group.--The term ``expanded 
     affiliated group'' means an affiliated group as defined in 
     section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (without 
     regard to section 1504(b)(3) of such Code), except that 
     section 1504(a) of such Code shall be applied by substituting 
     ``more than 50 percent'' for ``at least 80 percent'' each 
     place it appears.
       (2) Foreign incorporated entity.--The term ``foreign 
     incorporated entity'' means any entity which is treated as a 
     foreign corporation for purposes of such Code.
       (3) Related person.--The term ``related person'' means, 
     with respect to any entity, a person which--
       (A) bears a relationship to such entity described in 
     section 267(b) or 707(b) of such Code, or
       (B) is under the same common control (within the meaning of 
     section 482 of such Code) as such entity.
       (4) Restriction period.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``restriction period'' means, 
     with respect to any entity, the period--

[[Page S10578]]

       (i) beginning on the date substantially all of the 
     properties to be acquired as part of the acquisition 
     described in subsection (c)(1)(A) are acquired, and
       (ii) to the extent provided by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, ending on the date the income and gain from such 
     properties is subject to United States taxation in the same 
     manner as if such properties were held by a United States 
     person.
       (B) Special rules for acquired entities.--
       (i) 10-year limit.--In the case of an acquired entity to 
     which subsection (a)(2) applies, the restriction period shall 
     end no later than the date which is 10 years from the date 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) (or, if later, the date of 
     the enactment of this Act).
       (ii) Subsequent acquisitions by unrelated domestic 
     corporations.--

       (I) In general.--Subject to such conditions, limitations, 
     and exceptions as the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     prescribe, if, after an acquisition described in subsection 
     (c)(1)(A) to which subsection (a)(2) applies, a domestic 
     corporation the stock of which is traded on an established 
     securities market acquires directly or indirectly any 
     properties of one or more acquired entities, then the 
     restriction period for any such acquired entity with respect 
     to which the requirements of clause (ii) are met shall end 
     immediately after such acquisition.
       (II) Requirements.--The requirements of this subclause are 
     met with respect to a transaction involving any acquisition 
     described in subclause (I) if--

       (aa) before such transaction the domestic corporation did 
     not have a relationship described in section 267(b) or 707(b) 
     of such Code, and was not under common control (within the 
     meaning of section 482 of such Code), with the acquired 
     entity, or any member of an expanded affiliated group 
     including such entity, and
       (bb) after such transaction, such acquired entity is a 
     member of the same expanded affiliated group which includes 
     the domestic corporation or has such a relationship or is 
     under such common control with any member of such group, and 
     is not a member of, and does not have such a relationship and 
     is not under such common control with any member of, the 
     expanded affiliated group which before such acquisition 
     included such entity.
       (5) Other definitions.--The terms ``person'', ``domestic'', 
     and ``foreign'' have the same meanings given such terms by 
     section 7701(a) of such Code.
       (f) Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury or his 
     delegate shall assist officers and employees of the United 
     States in carrying out the provisions of this section, 
     including providing assistance in identifying entities to 
     which this section applies.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join the Ranking Republican Member of 
the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, in introducing bipartisan 
legislation to further address the increasing problem of U.S. 
corporations reincorporating to tax haven countries to avoid taxes, a 
practice also known as a corporate inversion. I am pleased to cosponsor 
the Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits, RECAP, Act which 
prohibits the most egregious inverted corporations from receiving 
Federal Government contracts.
  Last March, Senator Grassley and I announced our intention to 
introduce legislation to curb the proliferation of U.S. corporations 
changing their Articles of Incorporation to become a corporation of a 
foreign tax haven country. On April 11, 2002, we introduced legislation 
to address this problem. S. 2119, the Reversing the Expatriation of 
Profits Offshore, REPO, Act, was designed to put the brakes on the 
potential rush to move U.S. corporate headquarters to tax haven 
countries. On June 18, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee sent a strong 
message to corporate America by passing S. 2119 by unanimous vote.
  But the REPO Act was just the first step to curb inversions. Senator 
Wellstone led the effort to eliminate another incentive for these 
corporations by restricting them from qualification for government 
contracts. The idea is simple. If a corporation wants to, in essence, 
renounce their U.S. citizenship, then they shouldn't be entitled to 
compete for U.S. government contracts. I applaud Senator Wellstone for 
his leadership and willingness to press ahead with restricting inverted 
corporations from winning government contracts.
  Today, Senator Chuck Grassley and I cosponsor legislation focused on 
the same goal as that of Senator Wellstone. The legislation we 
introduce today will prevent the most egregious of these inverted 
corporations from receiving any U.S. government contracts. These 
companies have placed tax avoidance as their first priority and their 
U.S. identity as their second priority. The reduction in taxes for 
inverted corporations allows them to underbid those corporations that 
choose to remain U.S. corporations. This is wrong.
  I welcome the opportunity to support RECAP and I urge Congress to act 
quickly on this legislation, as it will go a long way toward restoring 
public confidence in corporate America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 3121. A bill to authorize the Secretary of State to undertake 
measures in support of international programs to detect and prevent 
acts of nuclear or radiological terrorism, to authorize appropriations 
to the Department of State to carry out those measures, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Nuclear and 
Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002.'' This is a bill 
to strengthen the efforts of the world community to gain control over 
the vast amounts of radioactive materials that, left uncontrolled, 
could cause economic disruption and sow terror in American cities.
  In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on March 6 of 
this year, experts testified that an amount of ground up radioactive 
cobalt-60 the size of the ball in your ball point pen could contaminate 
an area of Manhattan greater than the footprint of the World Trade 
Center. The damage and risk would be so great that buildings in the 
affected area might have to be abandoned, destroyed, and trucked away 
as radioactive waste.
  We learned that if a terrorist dispersed a few hundred curies of 
radioactive material, the resulting public panic could make much of 
downtown Washington, DC uninhabitable without a difficult and expensive 
clean-up. Decontamination is a serious and poorly understood problem 
because many of the radioactive isotopes a terrorist might choose will 
bind chemically to construction materials such as marble and stone used 
in our most precious buildings.
  One curie of radioactive cesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60 or 
iridium-192 poses a significant risk. But sources as strong as several 
hundred curies are used every day in world-wide commerce. They serve to 
estimate the oil in active oil wells, to provide a compact and 
convenient source of x-rays to check the quality of welds in the field, 
and to provide pencil beams of radiation to measure the amount of soda 
or beer in an aluminum can.
  Hospitals, primarily in poorer countries, but also in the United 
States, use cesium-137 or cobalt-60 sources as strong as several 
thousand curies to provide radiation therapy in cancer treatment. Some 
of these sources are used in Southern California in mobile treatment 
centers mounted in trucks. These rolling radioactive sources move on 
the highways and through the streets of our country and perhaps of 
other countries, where they are vulnerable to accident or foul play.
  Each year many radioactive sources, world wide, are abandoned or 
stolen and leak out of the existing control system. They become 
``orphan'' sources, unwanted and with nobody to care for them or keep 
them out of trouble. Sometimes industrial sources are abandoned in 
place when their owners go out of business. They can then find their 
way into the scrap metal pool, and may arrive on the doorstep of a 
steel mill.
  That happened shortly before our March 6 hearing. A 2-curie cesium-
137 source turned up on the conveyor belt of the Nucor Steel Mill in 
Hertford, NC. Caught just before it would have gone into the furnace, 
it was identified, removed, and taken into safe custody by the North 
Carolina radiation protection authorities. Where did it come from? A 
bankrupt chemical company in the Baltimore area whose equipment was 
sold for scrap. But when the records were traced it was found that the 
company had bought not one, but four, such sources. Fortunately, two 
more were traced and recovered, but one of those ``gauge sources'' 
still is missing.
  If the source found at Nucor had gone into the molten steel, the 
clean-up would have cost the company millions of dollars. If it had 
gotten into the

[[Page S10579]]

hands of a terrorist who could disperse it with high explosives, it 
could have contaminated many square blocks of an American city and the 
recovery might have run into the billions.
  Far more intense radioactive sources turn up in strange places from 
time to time.
  In 1987, two junk collectors in Brazil broke open an abandoned gamma 
ray cancer treatment machine containing 1,400 curies of Cesium-137. 
Inside they found about 2/3 of an ounce of softly glowing powder. 
Several people were delighted at the idea of glowing in the dark and 
they rubbed the powder on their bodies. They contaminated not only 
themselves, but their homes and families. The toll: 5 people dead, 21 
requiring intensive care, 49 requiring some hospitalization, 249 
contaminated, and 111,800 people tested in improvised medical 
facilities at a local soccer stadium.
  And that was an accident. A deliberate attack using the same 20 grams 
of material could have had far greater consequences, as our witnesses 
told the Committee.
  ``Dirty bombs'' do not even need to explode. Murders have been 
committed by the simple act of inserting a small radioactive source in 
the victim's desk chair and simply waiting until radiation sickness and 
death followed. If a terrorist is willing to die, he could merely fling 
finely powdered material from the window of a tall building and allow 
the wind to spread his poison.
  Finally, I worry that other terrorist groups, not just Al Qaeda, 
could make a radiological dispersion device. Radioactive material is 
out there for the taking, especially in the former Soviet Union.
  In January of this year, three hunters gathering firewood in a forest 
in the former Soviet republic of Georgia found two abandoned cans of 
strontium-90, each containing 40,000 curies of material. Because the 
heat from these sources melted the snow for yards around, the hunters 
were delighted to find free warmth for their tent. They picked up and 
carried off the sources in their backpacks. All three woodsmen were 
critically injured, but since they did not break open the two cans, 
environmental contamination was limited.
  A team from the government of Georgia, assisted by the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, recovered the sources, but several more are 
apparently missing and unaccounted for. The nuclear industry of the 
former Soviet Union made hundreds of similar devices.
  In fact, 40,000 curies of strontium-90 represents a small source by 
Soviet standards. A string of 131 arctic sites in Russia is powered by 
radioisotope thermal generators--portable power plants that draw energy 
from the heat liberated by the decay of radioactive nuclei. Each site 
uses a 300,000-curie source. That raises the maximum damage that a 
terrorist dirty bomb could do by a factor of ten beyond anything the 
Committee heard at our March hearing.
  There once were 136 sites in this chain, but the Norwegian government 
replaced five with solar-powered installations. The remaining 131 
should be replaced as soon as possible so as to remove a potential 
source of truly destructive dirty bombs.
  We must, and we can, raise significant and sensible barriers to 
protect against terrorists who would use the power of the atom to do us 
harm. To that end, Senators Lugar, Domenici, Clinton, Gregg and Schumer 
join me today in introducing the ``Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism 
Threat Reduction Act of 2002.''
  The bill's principal cosponsors, Senators Lugar and Domenici, have 
been among the Senate's long-time leaders in the causes of non-
proliferation, threat reduction and counter-terrorism, and I welcome 
their support. Senator Gregg's position on the Appropriations Committee 
has sensitized him to the need to protect our embassies. And both of 
the Senators from New York, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton, attended the 
Foreign Relations Committee's classified session where we learned some 
of the specifics regarding the threat of nuclear and radiological 
terrorism.
  Our bill takes the initiative in several significant areas:
  One, it creates a new program to establish a network of five regional 
shelters around the globe to provide secure, temporary storage of 
unwanted, unused, obsolete and orphaned radioactive sources. The bill 
authorizes $5 million to get started in Fiscal Year 2003, and up to $20 
million a year for construction and operation of the facilities in the 
future. We envision accomplishing our goals through bilateral 
negotiations with the host nations or, when advantageous to the United 
States, through special contributions to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, the IAEA. Regional storage facilities can remove some of 
the most dangerous material from circulation.
  Two, to round up the sources to be stored in the regional facilities, 
we propose an accelerated program--in cooperation with the IAEA--to 
discover, inventory, and recover unwanted radioactive material from 
around the world. This would be similar to the Department of Energy's 
Off-site Source Recovery Program, but aimed at material outside our 
borders. This bill will make a modest start by authorizing $5 million a 
year in special voluntary contributions to the IAEA.
  Three, recognizing the threat posed by the very intense radioactive 
sources packaged by the former Soviet Union to provide electric power 
to very remote locations, such as lighthouses, weather stations, 
communications nets, and other measuring equipment, the bill authorizes 
funding to replace that equipment with non-nuclear technologies. We 
believe that $10 million a year over the next three years should not 
merely make a dent in this problem; it should largely solve it.
  Four, other bills this year have provided funding to train American 
first responders to handle a radiological emergency. The bill we 
introduce today authorizes $5 million a year for the next three years 
to train responders abroad. This is a matter of self-protection for the 
United States: we have diplomatic missions at risk around the world, 
and we will be funding the construction and operation of temporary 
storage sites for radioactive material. Should accidents or incidents 
occur, we would like to be able to rely upon competent responses by our 
host countries.
  Five, this bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct a global 
assessment of the radiological threat to U.S. missions overseas and to 
provide the results to the appropriate committees of the Congress in an 
unclassified form, but with a classified annex giving details if he 
deems necessary. We hope the Secretary will take into account the 
locations of the interim storage facilities and also the results of 
this threat assessment in choosing where first to provide the overseas 
first responder training authorized by this bill.
  Six, the Customs Service is charged with preventing illicit shipments 
of radioactive material and fissile material from reaching our shores. 
Inspection of today's large cargo containers for fissile material, in 
particular, is a technologically challenging task, one performed most 
safely and easily before the containers are loaded aboard ship. Customs 
has agreements to permit U.S. inspectors to do their jobs in ports of 
embarkation. In order to assist the Service, the Nuclear and 
Radiological Threat Prevention Act establishes a special representative 
with the rank of ambassador within the State Department for negotiation 
of international agreements that ensure inspection of cargoes of 
nuclear material at ports of embarkation. This special representative 
will work in close cooperation with the Customs Service to make certain 
that the agreements meet the Service's needs.
  Seven, we could diminish the threat of Dirty bombs by reducing use of 
radioactive material where other technologies could be substituted. 
This bill mandates a study by the National Academy of Sciences to tell 
us how and where safe sources of radiation can replace dangerous ones. 
Some substitutions are well known: for many applications, X-ray 
machines powered by the electric grid are almost as convenient as the 
gamma ray ``cameras'' that use intense iridium-178 sources. Powered 
radiation sources can replace radioactive sources in some oil well 
logging work. Linear accelerators are replacing radioactive cobalt and 
cesium in cancer therapy. All of the substitute sources have one thing 
in common: a switch. When that switch is turned ``off,'' the radiation 
source is safe. There may be many more applications

[[Page S10580]]

in which a switchable source can replace a radioactive one and be at 
least as economical, particularly when the risks of dirty bombs are 
accounted for properly.
  Fissile material is the indispensable element of a true nuclear 
weapon. At our March 6, 2002, hearing experts from the Department of 
Energy weapons laboratories told the Committee that terrorists in 
possession of highly enriched uranium or plutonium could assemble a 
crude ``improvised nuclear device'' with a yield large enough to smash 
Washington from the White House to the Capitol. Such an improvised 
nuclear device would not require a Manhattan Project. In a study done 
in the 1970s, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment wrote 
that a group of two or three technically competent individuals in 
possession of enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium could 
probably build a one-kiloton device in a few months.
  For that reason, one provision of this bill deals specifically with 
developing the tools to guard against illicit traffic in highly 
enriched uranium and plutonium.
  Last summer, a meeting in Washington to discuss ``nuclear science and 
Homeland Security'' was sponsored by the Department of Energy, the 
National Science Foundation, NSF, and other Federal science funding 
agencies. It brought together some of the best scientists in our 
universities and colleges, all of whom were willing to put aside their 
normal research to help strengthen our security at home. But few of 
those scientists can use the research money they already have for this 
work. Research support given for one purpose usually may not be 
channeled into other uses.
  Therefore, this bill establishes a small program within the NSF to 
support researchers at colleges and universities who will work on the 
detection of fissile materials--the hardest and most critical task or 
on real-time identification of radioisotopes and decontamination of 
buildings after a dirty bomb goes off.
  The Department of Energy has a special role to play in this program: 
we expect that Department and its national laboratories to work in 
cooperation with NSF to transition laboratory apparatus into field-
ready operational hardware. This bill authorizes $10 million a year for 
research funded by the NSF and an additional $5 million a year for the 
Department of Energy to accomplish the transition.
  The threat of radiological terrorism, and even of true nuclear terror 
attacks, is real. We know that most radiological attacks will kill few 
Americans, but there is little doubt they will lead to economic crimes 
of the greatest consequence. The radioactive source that killed only a 
few people in Brazil cost hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. 
And nobody tried to cause that destruction.
  We must do something to head off the nuclear and radiological 
terrorist threat where it will most likely first appear: in foreign 
countries.
  The ``Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act'' gives 
us a good start at doing just that.
  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. 3121

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear and Radiological 
     Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It is feasible for terrorists to obtain and to 
     disseminate radioactive material using a radiological 
     dispersion device (RDD), or by emplacing discrete radioactive 
     sources in major public places.
       (2) It is not difficult for terrorists to improvise a 
     nuclear explosive device of significant yield once they have 
     acquired the fissile material, highly enriched uranium, or 
     plutonium, to fuel the weapon.
       (3) An attack by terrorists using a radiological dispersion 
     device, lumped radioactive sources, an improvised nuclear 
     device (IND), or a stolen nuclear weapon is a plausible 
     event.
       (4) Such an attack could cause catastrophic economic and 
     social damage and could kill large numbers of Americans.
       (5) The first line of defense against both nuclear and 
     radiological terrorism is preventing the acquisition of 
     radioactive sources, special nuclear material, or nuclear 
     weapons by terrorists.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Byproduct material.--The term ``byproduct material'' 
     has the same meaning given the term in section 11 e. of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)).
       (3) IAEA.--The term ``IAEA'' means the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency.
       (4) Independent states of the former soviet union.--The 
     term ``independent states of the former Soviet Union'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 3 of the FREEDOM 
     Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801).
       (5) Nuclear explosive device.--The term ``nuclear explosive 
     device'' means any device, whether assembled or disassembled, 
     that is designed to produce an instantaneous release of an 
     amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear material that 
     is greater than the amount of energy that would be released 
     from the detonation of one pound of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
       (6) Radiological dispersion device.--The term 
     ``radiological dispersion device'' is any device meant to 
     spread or disperse radioactive material by the use of 
     explosives or otherwise.
       (7) Radioactive material.--The term ``radioactive 
     material'' means--
       (A) source material and special nuclear material, but does 
     not include natural or depleted uranium;
       (B) nuclear by-product material;
       (C) material made radioactive by bombardment in an 
     accelerator; and
       (D) all refined isotopes of radium.
       (8) Radioactive source.--The term ``radioactive source'' 
     means radioactive material that is permanently sealed in a 
     capsule or closely bonded and includes any radioactive 
     material released if the source is leaking or stolen, but 
     does not include any material within the nuclear fuel cycle 
     of a research or power reactor.
       (9) Radioisotope thermal generator.--The term 
     ``radioisotope thermal generator'' or ``RTG'' means an 
     electrical generator which derives its power from the heat 
     produced by the decay of a radioactive source by the emission 
     of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. The term does not include 
     nuclear reactors deriving their energy from the fission or 
     fusion of atomic nuclei.
       (10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of State.
       (11) Source material.--The term ``source material'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 11 z. of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(z)).
       (12) Special nuclear material.--The term ``special nuclear 
     material'' has the meaning given that term in section 11 aa. 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(aa)).

     SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL REPOSITORIES.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary, acting through the United 
     States Permanent Representative to the IAEA, is authorized to 
     propose that the IAEA conclude agreements with up to five 
     countries under which each country would provide temporary 
     secure storage for orphaned, unused, surplus, or other 
     radioactive sources other than special nuclear material, 
     nuclear fuel, or spent nuclear fuel.
       (b) Voluntary Contributions Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to make a 
     voluntary contribution to the IAEA to fund the United States 
     share of the program authorized by subsection (a) if the IAEA 
     agrees to protect sources under the standards of the United 
     States or IAEA code of conduct, whichever is stricter.
       (2) Fiscal year 2003.--The United States share of the costs 
     of the program described in subsection (a) is authorized to 
     be 100 percent for fiscal year 2003.
       (c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide the IAEA, through contracts with the Department of 
     Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with technical 
     assistance to carry out the program described in subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Nonapplicability of NEPA.--The National Environmental 
     Policy Act shall not apply to any activity conducted under 
     this section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of State $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 
     and $20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter to carry out 
     this section.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 5. RADIOACTIVE SOURCE DISCOVERY, INVENTORY, AND 
                   RECOVERY.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to make United 
     States voluntary contributions to the IAEA to support a 
     program to promote radioactive source discovery, inventory, 
     and recovery.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of State $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2012 to carry out subsection (a).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

[[Page S10581]]

     SEC. 6. RADIOISOTOPE THERMAL GENERATOR-POWERED FACILITIES IN 
                   THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
                   UNION.

       (a) RTG power units.--The Secretary is authorized to assist 
     the Government of the Russian Federation to substitute solar 
     (or other non-nuclear) power sources to replace RTG power 
     units operated by the Russian Federation and other 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union in applications 
     such as lighthouses in the Arctic, remote weather stations, 
     unattended sensors, and for providing electricity in remote 
     locations. Any replacement shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, be based upon tested technologies that have 
     operated for at least one full year in the environment where 
     the replacement will be used.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--Of the funds made available to 
     carry out this section, the Secretary may use not more than 
     20 percent of the funds in any fiscal year to replace 
     dangerous RTG facilities that are similar to those described 
     in subsection (a) in countries other than the independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of State $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 7. FOREIGN FIRST RESPONDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conclude an 
     agreement with a foreign country, or, acting through the 
     United States Permanent Representative to the IAEA, to 
     propose that the IAEA conclude an agreement with that 
     country, under which that country will carry out a program to 
     train first responders to--
       (1) detect, identify, and characterize radioactive 
     material;
       (2) understand the hazards posed by radioactive 
     contamination;
       (3) understand the risks encountered at various dose rates;
       (4) enter contaminated areas safely and speedily; and
       (5) evacuate persons within a contaminated area.
       (b) United States Participation.--The Department of State 
     is hereby designated as the lead Federal entity for 
     cooperation with the IAEA in implementing subsection (a) 
     within the United States. In carrying out activities under 
     this subsection the Secretary of State shall take into 
     account the findings of the threat assessment report required 
     by section 8 and the location of the interim storage 
     facilities under section 4.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of State $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $5,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005 to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 8. THREAT ASSESSMENT REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     of State shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees--
       (1) detailing the preparations made at United States 
     diplomatic missions abroad to detect and mitigate a 
     radiological attack on United States missions and other 
     United States facilities under the control of the Secretary; 
     and
       (2) setting forth a rank-ordered list of the Secretary's 
     priorities for improving radiological security and 
     consequence management at United States missions, including a 
     rank-ordered list of the missions where such improvement is 
     most important.
       (b) Budget Request.--The report shall also include a 
     proposed budget for the improvements described in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (c) Form of Submission.--The report shall be unclassified 
     with a classified annex if necessary.

     SEC. 9. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR INSPECTIONS OF NUCLEAR AND 
                   RADIOLOGICAL MATERIALS.

       Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Special Representative for Inspections of Nuclear and 
     Radiological Materials.--
       ``(1) Establishment of position.--There shall be within the 
     Bureau of the Department of State primarily responsible for 
     nonproliferation matters a Special Representative for 
     Inspections of Nuclear and Radiological Materials (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Special Representative'), who 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate. The Special Representative shall 
     have the rank and status of ambassador.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--The Special Representative shall 
     have the primary responsibility within the Department of 
     State for assisting the Secretary of State in negotiating 
     international agreements that ensure inspection of cargoes of 
     nuclear and radiological materials destined for the United 
     States at ports of embarkation, and such other agreements as 
     may control radioactive materials.
       ``(3) Cooperation with united states customs service.--In 
     carrying out the negotiations described in paragraph (2), the 
     Special Representative shall cooperate with, and accept the 
     assistance and participation of, appropriate officials of the 
     United States Customs Service.''.

     SEC. 10. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, there is established a program under which 
     the Director of the National Science Foundation shall award 
     grants for university-based research into the detection of 
     fissile materials, identification of radioactive isotopes in 
     real time, the protection of sites from attack by 
     radiological dispersion device, mitigation of consequences of 
     such an attack, and attribution of materials used in attacks 
     by radiological dispersion device or by improvised nuclear 
     devices. Such grants shall be available only to investigators 
     at baccalaureate and doctoral degree granting academic 
     institutions. In carrying out the program, the Director of 
     the National Science Foundation shall consult about this 
     program with the Secretary of Energy in order to minimize 
     duplication and increase synergies. The consultation shall 
     also include consideration of the use of the Department of 
     Energy to develop promising basic ideas into field-ready 
     hardware. The Secretary of Energy shall work with the 
     national laboratories and industry to develop field-ready 
     prototype detectors.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Science Foundation $10,000,000, and to the 
     Department of Energy $5,000,000, to carry out this section in 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2008.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 11. STUDY AND REPORTS BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 
                   SCIENCES.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, acting 
     through a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, 
     shall conduct a study of the use of radioactive sources in 
     industry and of potential substitutes for those sources.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than six months after entry into 
     the contract referred to in subsection (a), the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall submit an initial report to the 
     Secretary and the appropriate congressional committees and, 
     not later than three months after submission of the initial 
     report, shall submit to the Secretary and those committees a 
     final report.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Biden and 
Senator Lugar in sponsoring the Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism 
Threat Reduction Act of 2002.
  Only a few months ago, I introduced the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act 
of 2002 with these same Senators and many others as co-sponsors. It's 
being called the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill. I am pleased to learn that 
most provisions of that Act are being incorporated in the Conference on 
the Armed Services bill.
  The current bill and the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill are highly 
complementary. The first bill focused entirely on the contributions 
that the Department of Energy should be authorized to make to minimize 
risks of nuclear and radiological risks to our citizens. The current 
bill focuses on the contributions that the Department of State should 
make in that same arena. And in both cases, there is careful 
recognition of the importance of a tight partnership between those two 
Departments in accomplishing this vital mission.
  I'm particularly pleased with this bill's focus on assisting in the 
creation of a number of international repositories that can be used to 
store radioactive sources safely, while ensuring that they don't become 
``orphaned'' sources that might fuel a terrorist's dirty bomb. Other 
provisions to assist the IAEA in promoting source inventory and 
recovery are also critical.
  One important application of this new bill must be to help the 
Russian Federation address the large number of Radio-isotope Thermal 
Generators that rely on large quantities of radioactive material to 
power many remote installations, especially lighthouses. These large 
radioactive sources, in isolated locations, are very vulnerable to 
compromise. With this bill, we can assist other nations, like Norway, 
in shifting the power for these lighthouses away from radioactive 
materials to other means of power.
  Another important aspect of the bill involves the authorization for 
the State Department to help other nations in developing their own 
First Responder program for response to dirty bomb or nuclear threats. 
In this country, we now have a First Responder program that grows 
stronger each year, thanks to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici bill that created 
the effort. Now we need to share the lessons we have been learning with 
others.

[[Page S10582]]

  This new bill is another important contribution to our nation's 
efforts to ensure that terrorists will never threaten the United States 
or other nations with radiological or nuclear weapons.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S. 3122. A bill to allow North Korean's to apply for refugee status 
or asylum; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will clarify the status of North Korean refugees.
  As a Nation, the United States is the world's leader in the 
protection of refugees. The world takes its lead from the United States 
when reacting to asylum-seekers, and the example we set have far-
reaching implications for those who flee persecution. For this reason, 
we have stood firm against excuses for the denial of basic human rights 
and life's basic liberties.
  The tenuous status of North Korean refugees in China is well 
documented. As we all know from news reports, including several news 
programs, that few North Koreans are able to seek asylum and refuge, be 
it in China or elsewhere. The few that do, however, are functionally 
barred from seeking asylum in the United States or being admitted to 
the United States as refugees. As I understand it, the State Department 
has expressed concerns that the legal hurdle to admitting North Koreans 
refugees is the fact that South Korea automatically conveys its 
citizenship to any escapee from North Korea who makes it to South 
Korea. In short, the State Department claims it cannot, as a matter of 
law, consider any North Korean to be a refugee.
  I am not persuaded that this is the case, but even if we assume that 
to be true, we must stand firm for the proposition that the moral 
obligation that we have for refugees everywhere seeking basic human 
liberties should not be laid aside because of that legal technicality 
and it should not preclude the United State from providing refugee 
protections to North Korean refugees.
  The bill I am introducing today clarifies and fixes that 
technicality. It says quite simply that, for asylum and refugee 
purposes, a North Korean is a North Korean. This bill in no way 
detracts from the generosity of the South Korean government or the 
South Korean people. It does not encourage refugees to choose the 
United States over South Korea as a safe haven. Far from it, since 
those refugees who are able to reach South Korea will go there and will 
be afforded the rights that refugees escaping from persecution 
rightfully deserve whether under various international conventions or 
the South Korean Constitution. Instead, this bill recognizes the 
physical obstacles facing North Korean refugees and removes the 
technicality that compromises our ability to help them.
  The bill I am introducing today has the support of the Lawyers 
Committee on Human Rights, Amnesty International, the International 
Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Immigration and 
Refugee Services of America, among others.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 3123. A bill to expand certain preferential trade treatment of 
Haiti; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have many long-standing concerns about 
the dire situation, political, economic, and humanitarian, in Haiti. As 
one who has witnessed the unbelievable poverty and despair in that tiny 
nation, I believe we must pay closer attention to what is happening 
there. We must be engaged.
  That is why I am introducing the ``Haiti Economic Recovery 
Opportunity Act of 2002.'' This bill would help improve the economic 
and political situation in Haiti through an important tool of our 
foreign policy, and that is trade. I would like to thank 
Representatives Gilman and others for introducing a similar measure in 
the House.
  The situation in Haiti is bleak. Haiti is the poorest country in our 
Hemisphere, with approximately 70 percent of its population out of work 
and 80 percent living in abject poverty. Less than one-half of Haiti's 
8.2 million people can read or write. Haiti's infant mortality rate is 
the highest in our hemisphere. And, one in four children under the age 
of five are malnourished.
  Roughly one in 12 Haitians has HIV/AIDS, and, according to the 
Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 
44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year, that's 4,000 more than the number 
expected here in the United States, where our population is 35 times 
that of Haiti's. AIDS already has orphaned over 163,000 children, and 
this number is expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 and 393,000 
over the next ten years.
  The violence, corruption, and instability caused by the flow of drugs 
through Haiti cannot be overstated. An estimated 15 percent of all 
cocaine entering the United States passes through Haiti, the Dominican 
Republic, or both.
  Haiti still lacks democracy and political stability. The U.S. policy 
of not providing assistance directly to the Haitian Government is based 
on President Aristide's failure to enact necessary reforms to uphold 
democracy and help the people of his own country.
  All of this creates an environment where the logical course of action 
for many Haitians is simply to flee. We have seen this in the past, and 
we may see it again. So far this fiscal year, the Coast Guard has 
interdicted and rescued over 1,485 Haitian migrants at sea, compared to 
1,113 during the entire fiscal year 2000. And, according to the State 
Department, migrants recently interdicted and repatriated to Haiti have 
cited economic conditions as their reason for attempting to migrate by 
sea. I do not think that a mass exodus is imminent, but we cannot 
ignore any increase in migrant departures from Haiti. In addition to 
being an immigration issue for the United States, these migrant 
departures frequently result in the loss of life at sea.
  The bill I am introducing today attempts to change this situation by 
granting limited duty-free treatment on certain Haitian apparel 
articles if, and only if, the President is able to certify that the 
Haitian government is making serious market, political, and social 
reforms. The bill would correct a glitch or oversight in U.S. trade law 
that recognized the special economic needs of least developed countries 
in Africa, but did not recognize those needs for the least developed 
country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti.
  Specifically, the bill would allow duty-free entry of Haitian apparel 
articles assembled from fabrics from countries with which the U.S. has 
a free trade or a regional trade agreement. It also would grant duty-
free status on articles, regardless of the origin of the fabrics and 
yarns, if the fabrics and yarns were not commercially available in the 
United States.
  The bill would cap duty-free apparel imports made of fabrics and 
yarns from the designated countries at 1.5 percent of total U.S. 
apparel imports. This limit grows modestly over time to 3.5 percent.
  The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian 
industry by allowing the country to become a garment production center. 
While the benefits of this bill would be modest by U.S. standards, in 
Haiti they are substantial. It is estimated that the bill could create 
thousands of jobs, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and breaking 
the shackles of poverty. Before the 1991 coup, Haiti was one of the 
largest apparel suppliers in the Caribbean. But today, Haitian apparel 
accounts for less than one percent of all apparel imports into the 
United States.
  The type of assembly carried out in Haiti would have minimal impact 
on employment in the United States. In fact, it would encourage the 
emigration of jobs from the Far East back to our hemisphere, including 
the United States, because most Haitian foreign exchange earnings, 
unlike in the Far East, are utilized to purchase American products. 
And, the ``Trade and Development Act'' already includes strong 
safeguards against transshipment.
  In order for Haiti to be eligible for the trade benefits under the 
bill, the President must certify that Haiti is making progress on 
matters like the rule of law. This will not be an easy task for the 
Haitian government. However, I believe that because of the incentives 
provided in the bill, it would be more and more apparent to them that 
it is in their interest to reform.

[[Page S10583]]

  During my most recent trip to Haiti, I met with President Aristide 
and raised many concerns. I explained that it is essential that he call 
for peace and domestic order, and that he take the necessary measures 
to bring an end to the political impasse. I explained the need to 
cooperate with the opposition, and to work with the Organization of 
American States, OAS.
  I also met with leaders of the opposition and told them that they, 
too, must be willing to compromise and cooperate. I am pleased to see 
that the OAS Special Mission in Haiti is up and running, but I remain 
cautious about the prospects for resolving the political crisis. In the 
meantime, the United States must take responsibility by continuing and 
increasing our humanitarian and trade efforts in Haiti. This is in our 
own best interest, and we have a moral obligation to remain committed 
to the people of Haiti.
  Adopting the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002 would be 
a powerful demonstration of that commitment. I encourage my colleagues 
to join in support of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 3124. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to revise and 
expand the lowest unit cost provision applicable to political campaign 
broadcasts, to establish commercial broadcasting station minimum 
airtime requirements for candidate-centered and issue-centered 
programming before primary and general elections, to establish a 
voucher system for the purchase of commercial broadcast airtime for 
political advertisements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we begin another chapter in the 
effort to reform our political campaign system. I am proud to be joined 
by Senator Russ Feingold, my longtime colleague on campaign finance 
reform, and Senator Richard Durbin, in introducing the Political 
Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act.
  The bill establishes a program to provide candidates and national 
committees of political parties, with vouchers that they may use for 
political advertisements on radio and television broadcast stations. An 
annual spectrum use fee paid by broadcasters would fund the voucher 
system. In addition, the bill requires broadcast television and radio 
stations to provide candidates and parties with the lowest rate 
provided to any other advertiser in the previous 120 days, and in most 
cases, would prohibit states from preempting advertisements purchased 
by candidates or parties. Finally, the bill requires these stations to 
air a minimum of two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-
centered programming before a primary or general federal election.
  This legislation builds on the long history of requiring broadcasters 
to serve the public interest in exchange for the privilege of obtaining 
an exclusive license to use a scarce public resource: the 
electromagnetic spectrum. The burden imposed on broadcasters pales in 
comparison to the enormous value of this spectrum, which recent 
estimates suggest is worth as much as $367 billion.
  The purpose of the legislation is to increase the flow of political 
information in broadcast media and to reduce the cost to candidates of 
reaching voters. Our democracy is stronger when a candidate's success 
is achieved by ideas, and not by dollars. The benefits of free airtime 
are not only for candidates, however. By increasing the flow of 
political information, free airtime can better inform the public about 
candidates and invite viewers to become more engaged in their 
government by learning more about the individuals seeking to represent 
them.
  We recognize that the bill will not be considered during the 107th 
Congress. We look forward, however, to hearing how we might improve the 
approach when we reintroduce it in the future.
  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. 3124

       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 ``Political Campaign Broadcast 
     Activity Improvements Act.''

     SEC. 2. MEDIA RATES.

       (a) Lowest Unit Charge; National Committees.--Section 
     315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``to such office'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``to such office, or by a national committee of a 
     political party on behalf of such candidate in connection 
     with such campaign,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``(at any time during the 120-day period 
     preceding the date of the use)'' in subparagraph (A) of 
     paragraph (1) after ``charge''.
       (b) Preemption; Audits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively and moving them to follow the 
     existing subsection (e);
       (B) by redesignating the existing subsection (e) as 
     subsection (c); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Preemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     license shall not preempt the use of a broadcasting station 
     by an eligible candidate or political committee of a 
     political party who has purchased and paid for such use.
       ``(2) Circumstances beyond control of licensee.--If a 
     program to be broadcast by a broadcasting station is 
     preempted because of circumstances beyond the control of the 
     station, any candidate or party advertising spot scheduled to 
     be broadcast during that program may also be preempted.
       ``(e) Audits.--During the 45-day period preceding a primary 
     election and the 60-day period preceding a general election, 
     the Commission shall conduct such audits as it deems 
     necessary to ensure that each broadcaster to which this 
     section applies is allocating television broadcast 
     advertising time in accordance with this section and section 
     312.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 504 of the Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is amended by striking ``315), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and'' 
     and inserting ``315) is amended by''.
       (c) Stylistic Amendments.--Section 315 of such Act (47 
     U.S.C. 315) is amended)--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes of this section--'' in 
     subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection (b)(1)(A) of 
     this section, and inserting ``Definitions.--In this 
     section:'';
       (2) by striking ``the'' in paragraph (1) of that subsection 
     and inserting ``Broadcasting station.--The'';
       (3) by striking ``the'' in paragraph (2) of that subsection 
     and inserting ``Licensee; station licensee.--The''; and
       (4) by inserting ``Regulations.--'' in subsection (f), as 
     so redesignated, before ``The Commission''.

     SEC. 3. MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATE-CENTERED OR 
                   ISSUE-CENTERED BROADCASTS BY BROADCASTING 
                   STATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Program content requirements.--In the administration of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the 
     Federal Communications Commission may not determine that a 
     broadcasting station has met its obligation to operate in the 
     public interest unless the station demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Commission that--
       (A) it broadcast at least 2 hours per week of candidate-
     centered programming or issue-centered programming during 
     each of the 6 weeks preceding a Federal election, including 
     at least 4 of the weeks immediately preceding a general 
     election; and
       (B) not less than 1 hour of such programming was broadcast 
     in each of those weeks during the period beginning at 5:00 
     p.m. and ending at 11:35 p.m. in the time zone in which the 
     primary broadcast audience for the station is located.
       (2) Nightowl broadcasts not counted.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1) any such programming broadcast between midnight 
     and 6:00 a.m. in the time zone in which the primary broadcast 
     audience for the station is located shall not be taken into 
     account.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Broadcasting station.--The term ``broadcasting 
     station''--
       (A) has the meaning given that term by section 315(e)(1) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934.
       (2) Candidate-centered programming.--The term ``candidate-
     centered programming''--
       (A) includes debates, interviews, candidate statements, and 
     other program formats that provide for a discussion of issues 
     by the candidate; but
       (B) does not include paid political advertisements.
       (3) Federal election.--The term ``Federal election'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 315A(g)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.
       (4) Issue-centered programming.--The term ``issue-centered 
     programming''--
       (A) includes debates, interviews, statements, and other 
     program formats that provide for a discussion of any ballot 
     measure which appears on a ballot in a forthcoming election; 
     but

[[Page S10584]]

       (B) does not include paid political advertisements.

     SEC. 4. POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS VOUCHER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 315 the following:

     ``SEC. 315A. POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT VOUCHER PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall establish and 
     administer a voucher program for the purchase of airtime on 
     broadcast stations for political advertisements in accordance 
     with the provisions of this section.
       ``(b) Candidates.--
       ``(1) Disbursement of vouchers.--Beginning no earlier than 
     January of each even-numbered year after 2002, the Commission 
     shall disburse vouchers at least once each month for the 
     purchase of radio or television broadcast airtime for 
     political advertisements on broadcasting stations to each 
     individual certified by the Federal Election Commission under 
     paragraph (2) as an eligible candidate.
       ``(2) FEC to certify eligible candidates.--The Commission 
     may not disburse vouchers under paragraph (1) to an 
     individual, until the Federal Election Commission has made 
     the following certifications with respect to that individual:
       ``(A) Qualification.--The individual is a legally-qualified 
     candidate in a Federal election.
       ``(B) Agreement.--The individual has agreed in writing--
       ``(i) to keep and furnish to the Federal Election 
     Commission such records, books, and other information as it 
     may require; and
       ``(ii) to repay to the Federal Communications Commission an 
     amount equal to 150 percent of the dollar value of vouchers 
     received from the Commission if the Federal Election 
     Commission makes a final determination that the individual 
     violated any term of the agreement.
       ``(C) House of representatives candidates.--For candidates 
     for election to the House of Representatives, that--
       ``(i) the individual has received at least $25,000 in 
     contributions from individuals, not counting any amount in 
     excess of $250 received from any individual;
       ``(ii) the individual agrees not knowingly to make 
     expenditures from the individual's personal funds, or the 
     personal funds of the individual's immediate family, in 
     connection with the campaign for election to the House of 
     Representatives in excess of, in the aggregate, $125,000; and
       ``(iii) the individual faces opposition by at least 1 other 
     candidate who has received contributions or made expenditures 
     of, in the aggregate, at least $25,000 or who has been 
     certified by the Federal Election Commission under this 
     paragraph as eligible to receive vouchers under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(D) Senate candidates.--For candidates for election to 
     the Senate, that--
       ``(i) the individual has received at least $25,000 in 
     contributions from individuals, not counting any amount in 
     excess of $250 received from any individual, multiplied by 
     the number of Representatives from the State in which the 
     individual seeks election;
       ``(ii) the individual agrees not knowingly to make 
     expenditures from the individual's personal funds, or the 
     personal funds of the individual's immediate family, in 
     connection with the campaign for election to the House of 
     Representatives in excess of, in the aggregate, $500,000; and
       ``(iii) the individual faces opposition by at least 1 other 
     candidate who has received contributions or made expenditures 
     of, in the aggregate, at least $25,000 multiplied by the 
     number of Representatives from the State in which the 
     individual seeks election or who has been certified by the 
     Federal Election Commission under this paragraph as eligible 
     to receive vouchers under paragraph (1).
       ``(E) Presidential candidates.--For candidates for 
     nomination for election, or election, to the Office of 
     President--
       ``(i) the term `Federal election' includes a primary 
     election (as defined in section 9032(7) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9032(7))); and
       ``(ii) in order to be eligible to receive vouchers under 
     this section, the candidate shall execute the agreement 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(3) Certification process.--In carrying out its duties 
     under paragraph (2), the Federal Election Commission shall--
       ``(A) provide the requested certification, if the 
     individual meets the requirements for certification, within 7 
     days after it receives the information necessary therefor; 
     and
       ``(B) shall comply with the requirements of chapter 35 of 
     title 44, United States Code, (commonly known as the 
     Paperwork Reduction Act) and take other appropriate steps to 
     minimize the paperwork burden on candidates seeking 
     certification under this subsection.
       ``(c) Political Parties.--
       ``(1) Disbursement of vouchers.--In January, 2004, and 
     January of each even-numbered year thereafter, the Commission 
     shall disburse vouchers for the purchase of radio or 
     television broadcast airtime for political advertisements on 
     broadcasting stations to each political party committee 
     certified by the Federal Election Commission under paragraph 
     (2) as an eligible committee.
       ``(2) FEC to certify eligible committees.--The Commission 
     may not disburse vouchers under paragraph (1) to a political 
     party committee, until the Federal Election Commission has 
     made the following certifications with respect to that 
     committee:
       ``(A) National party committees.--The committee is the 
     national committee of a political party or the national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party (as 
     those terms are used in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441i(a)(1))).
       ``(B) Minor party committees.--In the case of a political 
     party committee that is not described in subparagraph (A), 
     the committee meets the candidate base requirement of 
     subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Candidate base.--The committee has candidates--
       ``(i) for election to the House of Representatives who have 
     been certified by the Federal Election Commission under 
     subsection (b)(2) as eligible candidates in at least 22 
     districts; or
       ``(ii) for election to the Senate in at least 5 States who 
     have been certified by the Federal Election Commission under 
     subsection (b)(2) as eligible candidates.
       ``(D) Agreement.--The committee agrees in writing--
       ``(i) to keep and furnish to the Federal Election 
     Commission such records, books, and other information as it 
     may require; and
       ``(ii) to repay to the Federal Communications Commission an 
     amount equal to 150 percent of the dollar value of vouchers 
     received from the Commission if the Federal Election 
     Commission makes a final determination that the committee 
     violated any term of the agreement.
       ``(d) Amounts.--
       ``(1) Calendar year 2004 aggregates.--For calendar year 
     2004, the Commission shall disburse vouchers in the aggregate 
     amount of not more than $750,000,000, of which--
       ``(A) not more than $650,000,000 shall be available for 
     disbursement to candidates under subsection (b); and
       ``(B) not more than $100,000,000 shall be available for 
     disbursement to political parties under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Per-candidate amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the Commission shall disburse vouchers to an 
     individual candidate under subsection (b)(1) with respect to 
     a Federal election equal, in the aggregate, to $3 multiplied 
     by the contributions received by that individual with respect 
     to that election, not counting any amount in excess of $250 
     received from any individual.
       ``(B) Maximum.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 
     Commission may not disburse vouchers to an individual 
     candidate under subsection (b)(1) with respect to a Federal 
     election of more than--
       ``(i) $375,000, for a candidate for election to the House 
     of Representatives; or
       ``(ii) $375,000 multiplied by the number of Representatives 
     from the State from which the individual seeks election, for 
     a candidate for election to the Senate.
       ``(C) Special rule for presidential candidates.--The 
     Commission shall disburse vouchers to a candidate for 
     nomination for election, or election, to the Office of 
     President who receives payments under section 9037 or 9006 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9037 or 9006), 
     respectively, equal to--
       ``(i) $1 for each dollar received under section 9037 of 
     such Code; and
       ``(ii) 50 cents for each dollar received under section 9006 
     of such Code.
       ``(3) Per-committee amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The $100,000,000 available to be 
     disbursed to political parties shall disbursed as follows:
       ``(i) The Commission shall reserve a percentage, determined 
     by the Commission, of the amount available for disbursement 
     as provided in subparagraph (B) to political party committees 
     described in subsection (C)(2)(B) that have been or will be 
     certified by the Federal Election Commission as eligible 
     political party committees.
       ``(ii) The Commission shall disburse the remainder of the 
     amount available for disbursement in equal amounts among 
     political party committees described in subsection (c)(2)(A) 
     that have been or will be certified by the Federal Election 
     Commission as eligible political party committees.
       ``(B) Minor party committee amount.--From the amount 
     reserved under subparagraph (A)(i), the Commission shall 
     disburse to political party committees described in 
     subsection (C)(2)(B) certified by the Federal Election 
     Commission as eligible political party committees--
       ``(i) the same amount as the Commission disburses to each 
     political party committee under subparagraph (A)(ii) if the 
     political party with which the political committee is 
     affiliated has--
       ``(I) candidates for election to the House of 
     Representatives certified by the Federal Election Commission 
     under subsection (b)(2) as eligible candidates in 218 or more 
     districts; or
       ``(II) candidates for election to the Senate certified by 
     the Federal Election Commission under subsection (b)(2) as 
     eligible candidates in 17 or more of the States in which 
     elections for United States Senator are being held; and
       ``(ii) a percentage of such amount, determined under 
     subparagraph (C), if the political party with which the 
     political committee is affiliated does not qualify for the 
     full amount under clause (i).
       ``(C) Proportionate amount determination.--The amount the 
     Commission may disburse to a political party committee 
     described in subparagraph (B)(ii) is a percentage of the 
     amount disbursed to a political


[[Page S10585]]

     party committee under subparagraph (A)(2) equal to the 
     greater of the following percentages:
       (i) A percentage--
       ``(I) the numerator of which is the number of districts in 
     which the party has candidates for election to the House of 
     Representatives certified by the Federal Election Commission 
     under subsection (b)(2) as eligible candidates; and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is 435.
       (ii) A percentage--
       ``(I) the numerator of which is the number of States in 
     which the party has candidates for election to the Senate 
     certified by the Federal Election Commission under subsection 
     (b)(2) as eligible candidates; and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is 33 (or 34 in any year in 
     which there are 34 Senators for election).
       ``(e) Inflation Adjustment.--Each dollar amount in this 
     section shall be adjusted for even-numbered years after 2002 
     in the same manner as the limitations in section 315(b) and 
     (d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 are adjusted 
     under section 301(c) of that Act, except that, for the 
     purpose of applying section 301(c)--
       ``(1) `(commencing in 2004)' shall be substituted for 
     `(commencing in 1976)' in paragraph (1) of that section; and
       ``(2) `2002' shall be substituted for `1974' in paragraph 
     (2)(B) of that section.
       ``(f) Use.--
       ``(1) Exclusive use.--Vouchers disbursed by the Commission 
     under this section may be used exclusively for the purpose 
     described in subsection (b) by the candidate or political 
     party committee to which the vouchers were disbursed, except 
     that--
       ``(A) a candidate may exchange vouchers with a political 
     party under paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) a political party may use vouchers to purchase 
     broadcast airtime for political advertisements for its 
     candidates in a general election for any Federal, State, or 
     local office.
       ``(2) Exchange with political party committee.--
       ``(A) In general.--A individual who receives a voucher 
     under this section may transfer the right to use all or a 
     portion of the value of the voucher to a committee, described 
     in subsection (c)(2)(A), of the political party of which the 
     individual is a candidate in exchange for money in an amount 
     equal to the cash value of the voucher or portion exchanged.
       ``(B) Continuation of candidate obligations.--The transfer 
     of a voucher, in whole or in part, to a political party 
     committee under this paragraph does not release the 
     candidate from any obligation under the agreement made 
     under the agreement made under subsection (b)(2) or 
     otherwise modify that agreement or its application to that 
     candidate.
       ``(C) Party committee obligations.--Any political party 
     committee to which a voucher or portion thereof is 
     transferred under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall account fully, in accordance with such 
     requirements as the Commission may establish, for the receipt 
     of the voucher; and
       ``(ii) may not use the transferred voucher or portion 
     thereof for any purpose other than a purpose described in 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(D) Voucher as a contribution under feca.--If a candidate 
     transfers a voucher or any portion thereof to a political 
     party committee under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the value of the voucher or portion thereof 
     transferred shall be treated as a contribution from the 
     candidate to the committee for purposes of sections 302 and 
     304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     432 and 434);
       ``(ii) the committee may, in exchange, provide to the 
     candidate only funds subject to the prohibitions, 
     limitations, and reporting requirements of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.);
       ``(iii) the money received in exchange by the candidate 
     shall be treated as a contribution from the committee to the 
     candidate for purposes of those sections; and
       ``(iv) the amount, if identified as a `voucher exchange' 
     shall not be considered a contribution for the purposes of 
     section 315 of that Act (2 U.S.C. 441a).
       ``(g) Value; Acceptance; Redemption.--
       ``(1) Voucher.--Each voucher disbursed by the Commission 
     under this section shall have a value in dollars, redeemable 
     upon presentation to the Commission, together with such 
     documentation and other information as the Commission may 
     require, for the purchase of broadcast airtime for political 
     advertisements in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Acceptance.--A broadcasting station shall accept 
     vouchers in payment for the purchase of broadcast airtime for 
     political advertisements in accordance with this section.
       ``(3) Redemption.--The Commission shall redeem vouchers 
     accepted by broadcasting stations under paragraph (2) upon 
     presentation, subject to such documentation, verification, 
     accounting, and application requirements as the Commission 
     may impose to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the 
     voucher redemption system. The Commission shall use amounts 
     in the Political Advertising Voucher Account established 
     under subsection (h) to redeem vouchers presented under this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Expiration.--
       ``(A) Candidates.--A voucher may only be used to pay for 
     broadcast airtime for political advertisements to be 
     broadcast before midnight on the day before the date of the 
     Federal election in connection with which it was issued and 
     shall be null and void for any other use or purpose.
       ``(B) Exeption for political party committees.--A voucher 
     held by a political party committee may be used to pay for 
     broadcast airtime for political advertisements to be 
     broadcast before midnight on December 31st of the odd-
     numbered year following the year in which the voucher was 
     issued by the Commission.
       ``(5) Voucher as expenditure under feca.--
       ``(A) Congressional campaigns.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), for purposes of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the use of a 
     voucher to purchase broadcast airtime constitutes an 
     expenditure as defined in section 301(9)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 431(9)(A)).
       ``(B) Presidential campaigns.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 or 
     chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to the 
     contrary, the use of a voucher by a candidate for nomination 
     for election, or election, to the Office of President does 
     not constitute an expenditure for purposes of that Act or 
     chapter.
       ``(h) Political Advertising Voucher Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish an 
     account to be known as the Political Advertising Voucher 
     Account, which shall be credited with commercial television 
     spectrum use fees assessed under this subsection, together 
     with any amounts repaid or otherwise reimbursed under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Spectrum use fee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall assess, and collect 
     annually, a spectrum use fee based on a percentage of a 
     broadcasting station's gross revenues in an amount necessary 
     to carry out the provisions of this section.
       ``(B) Limitations.--The percentage under subparagraph (A) 
     may not be--
       ``(i) greater than 1 percent; nor
       ``(ii) less than .05 percent.
       ``(C) Availability.--Any amount assessed and collected 
     under this paragraph shall be retained by the Commission as 
     an offsetting collection for the purposes of making 
     disbursements under this section, except that--
       ``(i) the salaries and expenses account of the Commission 
     shall be credited with such sums as are necessary from those 
     amounts for the costs of developing and implementing the 
     program established by this section; and
       ``(ii) the Commission may reimburse the Federal Election 
     Commission for any expenses incurred by the Commission under 
     this section.
       ``(D) Fee does not apply to public broadcasting stations.--
     Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a public 
     telecommunications entity (as defined in section 397(12) of 
     this Act).
       ``(3) Administrative provisions.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this subsection, section 9 applies to the 
     assessment and collection of fees under this subsection to 
     the same extent as if those fees were regulatory fees imposed 
     under section 9.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Broadcasting station.--The term `broadcasting 
     station' has the meaning given that term by section 
     315(e)(1).
       ``(2) Federal election.--The term `Federal election' means 
     any regularly-scheduled, primary, runoff, or special election 
     held to nominate or elect a candidate to Federal office.
       ``(3) Federal office.--The term `Federal office' has the 
     meaning given that term by section 101(3) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(3)).
       ``(4) Legally-qualified candidate.--The term `legally-
     qualified candidate' means a legally qualified candidate 
     within the meaning of section 315.
       ``(5) Political party.--The term `political party' means a 
     major party or a minor party as defined in section 9002(3) or 
     (4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9002(3) 
     or (4)).
       ``(6) Other terms.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, any term used in this section that is defined in 
     section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431) has the meaning given that term by section 301 of 
     that Act.
       ``(j) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of this section. In developing the regulations, the 
     Commission shall consult with the Federal Elections 
     Commission.''.
       (b) Delayed Effective Date for Presidential Candidates.--
     The provisions of subsections (b)(2)(E) and (d)(2)(C) of 
     section 315A of the Commissions Act of 1934, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall take effect on January 1, 2008.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator 
from Arizona, Senator McCain, in introducing legislation that we 
believe will significantly improve media coverage of elections and 
reduce the negative impact that skyrocketing TV advertising costs have 
on Federal campaigns. And I am very glad that the Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin, has joined us as an original cosponsor of 
this bill.
  Although broadcast advertising is one of the most effective forms of 
communication in our democracy, it also diminishes the quality of our 
electoral process in two ways. First, broadcasters often fail to 
provide adequate coverage to the issues in elections, focusing instead 
on the horse race, if they cover elections at all. Second, the 
extraordinarily high cost of advertising time fuels the insatiable need 
for candidates to spend more and more time fundraising instead of 
talking with voters. These two problems interact to undermine the great 
promise that television has for promoting democratic discourse in our 
country.
  It need not be this way. The public owns the airwaves and licenses 
them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this 
scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only ``payment'' is a 
promise to meet public interest standards, a promise that often goes 
unfulfilled. A recent study by the Committee for the Study of the 
American Electorate found that only 18

[[Page S10586]]

percent of gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional debates held in 
2000 were televised by network TV and an additional 18 percent were 
covered by PBS or small independent TV stations. More than 63 percent 
were not televised at all. This is shocking in a democracy that depends 
on information and open debate.
  The bill we introduce today addresses these problems by requiring 
broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to 
election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a voucher 
system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they 
could use for paid radio or TV advertising time financed by a broadcast 
spectrum usage fee. Candidates would qualify for vouchers based on a 
ratio matched to the amount of small dollar donations they raise.
  Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots 
fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates 
without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests. 
The proposal would also make air time available to political parties, 
which could be directed to underfunded candidates and challengers who 
have a harder and harder time getting their message out under the 
current system as the costs of advertising continue to rise.
  Senator McCain and I remain devoted to improving the way our 
electoral process functions and reducing the impact of big money on our 
democracy. This new bill will advance that cause in a very significant 
and necessary way. We recognize, of course, that little will happen on 
this bill before the end of this session of Congress. We are 
introducing it now so that the public and our colleagues can review it 
and make suggestions on how to improve it. We hope to make significant 
progress on this legislation next year and look forward to working with 
our colleagues, as we did on campaign finance reform to make this bill 
even better and then enact it into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Miller):
  S. 3125. A bill to designate ``God Bless America'' as the national 
song of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
with Senators Nelson, Lieberman, Murkowski, Sessions and Miller, to 
honor one of our Nation's most stirring songs, ``God Bless America.''
  This patriotic masterpiece was written by Irving Berlin, a man whose 
background as an immigrant to our shores gave him a keen understanding 
and appreciation of our nation and how important its existence was. The 
United States has long been a symbol to peoples across the world, of 
opportunity, freedom, and the rule of law, but at the time of ``God 
Bless America,'' the US's importance was even more plain. This is 
because the song was originally written in 1918 during the height of 
the First World War, and then released for the first time in 1938 as 
the clouds of war again gathered over Europe.
  When Berlin first wrote ``God Bless America'' in 1918, he intended it 
to be a solemn paean to his adopted nation as he looked across the 
ocean to a war-torn Europe. Unfortunately, its somber and serious tone 
made it incompatible with the musical revue he was working on at the 
time. When the drums of war again sounded on distant shores, Berlin 
realized his song had a purpose, and knew it was time to offer it to an 
anxious country. After revising the lyrics to reflect the difference 
twenty years and one Great War make, he introduced the song on 
Armistice Day 1938, a simple song of peace, yet one that reminded both 
Americans and people of all nations that our Nation was a great one.
  This song accomplished exactly the author's intent--it so eloquently 
expressed his love for our country that it has provided for all of us a 
means to express our own love and feelings. It is why we have sung it 
so many times over the past year since those terrible events of 
September 11, and why we will continue to sing it for the years to 
come. It captures the feelings every citizen shares, of love, of pride, 
of patriotism, of sacrifice, and of freedom.
  An instant sensation since its release, the power of this song to 
uplift and comfort us particularly in the dark days of this past year, 
reminds all of us of the strength of words to inspire. For that reason, 
the time has come to give this song its long overdue recognition. That 
is why today I propose legislation to designate ``God Bless America'' 
as our national ``song.''
  This is not to replace our rousing national anthem, which is an 
unforgettable salute to our hard-fought and triumphant birth as a 
Nation, but to offer recognition to ``God Bless America.'' For ``God 
Bless America'' is truly the perfect tribute for a Nation rising from 
the ashes of September 11 to reclaim our firm and unwavering belief in 
the goodness of man and the universal rights of liberty.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the lyrics of 
the song be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3125

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL SONG.

       (a) In General.--The composition consisting of the words 
     and music known as ``God Bless America'' is designated as the 
     national song of the United States.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The designation of a national 
     song shall not be construed as affecting the national anthem.
                                  ____


                           God Bless America


           Words and Lyrics by irving Berlin--Copyright 1939

       While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
       Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
       Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
       As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:
           God Bless America.
           Land that I love
           Stand beside her, and guide her
           Thru the night with a light from above,
           From the mountains, to the prairies,
           To the oceans, white with foam,
           God bless America,
           My home sweet home.
           God Bless America,
           Land that I love,
           Stand beside her,
           And guide her,
           Through the night,
           With the light from above.
           From the mountains,
           To the prairies,
           To the ocean,
           White with foam,
           God bless America,
           My home sweet home.
           God bless America,
           My home sweet home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 3126. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
an income tax credit for the provision of homeownership and community 
development, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, owning your own home is the foundation of 
the American dream. It encourages personal responsibility, provides 
economic security and gives families a greater stake in the development 
of their communities. Families who own their home are more civic-minded 
and more willing to help develop the communities where they live. 
Communities where homeownership rates are highest have lower crime 
rates, better schools and provide a better quality of life for families 
to raise their children. However, too many working families and 
minorities have not been able to share in the dream of homeownership 
due to the cost or lack of available housing.
  That is why I am introducing the Community Development Tax Credit 
Act, along with Senators Rick Santorum and Paul Sarbanes, which will 
create a new homeownership tax credit program, based on the Low Income 
Housing Tax Credit program, to encourage the construction and 
substantial rehabilitation of homes for low and moderate-income 
families in economically distressed areas. I believe this legislation 
will increase the supply of affordable homes for sale in inner-cities, 
rural areas and low and moderate-income neighborhoods across the United 
States. The tax credit will bridge the gap that exists between the cost 
of developing affordable housing and the price at which these homes can 
be sold in many low-income neighborhoods by providing investors with a 
tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of home construction or 
rehabilitation.
  Over the past decade, we have made substantial progress in increasing 
the homeownership rate in the United States. In 2000, the U.S. 
homeownership rate reached a record high of 67.1

[[Page S10587]]

percent with some 71 million U.S. Households owning their own home. 
However, too many working families in low- and moderate-income 
neighborhoods and minorities across our Nation have not been able to 
share in this piece of the American Dream due to the high cost or lack 
of available housing.
  According to Census data for the second quarter of 2002, non-Hispanic 
whites have a 74.3 percent homeownership rate while minority groups 
have just a 53.7 percent homeownership rate. African-Americans have 
only a 48 percent homeownership rate and Hispanics have a mere 47.6 
percent homeownership rate in the same study. These numbers are 
unacceptable.
  Many middle-income working families increasingly struggle to either 
find or afford a median-priced home in our Nation's cities. Over the 
past two generations, many families have moved out of cities and into 
the suburbs, which has had a negative effect on the development of 
housing in the inner-city. In 1999, the homeownership rate in the 
central-city areas was 50.4 percent, this is 23.2 percent lower than 
the suburban homeownership rate of 73.6 percent. Today, developers are 
unlikely to invest in any new housing development in inner-cities and 
rural areas that may not be sold for the cost of construction. This is 
especially true in low-income areas. There is a lack of affordable 
single-family housing in areas where a majority of residents are 
minority families. Properties will sit vacant and neighborhoods will 
remain undeveloped unless the gap between development costs and market 
prices can be filled.
  Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves 
unable to afford housing. A person trying to live in Boston would have 
to make more than $35,000, annually, just to rent a two-bedroom 
apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police 
officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even 
a modest two-bedroom apartment when they should have a chance to buy a 
home.
  The story of Benjamin and Rita Okafor show how working families in 
Massachusetts have great difficulty obtaining a decent home of their 
own. For many years, the Okafor's and their two young children were 
forced to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Benjamin Okafor, who worked 
full time as a cab driver in Boston, spent days and months looking for 
a bigger apartment for his family. However, the lack of affordable 
housing in the Boston area made it impossible for him to find 
appropriate housing for his family. When his wife Rita became pregnant 
with their third child, the Okafor's knew something had to change in 
their living situation. Luckily, Ben was accepted into the Habitat for 
Humanity program and worked for 300 sweat equity hours constructing a 
house. In August 2000, the Okafor family moved into a new home of their 
own in Dorchester. Ben says that this new home gives them the hope and 
stability they need. There are still too many working families living 
in substandard housing and many more families that desperately need 
assistance from Habitat for Humanity or from the Federal government to 
become a homeowner.
  Today, our Nation is facing an affordable rental housing crisis. 
Thousands of low-income families with children, the disabled, and the 
elderly are finding it difficult to obtain or afford privately owned 
affordable rental housing units. Recent changes in the housing market 
have limited the availability of affordable housing across the country, 
while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically 
increased the cost of the housing that remains. Moving thousands of 
working families from apartments to homes each year will help ease our 
rental housing crisis and help many families now living in substandard 
housing increase their quality of life.
  By facing the mounting challenge of affordable housing we can 
dramatically assist in the economic development low- and moderate-
income communities across our country. The production of new homes will 
create millions of jobs in the inner city and rural areas where 
unemployment has been for too long fact of life. The production of 
housing has always been considered a driver of economic growth in our 
economy. New housing production can turn many low income communities 
around and help end the spiral of unemployment and crime which plague 
too many of our inner cities today.
  For these reasons, we need a new tax incentive for developers to 
build affordable homes in distressed areas to allow working families to 
buy their first home at a reasonable rate.
  The Community Development Tax Credit Act, which I am introducing 
today, bridges the gap between development costs and market value to 
enable the development of new or refurbished homes in these areas to 
blossom. The tax credit would be available to developers or investors 
that build or substantially rehabilitate homes for sale to low- or 
moderate-income buyers in low-income areas. The credit would generate 
equity investment sufficient to cover the gap between the cost of 
development and the price at which the home can be sold to an eligible 
buyer
  The tax credit volume would be limited to $1.75 per capita for each 
State and allocated by the States themselves. Credits would be claimed 
over five years, starting when homes are sold. This legislation will 
result in approximately 50,000 homes built or refurbished annually, 
assuming about $40,000 per home.
  The maximum tax credit equals 50 percent of the cost of construction, 
substantial rehabilitation, and building acquisition. The eligible cost 
may not exceed the Federal Housing Administration single-family 
mortgage limits. The minimum rehabilitation cost is $25,000. Eligible 
building acquisition costs are limited to one-half of rehabilitation 
costs. States will allocate only the level of tax credits necessary for 
financial feasibility. Ten percent of the available credit will be set 
aside for nonprofit organizations.
  The eligible areas for the tax credit are defined as Census Tracts 
with median income below 80 percent of the area or state median. Rural 
areas that are currently eligible for USDA housing programs will be 
eligible for the tax credit. Indian tribal lands will be eligible for 
the tax credit. State-identified areas of chronic economic distress 
will be eligible for the tax credit, subject to disapproval by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development
  Those eligible to buy homes built or refurbished using the tax credit 
include: individuals with incomes up to 80 percent of the area or state 
median and up to 100 percent of area median income in low-income/high-
poverty Census Tracts.
  Individual states will write plans for allocating the tax credits 
using the following selection criteria: contribution of the development 
to community stability and revitalization; community and local 
government support; need for homeownership development in the area; 
sponsor capability; and the long-term sustainability of the project as 
owner-occupied residences. Individual developers along with investors 
then can apply to the State to be awarded a tax credit for developing a 
property in a low- or moderate-income area. If chosen by the State, 
investors can start to claim the tax credits as the homes are sold to 
eligible buyers. They can continue to claim the tax credit over five 
years. Investors are not subject to recapture. If the home owner sold 
the residence within five years, a scale would determine the percentage 
of the gain would be recaptured by the Federal Government. In the first 
two years, 100 percent of the gain and 80, 70 and 60 percent in the 
third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively would be recaptured.
  This legislation is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Enterprise Foundation, Local Initiatives 
Support Coalition, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National 
Association of Home Builders, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 
National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, National 
Association of Realtors, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic 
Housing Conference, Habitat for Humanity International and others.

                          ____________________