Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S289-S305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Craig, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Edwards, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Allen, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Kohl, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 152. A bill to assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of
rape kit samples, and to improve investigation and prosecution of
sexual assault cases with DNA evidence; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished Senior
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to introduce the DNA Sexual
Assault Justice Act of 2003, a bill that guarantees prompt justice to
victims of sexual assault crimes through DNA technology. This bill is
not new to my colleagues. Last session, I introduced the DNA Sexual
Assault Justice Act with Senators Specter, Cantwell, Clinton, and
Schumer. The bill was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee
with the key support of my good friend across the aisle, Senator
Specter. And in September, with twenty co-sponsors, Republicans and
Democrats, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act unanimously passed the
Senate. Regrettably, our House counterparts were not able to act so
quickly or decisively on a DNA bill, so I am back to re-introduce the
bill and to urge quick passage of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of
2003. I am pleased that, once again, this bill has strong bipartisan
support and I look forward to working with my good friend from Utah,
the distinguished Senior Senator, Senator Hatch, in acting promptly in
marking up this bill when he assumes chairmanship of the Judiciary
Committee.
Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is
not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 Crime Bill created
the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic
database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database.
CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information, convicted offender DNA
samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to
generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is
recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match.
And once that match is made a crime is solved because of the incredible
accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.
99.9 percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. 1 in 30 billion,
those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA
matches evidence at the crime scene. 20 or 30 years, that is how long
DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.
Just ten years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands
of dollars and taken months; now testing one sample costs $40 and can
take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a
bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a
pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea
change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.
The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped
put away violent criminals in 6,257 investigations in 40 States. How?
By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders.
Individual success stories of DNA ``cold hits'' in sexual assault cases
make these numbers all too real.
Just last month, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an
85-year-old woman almost ten years ago after he was linked to the case
by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated
charges.
In Colorado Springs, CO, a trial will soon begin of a man accused of
at least fourteen rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA
database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and
assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and
Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.
In Florida, Kellie Green was brutally attacked and raped in the
laundry room of her apartment complex. Because of lack of funds, her
rape kit sat on the shelf for three years until a persistent detective
had it analyzed. The evidence matched the profile of a man already
incarcerated for beating and raping a woman 6 weeks before Kellie.
Or take, for example, a 1996 case in St. Louis where two young girls
were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city.
The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police
decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January
2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police
were able to identify the perpetrator.
Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to
the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten,
robbed and raped, there were no suspects. Five years later, the
perpetrator submitted a DNA sample as a condition of probation after
serving time for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997
rape. Crime solved, streets safer.
Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime
scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has
proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault
cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought
closure and justice for victims.
In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA
evidence, the reports about the backlog of untested rape kits and other
crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses are simply shocking.
It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that
deserves national attention and solutions. One woman, in particular,
has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one
rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust, Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs.
Smith was brutally taken from her home and raped. There were no known
suspects and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six
years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match
between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. Mrs.
Smith had her first moment of real security and closure and since then,
she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims
and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault. I am pleased that
the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 bears a provision entitled,
``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.''
Today I am introducing legislation, ``The DNA Sexual Assault Justice
Act of 2003'', to strengthen the existing Federal DNA regime as an
effective crimefighting tool. My bill addresses five pressing issues.
First, exactly how bad is the backlog of untested rape kits
nationwide? A

[[Page S290]]

1999 government report found over 180,000 rape kits were sitting,
untested, on the storage shelves of police department and crime
laboratories all across the country.
While recent press reports estimate that the number today is
approaching 500,000 untested rape kits, I am told that there are no
current, accurate numbers of the backlog. Behind every single one of
those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice.
Accordingly, my legislation would require the Attorney General to
survey law enforcement agencies nationwide to assess the extent of the
backlog of rape kits waiting to undergo DNA testing. To combat the
problem of rape kit backlogs, it is imperative to know the real
numbers, and how best to utilize Federal resources.
Second, how can existing Federal law be strengthened to make sure
that State crime labs have the funds for the critical DNA analysis
needed to solve sex assault cases? To fight crime most effectively, we
must both test rape kits and enter convicted offender DNA samples into
the DNA database. There has been explosive growth in the use of
forensic sciences by law enforcement. A government survey found that in
2000 alone, crime labs received 31,000 cases--a 47 percent increase
from almost 21,000 cases in 1999. In addition, the labs received
177,000 convicted offender DNA samples, an almost 77 percent increase
from 100,242 samples in 1999.
The backlog in DNA testing is found all across the country. Last
month a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit
is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing.
Similar news reports are elsewhere. The Florida crime lab system is
facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and
burglary cases with DNA evidence waiting for testing. In North
Carolina, up to 20,000 rape kit tests sit on evidence shelves because
the lab does not have the resources to conduct timely DNA testing.
Many crime laboratories report personnel shortages in the face of
this overwhelming work. According to a government survey, on average,
there are 6 employees in a State crime lab, a lab that must not only
conduct DNA testing for hundreds of cases, but also run forensic tests
on blood, footprints or ballistic evidence.
The bill I'm introducing would: 1. Increase current funding levels to
both test rape kits and to process and upload offender samples; and 2.
allow local governments to apply directly to the Justice Department for
these grants. I thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began
this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and
acknowledge their ongoing interest in this area.
Third, what assistance does the FBI need to keep up with the crushing
number of DNA samples which need to be tested or stored in the national
database? I am told that the current national DNA database, ``CODIS'',
is nearing capacity of convicted offender DNA samples. My bill would
provide funds to the FBI to 1. Upgrade the national DNA computer
database to handle the huge projections of samples; and 2. process and
upload Federal convicted offender DNA samples into the database.

Efforts to include more Federal and State convicted offenders in our
database just makes plain sense to fight crime. We know that sexual
assault is a crime with one of the highest rates of recidivism, and
that many sexual assault crimes are committed by those with past
convictions for other kinds of crime. Their DNA samples from prior
convictions help law enforcement efforts enormously. We cannot wait;
the 2001 FBI crime records show that one forcible rape occurs every 5.8
minutes, and the most recent reports from the first six months of 2002
indicate a 1.8 percent increase in the number of rapes as compared to
2001 statistics.
Fourth, what additional tools are needed to help treat victims of
sexual assault? One group that understands the importance of gathering
credible DNA evidence are forensic sexual assault examiners, who are
sensitive to the trauma of this horrible crime and make sure that
patients are not revictimized in the aftermath. These programs should
be in each and every emergency room and play an integral role in police
departments to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.
I first recognized the importance of sexual assault nurse examiners
in solving rape cases when I authored the Violence Against Women Act. A
key provision in the Violence Against Women Act requires the Attorney
General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice
for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault
forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual
assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners, and not
just one type. My bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors,
and response teams are all eligible for assistance.
Tapping the power of DNA requires well-trained law enforcement who
know how to collect and preserve DNA evidence from the crime scene.
Training should be a matter of course for all law enforcement. No rape
kit evidence will lead to the perpetrator if the DNA evidence is
collected improperly.
The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act would create a new grant program
to carry out sexual assault examiner programs and training. And it
would train law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in the handling
of sexual assault cases, including drug-facilitated assaults, and the
collection and use of DNA samples for use as forensic evidence at
trial.
Fifth, what can be done to ensure that sexual assault offenders who
cannot be identified by their victim are nevertheless brought to
justice?
Profound injustice is done to rape victims when delayed DNA testing
leads to a ``cold hit'' after the statute of limitations has expired.
For example, Jeri Elster was brutally raped in her California home, and
for years the police were unable to solve the crime. Seven years later,
DNA from the rape matched a man in jail for an unrelated crime. Yet the
rapist was never charged, convicted or sentenced because California's
statute of limitations had expired the previous year.
The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 would change current law
to authorize Federal ``John Doe/DNA indictments'' that will permit
Federal prosecutors to issue an indictment identifying an unknown
defendant by his DNA profile within the five year statute of
limitations. Once outstanding, the DNA indictment would permit
prosecution at anytime once there was a DNA ``cold hit'' through the
national DNA database system.
John Doe/DNA indictments strike the right balance between encouraging
swift and efficient investigations, recognizing the durability and
credibility of DNA evidence and preventing an injustice if a cold hit
happens years after the crime. Criminal law must catch up with DNA
technology without the wholesale eradication of prevailing statutes of
limitations.
I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual
assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the
Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the
next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides
in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women.
We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 152

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 ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT OF BACKLOG IN DNA ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES.

(a) Assessment.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall survey
Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement
jurisdictions to assess the amount of DNA evidence contained
in rape kits and in other evidence from sexual assault crimes
that has not been subjected to testing and analysis.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report on the assessment carried out under
subsection (a).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the results of the assessment carried out under
subsection (a);
(B) the number of rape kit samples and other evidence from
sexual assault crimes

[[Page S291]]

that have not been subjected to DNA testing and analysis; and
(C) a plan for carrying out additional assessments and
reports on the backlog in crime scene DNA testing and
analysis.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out
this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2004.

SEC. 3. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and inserting ``AUTHORIZATION
OF DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANTS.''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``including samples from
rape kits and samples from other sexual assault evidence,
including samples taken in cases with no identified suspect''
after ``crime scene''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples
from rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried out in a
timely manner.''.

SEC. 4. INCREASED GRANTS FOR ANALYSIS OF DNA SAMPLES FROM
CONVICTED OFFENDERS AND CRIME SCENES.

Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(j)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in
subsection (a)(1) shall remain available until expended.'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D)
and inserting the following:
``(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall remain
available until expended.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO APPLY FOR AND
RECEIVE DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION GRANTS.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceeding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``, units of local government, or Indian
tribes'' after ``eligible States''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, unit of local government, or Indian
tribe'' after ``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or by units of local
government'' and inserting ``, units of local government, or
Indian tribes'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or unit of local government, or the head of the Indian
tribe'' after ``State'' each place that term appears;
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' the first time
that term appears;
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
(E) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or a unit of local
government'' and inserting ``, a unit of local government, or
an Indian tribe''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or a unit of local
government'' and inserting ``, a unit of local government, or
an Indian tribe''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, units of local
government, and Indian tribes,'' after ``States'';
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or local government''
after ``State'' each place that term appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceeding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``, unit of local government, or Indian
tribe'' after ``State'';
(7) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, units of local
government, or Indian tribes'' after ``States''; and
(8) in subsection (h), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each place that
term appears.

SEC. 6. IMPROVING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BACKLOG GRANTS.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government,
certify that the applicant participates in a State laboratory
system;
``(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years after
the date on which the application is submitted, the State,
unit of local government, or Indian tribe will implement a
plan for forwarding, not later than 180 days after a DNA
evidence sample is obtained, all samples collected in cases
of sexual assault to a laboratory that meets the quality
assurance standards for testing under subsection (d); and
``(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in section
10(d), certify that the State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe is in compliance with those regulations.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit of
local government that has a significant rape kit or
nonsuspect case backlog per capita as compared with other
applicants.''.

SEC. 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLECTION AND
HANDLING OF DNA EVIDENCE.

(a) National Protocol.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall review
national, State, local, and tribal government protocols, that
exist on or before the date of enactment of this Act, on the
collection and processing of DNA evidence at crime scenes.
(2) Recommended protocol.--Based upon the review described
in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall develop a
recommended national protocol for the collection of DNA
evidence at crime scenes, including crimes of rape and other
sexual assault.
(b) Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual Assault
Forensic Examinations.--Section 1405(a) of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and emergency response
personnel'' after ``health care students''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and DNA evidence
collection'' after ``sexual assault forensic examinations''.

SEC. 8. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

(a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall
make grants to eligible entities to--
(1) establish and maintain sexual assault examiner
programs;
(2) carry out sexual assault examiner training and
certification; and
(3) acquire or improve forensic equipment.
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means--
(1) a State;
(2) a unit of local government;
(3) a college, university, or other institute of higher
learning;
(4) an Indian tribe;
(5) sexual assault examination programs, including sexual
assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, sexual assault
forensic examiner (SAFE) programs, and sexual assault
response team (SART) programs; and
(6) a State sexual assault coalition.
(c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section--
(1) an eligible entity shall submit to the Attorney General
an application in such form and containing such information
as the Attorney General may require; and
(2) an existing or proposed sexual assault examination
program shall also--
(A) certify that the program complies with the standards
and recommended protocol developed by the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1405 of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and
(B) certify that the applicant is aware of, and utilizing,
uniform protocols and standards issued by the Department of
Justice on the collection and processing of DNA evidence at
crime scenes.
(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to proposed or existing
sexual assault examination programs that are serving, or will
serve, populations currently underserved by existing sexual
assault examination programs.
(e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under this
section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall
be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the
absence of Federal funds, be made available from State
sources for the purposes of this section.
(2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not use
more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under this
section for administrative expenses.
(3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or restrict the ability of proposed or
existing sexual assault examination programs to apply for and
obtain Federal funding from any other agency or department or
any other Federal grant program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, to remain
available until expended, $30,000,000 for each of

[[Page S292]]

fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

SEC. 9. DNA EVIDENCE TRAINING GRANTS.

(a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall
make grants to eligible entities to--
(1) train law enforcement personnel and all other first
responders at crime scenes, including investigators, in the
handling of sexual assault cases and the collection and use
of DNA samples for use as forensic evidence;
(2) train State and local prosecutors on the use of DNA
samples for use as forensic evidence; and
(3) train law enforcement personnel to recognize, detect,
report, and respond to drug-facilitated sexual assaults.
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means--
(1) a State;
(2) a unit of local government;
(3) a college, university, or other institute of higher
learning; and
(4) an Indian tribe.
(c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section,
the chief executive officer of a State, unit of local
government, or university, or the head of a tribal government
that desires a grant under this section shall submit to the
Attorney General--
(1) an application in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require;
(2) certification that the applicant is aware of, and
utilizing, uniform protocols and standards issued by the
Department of Justice on the collection and processing of DNA
evidence at crime scenes;
(3) certification that the applicant is aware of, and
utilizing, the national sexual assault forensic examination
training protocols developed under section 1405(a) of the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and
(4) if the applicant is a unit of local government,
certification that the applicant participates in a State
laboratory system.
(d) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under this
section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall
be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the
absence of Federal funds, be made available from State
sources for the purposes of this section.
(2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not use
more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under this
section for administrative expenses.
(3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or restrict the ability of an eligible
entity to apply for and obtain Federal funding from any other
agency or department or any other Federal grant program.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $10,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this
section.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENTS.

(a) Limitations.--Section 3282 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Limitation.--Except''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) DNA Profile Indictment.--
``(1) In general.--In any indictment found for an offense
under chapter 109A, if the identity of the accused is
unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the accused as an
individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular
DNA profile.
``(2) Exception.--Any indictment described in paragraph
(1), which is found within 5 years after the offense under
chapter 109A shall have been committed, shall not be subject
to--
``(A) the limitations period described in subsection (a);
and
``(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the individual is
arrested or served with a summons in connection with the
charges contained in the indictment.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `DNA profile' means a set of DNA identification
characteristics.''.
(b) Rules of Criminal Procedure.--Rule 7 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended in subdivision (c)(1)
by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of an
indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United
States Code, if the identity of the defendant is unknown, it
shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, in the
indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but who
has a particular DNA profile, as defined in that section
3282.''.

SEC. 11. INCREASED GRANTS FOR COMBINED DNA INDEX (CODIS)
SYSTEM.

Section 210306 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14134) is amended--
(1) by striking ``There'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--There''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Increased Grants for CODIS.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
carry out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
$9,700,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

SEC. 12. INCREASED GRANTS FOR FEDERAL CONVICTED OFFENDER
PROGRAM (FCOP).

Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

SEC. 13. PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING DNA EVIDENCE AND
DNA ANALYSES.

(a) Privacy Protection Standard.--Section 10(a) of the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135e(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``or in section 3282(b) of title 18,
United States Code''.
(b) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--Section 10 of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish, by
regulation, procedures to limit access to, or use of, stored
DNA samples or DNA analyses.
``(2) Regulations.--The regulations established under
paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for using DNA
information to--
``(A) limit the use and dissemination of such information,
as provided under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section
210304(b)(3) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3));
``(B) limit the redissemination of such information;
``(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of
such information;
``(D) protect any privacy rights of individuals who are the
subject of such information; and
``(E) provide for the timely removal and destruction of
obsolete or inaccurate information, or information required
to be expunged.''.
(c) Criminal Penalty.--Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``discloses a sample or
result'' and inserting ``discloses or uses a DNA sample or
DNA analysis''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``per offense'' after
``$100,000''.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important
legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence
in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on
this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that
combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden.
This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments
to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the
country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and
more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted
felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the
building of convicted offender records has also become more critical.
The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full
Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I
anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new
Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives
and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the
essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find
and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an
identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law
enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use
of the most valuable tool at their disposal.
One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant
program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits
throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her
testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last
June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of
DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual
assault.
The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases
that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked
against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a
tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data
bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are
being solved.
We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come
forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering
after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute
guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known
felons. That is what this bill does.
In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least
12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the
collection

[[Page S293]]

of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their rape. When
applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a national
backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington State
University is currently in the process of conducting a national
assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning
those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this
evidence analyzed now.
We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve
more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that
everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 152, the DNA
Sexual Justice Act of 2003. Building on the success of the Kohl-DeWine
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act enacted during the 106th Congress,
this legislation will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with
critical physical evidence that will help put more criminals behind
bars. Currently, DNA evidence is languishing untested at laboratories
nationwide, simply for lack of funding. The DNA Sexual Justice Act will
assess the extent of the backlog and provide funding for its
elimination. Further, this legislation will ensure that DNA evidence
from cases involving sexual assault is handled properly by providing
training for emergency personnel, medical examiners, law enforcement,
forensic analysts and prosecutors.
Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government require DNA
samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these
samples increasingly can be shared through a national DNA database
established by Federal law. This national database, part of the
Combined Database Index System, CODIS, enables law enforcement
officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with any suspect
whose DNA is already on file. By identifying repeat offenders, this DNA
sharing can and does make a difference.
Before passage of the Kohl-DeWine Backlog Elimination Act in 2000,
law enforcement was in large part unable to take advantage of DNA
analysis as a crime-fighting technology. This was primarily due to the
fact that DNA sample collection was not required of all Federal
offenders, forensic labs did not have enough resources or equipment to
analyze collected samples, and State databases were not interoperable
with Federal databases. This bill will further address these issues by
directing the Attorney General to survey forensic laboratories across
the country to determine the scope of the backlog and authorizes the
funding necessary to eliminate the backlog over the next four years.
However this legislation goes even further, focusing new, targeted
grant programs toward DNA evidence collected from crimes of sexual
assault or violence. By authorizing funding for the training of
emergency personnel and medical examiners, this legislation ensures
that DNA evidence will be properly collected. With funding for forensic
equipment and the training of forensic examiners, it ensures that DNA
evidence will be accurately analyzed. And by providing funding for the
training of prosecutors, this legislation ensures that the evidence
will be used to its greatest possible effect in the courtroom.
This measure will ensure that women who have been victims of sexual
assault or violence will have the most reliable tools to bring their
assailants to justice. Most importantly, this legislation will help
police use modern technology to solve crimes and prevent repeat
offenders from committing new ones.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Sessions, and Mr. Craig):
S. 153. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish
penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Identity
Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley,
Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig.
I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the
full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier
for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often
the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more
other crimes.
I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this
legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing
on the bill on July 9, 2002.
The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of
Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of
session.
As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to
stiffen the penalties for identity thieves.
A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft
case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip
Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit
reports and other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little
as $30 each. Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so
far, and the totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an
example of the tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause.
Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by
stolen identifies.
Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is
believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in
British court papers as having used the Social Security number of
Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died
in 1991.
Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an
Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health
club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to
one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles
International Airport in 1999.
Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own
death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on
charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and
driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to
have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own
death and avoid prosecution.
The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the
legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the
major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to
give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes.
Let me just outline what this bill would do.
First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated
identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person
to commit certain serious, Federal crimes.
Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two-
year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the
following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another
person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain
citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain
a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United
States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been
ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to
commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension
funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies.
Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five-
year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another
person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes
found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The
destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level
Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support
to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.
Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime,
not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year
penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to
the sentence for the underlying crime.
This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after
identity thieves and to provide their case.

[[Page S294]]

First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order
to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity
documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current
Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents,
but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with
the intent to commit a crime.
So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with
the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the
person who possesses those documents will now be subject to
prosecution.
Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a
person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal
crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then
the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not
be separately proved.
This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual
is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection
with that crime.
This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity
theft under current law from three years to five years.
And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the
current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of
international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation
of domestic terrorism as well.
Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime
with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the
identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution
as well.
Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many
ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl
and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better
prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down
on identity thieves.
And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain
procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal
information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.
The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in
terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously
enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal
crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit
this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have
experienced in recent years is over.
No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously.
No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist,
if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will
be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity
thieves will be easier to prove.
Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal
organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose
of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even
our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill
is an important step in that process.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous
consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 153

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Identity Theft Penalty
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1028, the following:

``Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, during and in relation to any
felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly
transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a
means of identification of another person shall, in addition
to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of 2 years.
``(2) Terrorism offense.--Whoever, during and in relation
to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B),
knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful
authority, a means of identification of another person shall,
in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
``(b) Consecutive Sentence.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
``(1) a court shall not place on probation any person
convicted of a violation of this section;
``(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of
imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on
the person under any other provision of law, including any
term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the
means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
``(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed
for the felony during which the means of identification was
transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way
reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to
compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate
term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation
of this section; and
``(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a
violation of this section may, in the discretion of the
court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with
another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at
the same time on that person for an additional violation of
this section, provided that such discretion shall be
exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)' means any
offense that is a felony violation of--
``(1) section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit
plans);
``(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of
citizenship);
``(3) section 922(a)(6) (relating to false statements in
connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
``(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to
fraud and false statements), other than this section or
section 1028(a)(7);
``(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to
mail, bank, and wire fraud);
``(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to
nationality and citizenship);
``(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to
passports and visas);
``(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C.
6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false
pretenses);
``(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing
to leave the United States after deportation and creating a
counterfeit alien registration card);
``(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)
(relating to various immigration offenses); or
``(11) section 208, 1107(b), or 1128B(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1307(b), and 1320a-7b(a))
(relating to false statements relating to programs under the
Act).''.
(b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections
for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 1028 the
following new item:

``1028A. Aggravated identity theft.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING IDENTITY THEFT PROHIBITION.

Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(7)--
(A) by striking ``transfers'' and inserting ``transfers,
possesses,''; and
(B) by striking ``abet,'' and inserting ``abet, or in
connection with,'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ``transfer'' and
inserting ``transfer, possession,'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``three years'' and
inserting ``5 years''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting after ``facilitate''
the following: ``an act of domestic terrorism (as defined
under section 2331(5) of this title) or''.
______

By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. INHOFE):
S. 156. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to reauthorize
the Price-Anderson provisions; to the Committee on Environmental and
Public Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the
Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to
introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act
was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current
authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on
the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages
to the general public from nuclear incidents.

[[Page S295]]

It is important for the American public to understand how the Price-
Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds
the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant
purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first
$200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the
damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial
protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed
nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective
fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per
accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money,
provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to
compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than
this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and
demand a larger contribution.
This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the
country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I
know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up
front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one
company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry
waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making
payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster
somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out
claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices
were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive
insurance coverage and provides it up front.
The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not
existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would
be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides,
making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible.
Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security,
economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently
provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe,
reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous
positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973,
nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key
component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a
precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably,
nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in
emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind,
and hydropower.
Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and
efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new
nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step
in that direction.
During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and
the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of
Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize
Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment
that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was
agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment
reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees.
The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy
Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works
Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW
Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for
10 years for NRC licensees.
I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The
Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear
energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this
bill.
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. 156

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 ``Price-Anderson Amendments
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

(a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensees.--Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and
inserting ``Licensees''; and
(2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears
and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.

SEC. 3. REPORTS.

Section 170p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and
inserting ``August 1, 2008''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act take effect on August 1,
2002.
______

By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Clinton, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 157. A bill to help protect the public against the threat of
chemical attacks; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important
piece of legislation that I worked on in the 107th Congress, the
Chemical Security Act. I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords,
Boxer, Clinton, and Lautenberg in reintroducing this bill. Senators
Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton were all strong allies in the 107th
Congress, and I thank them for their continuing support. And I am
pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor. He has a long
history of working to protect communities from all types of chemical
threats. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords for his hard
work on this legislation in the 107th Congress. As Chairman of the
Environment and Public Works committee, he provided critical leadership
in bringing this bill through the committee successfully. I thank him
and his staff for their hard work and look forward to continuing to
work with them on this important issue.
I'll describe what the bill does in a minute. But first I want to
briefly explain why I think this legislation is so important.
September 11 shocked us into the realization that our assets can be
turned against us by terrorists. If you are a New Jersey Senator, you
don't have to think about that idea for too long before you realize
that chemical plants and other facilities that have hazardous chemicals
would be high on a terrorists' list. The fact is, that we have a lot of
those types of facilities in my State, and because we're such a densely
populated State, chemical releases from these facilities pose grave
risks. In fact, according to EPA data, there are eight plants in my
State where a worst-case release of toxic chemicals could threaten more
than a million people.
But this is not a parochial issue. The same EPA data shows that there
are 110 plants nationwide where such a release could threaten more than
a million people. These plants are located in 22 States. And there are
44 States that have at least one facility where such a release could
threaten more than 100,000 people.
I want to be clear that I am stating these facts here today in an
effort to advance a measure that would protect workers and communities,
not in an attempt to vilify our nations' chemical companies. Indeed,
these companies are a key part of our industrial fabric, providing jobs
and producing products essential to our lives. This is certainly true
of my home State of New Jersey, as I have already indicated.
But when you look at the numbers, as I have laid them out here today,
you realize that we have a problem to deal with. I'm certainly not
unique in recognizing this issue, EPA, the Justice Department, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commissions, industry groups, and public safety
groups all agree. In addition, the White House Strategy for Homeland
Security recognizes the chemical and hazardous materials sector as an
infrastructure protection priority. Governor Ridge amplified this point
in his testimony before the Senate Environment Public Works committee
on July 10 of last year. He said that:

The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our
enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And
clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know
that there have been reports validated about security
deficiencies at dozens and dozens of those.

I want to pick up on that last point that Governor Ridge made about
security deficiencies, because it speaks to why I am putting this bill
forward.

[[Page S296]]

Some companies have taken actions and are continuing to work to
implement security measures in light of the post-September 11
environments. Others, however, are not. That's one crucial reason why a
Federal program is needed. We need to be able to assure our
constituents that this major vulnerability is being addressed in a
swift and effective manner. We also want to assure them that certain
minimum standards are being met throughout the country.
We already do that to address certain infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Most notably, we require nuclear power plants to meet extensive
security standards as a condition of their operating licenses. I think
we ought to tighten those standards, but the fact is that we have no
standards at all for our chemical facilities.
Before I go into specifics, I want to outline the general
organizational scheme of the bill. In my view, addressing the risk to
communities from a terrorist-caused release of hazardous chemicals
requires two fundamental components. The first is improving security,
so that the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack is lowered. The
second is reducing hazards so that the impact of a successful attack is
minimized.
This requires two fundamentally different types of expertise and
skills. That's why the bill involves both the EPA and the Department of
Homeland Security. EPA has the chemical hazard expertise, and the
Department of Homeland Security has the security expertise. EPA has a
lead role in most of the bill, because it already has relationships
with chemical facilities through its existing accident prevention
programs.
As to the specifics of the bill, I think it is a common-sense
approach to dealing with the issue. I want to note that this bill is
nearly identical to the version of the bill that was reported out of
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last July by a 19-0
vote. Two minor technical changes have been made to clarify the intent
of the legislation, but it is otherwise exactly the same as the
committee-reported bill that was acted on unanimously by the EPW
committee last year.
The heart of the bill is section 4. This section requires EPA and the
Department of Homeland Security to identify ``high priority'' chemical
facilities and then require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities
and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security
and use safer technologies.
Section 4(a)(1) establishes the priority setting process, by which
the EPA Administrator, in consultation the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, as well as States and local government entities,
is directed to identify high priority chemical facilities, based on
factors identified in section 4(a)(2). These factors include the
severity of harm that could be caused by a chemical release, proximity
to population centers, threats to national security or critical
infrastructure, threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose
a serious threat, and such other safety or security factors that the
Administrator considers appropriate.

Because of the way the bill is structured, this means that EPA and
the Department of Homeland Security are directed to start with the
facilities that are subject to EPA's Risk Management Program
requirements. This program applies to approximately 15,000 facilities
in the United States that use, produce or store large quantities of
hazardous chemicals. By applying the factors I mentioned, the priority
setting process is meant to shorten this list of 15,000 facilities
considerably. But the bill leaves it up to the Administration to
determine exactly how many facilities within this universe ought to be
covered by the bill.
So that's step one, setting priorities, and that has to be done
within one year of enactment.
At this point, I want to mention the first of the clarifying
technical changes that I have made to the bill. It was never the
intent, nor I believe the effect, of the bill to include propane
retailers as potentially regulated entities under this bill. But there
was some confusion about the point after the bill was marked up last
July. So last fall, I worked with the National Propane Gas Association
on language that eliminates this confusion, and it is included in this
bill. So I again want to make clear that the same propane retailers who
are not subject to the EPA Risk Management Program requirements will
not be ``high priority'' facilities under this bill, and therefore will
not be subject to its requirements.
In addition to identifying high priority facilities within the first
year, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security must also promulgate
regulations to require the high priority facilities to take the
following steps: conduct a vulnerability and hazard assessment within
one year after the regulations are promulgated; prepare and implement a
response plan that addresses those vulnerabilities within 18 months
after the regulations are promulgated.
I want to say more about the assessments and response plans, because
these requirements are really the core of the amendment.
First, the amendment requires chemical facilities to work with local
law enforcement and first responders, such as firefighters, in
developing the assessments and plans. The second of the clarifying
technical changes that I referred to in the opening part of my
statement is simply to make clear the firefighters are among the first
responders that the bill is referring to.
September 11 showed us how brave and important these our first
responders are. Every day, they are willing to risk their lives to
respond to terrorist attacks if they need to. So it makes sense that
they ought to be a part of the process of developing vulnerability
assessments and response plans, as this bill would require.
The same goes for employees of the high priority chemical facilities.
They're on the front lines, which means two things. First, they are
most at risk in case of a terrorist attack on their plants. Second,
because they work in the plants every day, they will have ideas about
how to secure the facilities and reduce hazards. So employees are part
of the process as well.
As to the assessments and plans themselves, the requirements in the
bill are fairly general. There are a variety of vulnerability
assessment tools that have already been developed by groups such as
Sandia laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. I would
expect that EPA and DHS would take advantage of existing methodologies
such as these, but the bill leaves it up to the experts to decide what
types of approaches make the most sense. And that probably won't be the
same for everyone, I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach
here. But I do want to be sure that all of the high priority chemical
facilities do a credible vulnerability assessment.
The response plan requirements are also fairly general. Each facility
is required to prepare prevention, preparedness and response plan that
incorporates the results of the assessments. The plan must include
actions and procedures, including safer design and maintenance, to
eliminate or significantly lessen the potential consequences of a
release.
What this means in simple terms is that each facility has to develop
a plan and take steps to reduce both the likelihood of a successful
attack and to the harm that would occur if an attack were successful.
In other words, they have to look at traditional security measures,
such as fences, alarms, and guards. But they also have to look at
whether they can make the plant safer. In other words, can less
hazardous chemicals be used? Can containment technology such as fans or
scrubbers be improved or employed to contain chemicals that may be
released? Chemical facilities ought to evaluate the full range of
options, look at the tradeoffs among them, and go forward with the best
mix of security and technology options.
Facilities are then required to send their assessments and plans to
the EPA. EPA and DHS must review those assessments and plans, and
certify compliance with the regulations. Any deficiencies identified by
EPA and DHS can be remedies by issuance of an order. But the order can
only be issued after a deliberate process that includes notification,
compliance assistance, and an opportunity for a hearing.
The certification process is there to ensure the public that
facilities are complying the law. Those certifications will be the only
information

[[Page S297]]

from the assessments and plans that is publicly available. The bill
exempts all other information produced under the bill, most
importantly, the assessments and plans themselves, from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act. I don't take FOIA exemptions
lightly. I believe strongly that, in general, the public has a right to
information collected by the government. But I think it's pretty
obvious that in the case of the information that would be submitted to
the government under this bill, the vulnerability assessments and
response plans, we simply can't allow the security details in these
plans to be publicly available. But I think it does make sense that
people who live near a chemical plant be able to find out from EPA and
the DHS whether or not that plant has complied with the law.

The bill goes even beyond FOIA exemptions to protect the assessments
and plans. To ensure that the assessments and plans are properly
safeguarded, the bill includes a requirement for EPA and Homeland
Security to develop protocols to prevent unauthorized disclosure of
those documents. And it attaches penalties to unauthorized disclosure.
That's the essence of the bill.
First, identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities.
Second, require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and
hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and
implement safer technologies.
Third, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security review the
assessments and plans, and they have the authority to require changes
if deficiencies are identified.
Fourth, assessments and plans are protected from unauthorized
disclosure through a FOIA exemption and penalties that apply to
unauthorized disclosure.
The bill also includes an early compliance section that is designed
to address concerns that the bill might slow ongoing voluntary security
efforts. This provision enables companies to submit assessments and
plans prior to promulgation of the regulations and have them judged by
the standards in the Act. So companies don't have to wait for the
regulations to come out to continue work or to submit plans.
In conclusion, I think this is a balanced bill that puts common-sense
requirements in place to deal with a significant problem. I think the
bill has moved a long way from the introduced bill. It has accommodated
many of the concerns that industry raised about the bill I introduced
in the 107th Congress. It reflects intensive bipartisan negotiations,
and I think it's a good bill.
At the same time, I recognize that some of my colleagues have
continuing concerns about the legislation. Last fall, I worked with
Senators Inhofe, Breaux, Landrieu and Lincoln on these issues. I want
them to know that I remain open-minded and committed to working with
them, the rest of my colleagues and the Administration to resolve these
issues so we can move quickly to protect Americans from the threat of
attack on chemical facilities. And I want to extend the same commitment
not only to the environmental and labor organizations that have
supported the bill in the past, but also to the various industry groups
that have worked on this bill. It's vital that we all find common
ground quickly, and I stand ready to work with all interested parties.
I want to close by expressing both my sense of urgency about this
issue and my optimism that we will be able to move legislation quickly.
Last fall, Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman wrote to the
Washington Post expressing their support for bipartisan legislation to
deal with the chemical security threat. I ask unanimous consent that
that letter be printed in the Record.
I believe the letter was sincere, but the Administration has not yet
engaged the Congress on this issue. I urge President Bush to provide
leadership to ensure that his Administration works with us as the
process moves forward.
I am also encouraged that Senator Inhofe has identified chemical
security as a legislative priority as he assumes the Chairmanship of
the Environment and Public Works committee. I congratulate him on his
new post, and again express my willingness to work with him on this
important issue.
With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2002]

A Security Requirement

The Bush administration is committed to reducing the
vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist
attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that
would require such facilities to address their
vulnerabilities [news story, Oct. 3].
We applaud voluntary efforts some in the industry have
undertaken, but we believe that every one of the 15,000
chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities
of hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the
industry leaders are taking at their facilities; performing
comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to
reduce those vulnerabilities.
Voluntary efforts alone are not sufficient to provide the
level of assurance Americans deserve. We will continue to
work with Congress to advance this important homeland
security goal.
____

S. 157

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 ``Chemical Security Act of
2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the chemical industry is a crucial part of the critical
infrastructure of the United States--
(A) in its own right; and
(B) because that industry supplies resources essential to
the functioning of other critical infrastructures;
(2) the possibility of terrorist and criminal attacks on
chemical sources (such as industrial facilities) poses a
serious threat to public health, safety, and welfare,
critical infrastructure, national security, and the
environment;
(3) the possibility of theft of dangerous chemicals from
chemical sources for use in terrorist attacks poses a further
threat to public health, safety, and welfare, critical
infrastructure, national security, and the environment; and
(4) there are significant opportunities to prevent theft
from, and criminal attack on, chemical sources and reduce the
harm that such acts would produce by--
(A)(i) reducing usage and storage of chemicals by changing
production methods and processes; and
(ii) employing inherently safer technologies in the
manufacture, transport, and use of chemicals;
(B) enhancing secondary containment and other existing
mitigation measures; and
(C) improving security.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Chemical source.--The term ``chemical source'' means a
stationary source (as defined in section 112(r)(2) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2))) that contains a
substance of concern.
(3) Covered substance of concern.--The term ``covered
substance of concern'' means a substance of concern that, in
combination with a chemical source and other factors, is
designated as a high priority category by the Administrator
under section 4(a)(1).
(4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
(A) a duly recognized collective bargaining representative
at a chemical source; or
(B) in the absence of such a representative, other
appropriate personnel.
(5) First responder.--The term ``first responder'' includes
a firefighter.
(6) Head of the office.--The term ``head of the Office''
means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(7) Safer design and maintenance.--The term ``safer design
and maintenance'' includes, with respect to a chemical source
that is within a high priority category designated under
section 4(a)(1), implementation, to the extent practicable,
of the practices of--
(A) preventing or reducing the vulnerability of the
chemical source to a release of a covered substance of
concern through use of inherently safer technology;
(B) reducing any vulnerability of the chemical source to a
release of a covered substance of concern through use of
well-maintained secondary containment, control, or mitigation
equipment;
(C) reducing any vulnerability of the chemical source to a
release of a covered substance of concern by implementing
security measures; and
(D) reducing the potential consequences of any
vulnerability of the chemical source to a release of a
covered substance of concern through the use of buffer zones
between the chemical source and surrounding populations
(including buffer zones between the chemical source and
residences, schools, hospitals, senior centers, shopping
centers and malls,

[[Page S298]]

sports and entertainment arenas, public roads and
transportation routes, and other population centers).
(8) Security measure.--
(A) In general.--The term ``security measure'' means an
action carried out to increase the security of a chemical
source.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``security measure'', with
respect to a chemical source, includes--
(i) employee training and background checks;
(ii) the limitation and prevention of access to controls of
the chemical source;
(iii) protection of the perimeter of the chemical source;
(iv) the installation and operation of an intrusion
detection sensor; and
(v) a measure to increase computer or computer network
security.
(9) Substance of concern.--
(A) In general.--The term ``substance of concern'' means--
(i) any regulated substance (as defined in section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r))); and
(ii) any substance designated by the Administrator under
section 4(a).
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``substance of concern'' does not
include liquefied petroleum gas that is used as fuel or held
for sale as fuel at a retail facility as described in section
112(r)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(4)(B)).
(10) Unauthorized release.--The term ``unauthorized
release'' means--
(A) a release from a chemical source into the environment
of a covered substance of concern that is caused, in whole or
in part, by a criminal act;
(B) a release into the environment of a covered substance
of concern that has been removed from a chemical source, in
whole or in part, by a criminal act; and
(C) a release or removal from a chemical source of a
covered substance of concern that is unauthorized by the
owner or operator of the chemical source.
(11) Use of inherently safer technology.--
(A) In general.--The term ``use of inherently safer
technology'', with respect to a chemical source, means use of
a technology, product, raw material, or practice that, as
compared with the technologies, products, raw materials, or
practices currently in use--
(i) reduces or eliminates the possibility of a release of a
substance of concern from the chemical source prior to
secondary containment, control, or mitigation; and
(ii) reduces or eliminates the threats to public health and
the environment associated with a release or potential
release of a substance of concern from the chemical source.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``use of inherently safer
technology'' includes input substitution, catalyst or carrier
substitution, process redesign (including reuse or recycling
of a substance of concern), product reformulation, procedure
simplification, and technology modification so as to--
(i) use less hazardous substances or benign substances;
(ii) use a smaller quantity of covered substances of
concern;
(iii) reduce hazardous pressures or temperatures;
(iv) reduce the possibility and potential consequences of
equipment failure and human error;
(v) improve inventory control and chemical use efficiency;
and
(vi) reduce or eliminate storage, transportation, handling,
disposal, and discharge of substances of concern.

SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY
CATEGORIES.

(a) Designation and Regulation of High Priority Categories
by the Administrator.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the head of the Office and State and local agencies
responsible for planning for and responding to unauthorized
releases and providing emergency health care, shall
promulgate regulations to designate certain combinations of
chemical sources and substances of concern as high priority
categories based on the severity of the threat posed by an
unauthorized release from the chemical sources.
(2) Factors to be considered.--In designating high priority
categories under paragraph (1), the Administrator, in
consultation with the head of the Office, shall consider--
(A) the severity of the harm that could be caused by an
unauthorized release;
(B) the proximity to population centers;
(C) the threats to national security;
(D) the threats to critical infrastructure;
(E) threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose
a serious threat; and
(F) such other safety or security factors as the
Administrator, in consultation with the head of the Office,
determines to be appropriate.
(3) Requirements for high priority categories.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the head of the Office, the United States Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and State and local
agencies described in paragraph (1), shall promulgate
regulations to require each owner and each operator of a
chemical source that is within a high priority category
designated under paragraph (1), in consultation with local
law enforcement, first responders, and employees, to--
(i) conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the
chemical source to a terrorist attack or other unauthorized
release;
(ii) using appropriate hazard assessment techniques,
identify hazards that may result from an unauthorized release
of a covered substance of concern; and
(iii) prepare a prevention, preparedness, and response plan
that incorporates the results of those vulnerability and
hazard assessments.
(B) Actions and procedures.--A prevention, preparedness,
and response plan required under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall
include actions and procedures, including safer design and
maintenance of the chemical source, to eliminate or
significantly lessen the potential consequences of an
unauthorized release of a covered substance of concern.
(C) Threat information.--To the maximum extent permitted by
applicable authorities and the interests of national
security, the head of the Office, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall provide owners and operators of chemical
sources with threat information relevant to the assessments
and plans required under subsection (b).
(4) Review and revisions.--Not later than 5 years after the
date of promulgation of regulations under each of paragraphs
(1) and (3), the Administrator, in consultation with the head
of the Office, shall review the regulations and make any
necessary revisions.
(5) Addition of substances of concern.--For the purpose of
designating high priority categories under paragraph (1) or
any subsequent revision of the regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1), the Administrator, in consultation with the
head of the Office, may designate additional substances that
pose a serious threat as substances of concern.
(b) Certification.--
(1) Vulnerability and hazard assessments.--Not later than 1
year after the date of promulgation of regulations under
subsection (a)(3), each owner and each operator of a chemical
source that is within a high priority category designated
under subsection (a)(1) shall--
(A) certify to the Administrator that the chemical source
has conducted assessments in accordance with the regulations;
and
(B) submit to the Administrator written copies of the
assessments.
(2) Prevention, preparedness, and response plans.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of promulgation of
regulations under subsection (a)(3), the owner or operator
shall--
(A) certify to the Administrator that the chemical source
has completed a prevention, preparedness, and response plan
that incorporates the results of the assessments and complies
with the regulations; and
(B) submit to the Administrator a written copy of the plan.
(3) 5-year review.--Not later than 5 years after each of
the date of submission of a copy of an assessment under
paragraph (1) and a plan under paragraph (2), and not less
often than every 3 years thereafter, the owner or operator of
the chemical source covered by the assessment or plan, in
coordination with local law enforcement and first responders,
shall--
(A) review the adequacy of the assessment or plan, as the
case may be; and
(B)(i) certify to the Administrator that the chemical
source has completed the review; and
(ii) as appropriate, submit to the Administrator any
changes to the assessment or plan.
(4) Protection of information.--
(A) Disclosure exemption.--Except with respect to
certifications specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this subsection and section 5(a), all information provided to
the Administrator under this subsection, and all information
derived from that information, shall be exempt from
disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
(B) Development of protocols.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the head of the Office, shall develop such protocols as are
necessary to protect the copies of the assessments and plans
required to be submitted under this subsection (including the
information contained in those assessments and plans) from
unauthorized disclosure.
(ii) Requirements.--The protocols developed under clause
(i) shall ensure that--

(I) each copy of an assessment or plan, and all information
contained in or derived from the assessment or plan, is
maintained in a secure location;
(II) except as provided in subparagraph (C), only
individuals designated by the Administrator may have access
to the copies of the assessments and plans; and
(III) no copy of an assessment or plan or any portion of an
assessment or plan, and no information contained in or
derived from an assessment or plan, shall be available to any
person other than an individual designated by the
Administrator.

(iii) Deadline.--As soon as practicable, but not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall complete the development of protocols
under clause (i) so as to ensure that the protocols are in
place before the date on which the Administrator receives any
assessment or plan under this subsection.
(C) Federal officers and employees.--An individual referred
to in subparagraph (B)(ii)

[[Page S299]]

who is an officer or employee of the United States may
discuss with a State or local official the contents of an
assessment or plan described in that subparagraph.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Review of Plans.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the head of the Office, shall review each assessment and plan
submitted under section 4(b) to determine the compliance of
the chemical source covered by the assessment or plan with
regulations promulgated under paragraphs (1) and (3) of
section 4(a).
(2) Certification of compliance.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall certify in writing
each determination of the Administrator under paragraph (1).
(B) Inclusions.--A certification of the Administrator shall
include a checklist indicating consideration by a chemical
source of the use of 4 elements of safer design and
maintenance described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
section 3(6).
(C) Early compliance.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the head of the Office, shall--

(I) before the date of publication of proposed regulations
under section 4(a)(3), review each assessment or plan
submitted to the Administrator under section 4(b); and
(II) before the date of promulgation of final regulations
under section 4(a)(3), determine whether each such assessment
or plan meets the consultation, planning, and assessment
requirements applicable to high priority categories under
section 4(a)(3).

(ii) Affirmative determination.--If the Administrator, in
consultation with the head of the Office, makes an
affirmative determination under clause (i)(II), the
Administrator shall certify compliance of an assessment or
plan described in that clause without requiring any revision
of the assessment or plan.
(D) Schedule for review and certification.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator, after taking into
consideration the factors described in section 4(a)(2), shall
establish a schedule for the review and certification of
assessments and plans submitted under section 4(b).
(ii) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 3 years after
the deadlines for the submission of assessments and plans
under paragraph (1) or (2), respectively, of section 4(b),
the Administrator shall complete the review and certification
of all assessments and plans submitted under those sections.
(b) Compliance Assistance.--
(1) Definition of determination.--In this subsection, the
term ``determination'' means a determination by the
Administrator that, with respect to an assessment or plan
described in section 4(b)--
(A) the assessment or plan does not comply with regulations
promulgated under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 4(a); or
(B)(i) a threat exists beyond the scope of the submitted
plan; or
(ii) current implementation of the plan is insufficient to
address--
(I) the results of an assessment of a source; or
(II) a threat described in clause (i).
(2) Determination by administrator.--If the Administrator,
after consultation with the head of the Office, makes a
determination, the Administrator shall--
(A) notify the chemical source of the determination; and
(B) provide such advice and technical assistance, in
coordination with the head of the Office and the United
States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, as is
appropriate--
(i) to bring the assessment or plan of a chemical source
described in section 4(b) into compliance; or
(ii) to address any threat described in clause (i) or (ii)
of paragraph (1)(B).
(c) Compliance Orders.--
(1) In general.--If, after the date that is 30 days after
the later of the date on which the Administrator first
provides assistance, or a chemical source receives notice,
under subsection (b)(2)(B), a chemical source has not brought
an assessment or plan for which the assistance is provided
into compliance with regulations promulgated under paragraphs
(1) and (3) of section 4(a), or the chemical source has not
complied with an entry or information request under section
6, the Administrator may issue an order directing compliance
by the chemical source.
(2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--An order under
paragraph (1) may be issued only after notice and opportunity
for a hearing.
(d) Abatement Action.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding a certification under
section 5(a)(2), if the head of the Office, in consultation
with local law enforcement officials and first responders,
determines that a threat of a terrorist attack exists that is
beyond the scope of a submitted prevention, preparedness, and
response plan of 1 or more chemical sources, or current
implementation of the plan is insufficient to address the
results of an assessment of a source or a threat described in
subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), the head of the Office shall notify
each chemical source of the elevated threat.
(2) Insufficient response.--If the head of the Office
determines that a chemical source has not taken appropriate
action in response to a notification under paragraph (1), the
head of the Office shall notify the chemical source, the
Administrator, and the Attorney General that actions taken by
the chemical source in response to the notification are
insufficient.
(3) Relief.--
(A) In general.--On receipt of a notification under
paragraph (2), the Administrator or the Attorney General may
secure such relief as is necessary to abate a threat
described in paragraph (1), including such orders as are
necessary to protect public health or welfare.
(B) Jurisdiction.--The district court of the United States
for the district in which a threat described in paragraph (1)
occurs shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the
Administrator or Attorney General requests under subparagraph
(A).

SEC. 6. RECORDKEEPING AND ENTRY.

(a) Records Maintenance.--A chemical source that is
required to certify to the Administrator assessments and
plans under section 4 shall maintain on the premises of the
chemical source a current copy of those assessments and
plans.
(b) Right of Entry.--In carrying out this Act, the
Administrator (or an authorized representative of the
Administrator), on presentation of credentials--
(1) shall have a right of entry to, on, or through any
premises of an owner or operator of a chemical source
described in subsection (a) or any premises in which any
records required to be maintained under subsection (a) are
located; and
(2) may at reasonable times have access to, and may copy,
any records, reports, or other information described in
subsection (a).
(c) Information Requests.--In carrying out this Act, the
Administrator may require any chemical source to provide such
information as is necessary to--
(1) enforce this Act; and
(2) promulgate or enforce regulations under this Act.

SEC. 7. PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Penalties.--Any owner or operator of a chemical
source that violates, or fails to comply with, any order
issued may, in an action brought in United States district
court, be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000
for each day in which such violation occurs or such failure
to comply continues.
(b) Criminal Penalties.--Any owner or operator of a
chemical source that knowingly violates, or fails to comply
with, any order issued shall--
(1) in the case of a first violation or failure to comply,
be fined not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day
of violation, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; and
(2) in the case of a subsequent violation or failure to
comply, be fined not more than $50,000 per day of violation,
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(c) Administrative Penalties.--
(1) Penalty orders.--If the amount of a civil penalty
determined under subsection (a) does not exceed $125,000, the
penalty may be assessed in an order issued by the
Administrator.
(2) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described
in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to the
person against which the penalty is to be assessed--
(A) written notice of the proposed order; and
(B) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the notice is received by the person,
a hearing on the proposed order.

SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS UNDER OTHER LAW.

Nothing in this Act affects any duty or other requirement
imposed under any other Federal or State law.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Bond):
S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the depreciation benefits available to small business, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small
Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003 on behalf of the Nation's
millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am
pleased to be joining with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally
Herger, to move this important initiative for small business toward
enactment.
This legislation embodies a leading provision of the President's
economic recovery package for small businesses and entrepreneurs in
this country. By enabling small firms to expense more of the equipment
they purchase, this bill provides a tailor-made incentive for the small
business sector of our economy to invest in new technology and expand
their operations.
We should never under-state the role that small businesses play in
our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51
percent of the private-sector workforce, provide about 75 percent of
the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output,
and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size

[[Page S300]]

is the only ``small'' aspect of small business.
The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality of the small
business and entrepreneurs in America. Regrettably, when we enacted
stimulus legislation last year, we missed a tremendous opportunity to
improve a provision of the tax law aimed directly at small firms,
Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small
businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than
depreciate it over a period of years. During the Senate's consideration
of last year's stimulus bill, we approved an increase to the expensing
limits by a vote of 90-2. Sadly, that provision was dropped from the
final package that was sent to the President.
As the incoming Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I intend to correct that error by responding to the
calls from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the
country for greater expensing of new equipment. I applaud the President
for making this issue a key part of his economic recovery proposal.
By tripling the current expensing limit to $75,000, broadening the
phaseout of this provision, and indexing these amounts for inflation,
this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying
businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases
today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their
costs through depreciation.
That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time
small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with the
complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to
continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to
the long-term vitality of our economy.
Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for
this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased from the
current $200,000 to $325,000 in new equipment purchases. At the same
time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into
the retail-sector of the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for
small business and the economy as a whole.
I am confident that small businesses will lead us out of the current
economic problems as they have in past downturns. We have a tremendous
opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive
for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just
that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law.
I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the text of the
bill and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 158

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 ``Small Business Expensing
Improvement Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.

(a) Increase of Amount Which May Be Expensed.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation)
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate cost which may be
taken into account under subsection (a) for any taxable year
shall not exceed $75,000.''
(2) Increase in phaseout threshold.--Paragraph (2) of
section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking
``$200,000'' and inserting ``$325,000''.
(3) Inflation adjustment of dollar amounts.--Subsection (b)
of section 179 of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning in a calendar year after 2003, each dollar
amount contained in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be increased
by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins by substituting `calendar year 2002' for
`calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount, as adjusted under the preceding sentence, is
not a multiple of $1,000 ($10,000 in the case of the dollar
amount contained in paragraph (2)), such amount shall be
rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000 or $10,000, as the
case may be.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2002.
____

Small business Works Act of 2001--Description of Provisions

The bill amends section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code to
increase the amount of equipment purchases that small
businesses may expense each year from the current $25,000 to
$75,000. This change will eliminate the complexity and
burdensome recordkeeping involved in depreciating such
equipment and free up capital for small businesses to grow
and create jobs.
The bill also increases the phase-out limitation for
equipment expensing from the current $200,000 to $325,000,
thereby expanding the number of small businesses that can
qualify for section 179 expensing and the value of equipment
that can be expensed currently. This limitation along with
the annual expensing amount will be indexed for inflation
under the bill beginning in 2004.
The equipment-expensing provisions will be effective for
equipment placed in service in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2002.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Allen):
S. 159. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to
allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed use by wireless broadband
devices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing
the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an
additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for
unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also
directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that
spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems
operating in that spectrum are not compromised.
We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting
technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections
wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous
devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham
radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new
networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we
can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create
jobs in high tech industries.
I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat
esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world
implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional
spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help
make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending
the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for
wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications
and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area,
manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices
to make the connections work.
One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short.
In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in
your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to
each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the
bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the
garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker
stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked
while he or she commuted.
In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow
communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to
places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is
too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can
be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer
distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those
kinds connections more likely and reliable.
The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are
numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless
connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in
cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient
wireless connection would save

[[Page S301]]

them the cost of knocking down walls to wire the entire school.
Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in
November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and
consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some
modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular
community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum
would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules
of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify
that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather
than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to
cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second
modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure
robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery
devices.
It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to
help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this
bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th
Congress.
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. 159

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 ``Jumpstart Broadband Act''.

SEC. 2. ENCOURAGEMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure
Devices.--
(1) Immediate allocation of spectrum.--Within 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
allocate not less than an additional 255 megahertz of
contiguous spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed
use by wireless broadband devices while ensuring that
Department of Defense devices and systems are not
compromised.
(2) Interference protection.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration shall,
after consultation with all interested agencies and parties,
including the Department of Defense, establish standards for
interference protection that is reasonably required to enable
incumbent Federal government agency users of spectrum
allocated under paragraph (1) to continue to use that
spectrum, and advise the Commission of those standards.
(3) Device requirements.--Within 360 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
(A) with respect to spectrum allocation under paragraph
(1), adopt minimal technical and device rules to facilitate
robust and efficient use for wireless broadband devices; and
(B) amend its rules to require that all wireless broadband
devices manufactured after the effective date of those rules
that operate in the spectrum allocated under paragraph (1)--
(i) be capable of 2-way digital communications;
(ii) meet the interference protection standards established
under paragraph (2).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(2) Broadband service.--The term ``broadband service''
means high rate digital transmission service--
(A) via cable modem, digital subscriber line, wireless,
satellite, or other telecommunications technology; and
(B) capable of reliably transmitting voice, data, and/or
video simultaneously between and among digital devices and
between these devices and the Internet, on a consistent
basis, at data transfer rates no slower than those defined
from time to time by the Commission.
(3) Wireless broadband device.--The term ``wireless
broadband device'' includes--
(A) U-NII devices (as defined in section 15.403(i) of title
47, Code of Federal Regulations); and
(B) other devices used to access wireless broadband
services.
(b) Terms Defined in the Communications Act of 1934.--
Except as provided in subsection (a), any term used in this
Act that is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) has the meaning given that term in that
section.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my
colleagues the Jumpstart Broadband Act of 2003. I am happy to be the
lead Republican sponsor of this legislation and I want to thank my
colleague from across the aisle, Senator Boxer, for working with me on
this positive important issue.
The goal of the Jumpstart Broadband Act is to create an environment
that embraces innovation and encourages the adoption of next-generation
wireless broadband Internet devices. Most important, our legislation
will build confidence among consumers, investors and innovators in the
telecommunications and technology industries to eventually make the
broadband dream a reality.
Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with the recession in the
telecom sector. Analysts estimate that over the last 24 months
approximately 500,000 jobs have been lost. Debt loads in the
telecommunications sector range from anywhere between $500 billion to
$1 trillion dollars. Since 1999 approximately $2 trillion dollars in
market value has been lost in the telecom sector.
We know that promises of the Internet doubling every 100 days were
never realized. Fanciful expectations like these have left this country
with Internet bandwidth capacities that no levels of demand can
sustain. Unfortunately for investors and the industry the ``if you
build it, they will come'' business model did not materialize and is
the primary reason the telecom and technology sectors are in a weak
economic state.
Over this past few years Congress, and specifically the Senate, have
been locked in debate over the best approach to promote and encourage
widespread broadband adoption. There is no doubt that consumers,
businesses and government officials fully recognize the importance of
broadband to our communications capabilities and the economy. Indeed,
the proliferation of next-generation broadband Internet connections
will reinvigorate growth in the technology and telecommunications
industries and improve our lives.
Economists at the Brookings Institution estimate that widespread,
high-speed broadband access would increase the national GDP by $500
billion annually by 2006. Full deployment of broadband will
substantially change and significantly impact every aspect of our
society. Whether in education, healthcare, commerce, entertainment or
government services; broadband deployment is a key aspect to improving
this nation's overall economy and competitiveness.
However, the current debate over broadband has focused only on two
platforms, Digital Subscriber Line, DSL, and cable and the regulatory
treatment of those services. This perspective fails to consider that
alternative modes or other technologies are available that can
jumpstart consumer driven investment and demand in broadband services.
I think it is beneficial to shift the policy discussion away from this
debate and focus on something positive Congress can do that fosters
innovation, stimulates the technology and telecom sectors, and
encourages the adoption of broadband services.
The Jumpstart Broadband Act seeks to create an environment where
alternative modes of broadband communications can be created and
deployed into homes, schools, public places and businesses by making
more spectrum available for exciting, new unlicensed wireless
technologies. In doing so, the legislation directs the Federal
Communications Commission, FCC, to set aside an additional 255
megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed broadband
devices. This allocation will harmonize wireless devices in the United
States with the international allocation in countries like Japan,
Brazil, Canada and Europe. The 5 gigahertz band also contains favorable
propagation and power levels to provide reliable wireless service. Our
legislation also directs the FCC to establish minimum rules of
interference protection for devices in that spectrum and to ensure that
Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not
compromised.
Our legislation complements and encourages the exciting work being
done in the area of Wireless Local Area Networks, WLANs. Also known as
Wireless Fidelity or WiFi, this technology provides wireless broadband
service operating in the unlicensed spectrum bank with up to 10
megabits of capacity and an always-on connection. WiFi is a technology
driven platform, viewed by many as a possible answer to wire-line

[[Page S302]]

limitations and obstacles that exist in the current marketplace. WiFi
however is only the beginning and this legislation will create an
environment where cognitive radios and dynamic frequency selection of
technologies can grow and innovate to offer services that are
unimaginable today.
While I support a competitive telecommunications environment and have
been an advocate for federal deregulation, the Jumpstart Broadband Act
of 2003 moves the policy discussion away from this stagnant maginot
line battle and offers an alternative invigorating approach that
encourages innovation and creates confidence in the market.
Providing a way to jump start high speed broadband Internet access
through the adoption of wireless broadband devices is vital to helping
us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans
would include more jobs, increased productivity, improved health care
delivery, and more accessible education. Our economy needs it, our
technology sector needs it, and the American people will benefit from
these new and innovative technologies.
I have been working together in a bipartisan fashion with Senator
Boxer, and I am hopeful by also working with technologists, the Federal
Communications Commission and the Department of Defense, we can move
forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using
advances in technology and spectrum efficiency.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bunning,
Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Graham of South
Carolina).
S. 160. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
the expensing of broadband Internet access expenditures, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague
from Montana to introduce legislation to provide tax incentives to
accelerate the deployment of ``broadband'' high-speed Internet access
across the country. Broadband is an issue about which I feel very
strongly, and upon which I will be very focused this year as chairman
of the telecommunications subcommittee of the Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee.
Although many urban and suburban areas now have access to a broadband
connection, many rural areas still do not. And that places rural areas
at a disadvantage in a number of ways in terms of economic development,
educational opportunities, health care and numerous other applications.
By creating a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to
extend their networks into rural and other underserved areas, we can
help overcome that disadvantage.
The bill will create a temporary tax incentive for providers in the
form of ``expensing,'' allowing an immediate deduction of a capital
expenditure in the first year of service rather than depreciating that
investment over time. In the case of ``current generation'' broadband
investments in rural and underserved areas, the bill will allow 50
percent expensing of the investment, with the rest to be depreciated
according to normal depreciation schedules. And where providers build
out ``next generation'' broadband networks, which are typically more
expensive, the bill will provide for 100 percent expensing.
This legislation generally mirrors the broadband tax credit
legislation introduced by my friend from West Virginia, Senator
Rockefeller, in the last Congress. I want to thank the Senator from
West Virginia for his leadership on this issue. The only difference in
that bill and the one we are introducing today is the form of the
incentive, expensing rather than tax credits.
I am proud to tell you that the first broadband tax incentive in the
Nation occurred in great State of Montana. In 1999, Montana enacted a
broadband tax credit, which was in effect for 2 years. In those 2 years
it had very positive results. Here is a quote from one of our public
utility commissioners, Bob Rowe, in one of our State newspapers, The
Missoulian, in June 2001, describing the effect of the Montana
broadband credit:

The results are impressive. Dozens of projects were awarded
tax credits, most of them in rural Montana, places like
Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber. Projects
included DSL, cable modems, and wireless. They also included
projects to provide ``redundant'' access that is critical to
many technology businesses in case service goes out.

That is the kind of effect which a broadband tax incentive can have.
Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber are not large metropolitan
areas. They are small communities of a few hundred people. If a
broadband incentive can have that kind of effect in those places, it
can have that kind of effect anywhere.
Now, what has happened to the Montana broadband credit? Like many
other State tax breaks all across the Nation, it has been suspended,
not repealed, but suspended, because of the current budget shortfall
which the state is facing, which is exactly why we should consider a
Federal broadband incentive at this time, when we are beginning the
process of crafting a package of growth measures to put our economy
back on a solid footing.
And I firmly believe that broadband can have a positive effect on our
economy. A number of very solid studies lead me to this conclusion. A
study conducted by economists at the Federal Reserve Board concluded
that information technology accounted for over 60 percent of the
productivity growth occurring from 1995 to 1999.

During the first half of the 1990s, the average productivity increase
was only 1.5 percent per year. Then, when the Internet began to be
widely used, average annual productivity jumped to 2.8 percent in the
second half of the decade. That is a very significant increase, and it
occurred largely from the ``network effect'' of linking our computers.
Now, what broadband will do is allow us to use those linked computers
for much more advanced applications, video conferencing, real-time
collaboration on large computer files, telemedicine, distance learning,
etc.
And, for those of us from agricultural States, we should be aware of
the applications that our farmers and ranchers might use: Remote
livestock sales, remote monitoring of irrigation facilities, tele-
veterinary, etc. Anyone who thinks farmers don't care about technology
should spend some time on today's modern farm, and they will learn that
American agriculture is one of the most innovative industries in the
world.
Let me give you an example. Deere and Company, the farm equipment
maker, has supported legislation of this type. Others may dismiss this
company as they just make tractors. However, if you were to talk to
them, you would learn that the tractor of tomorrow, indeed of today,
has a lot of high-tech equipment on board that, as it drives through
the fields, gathers information on plant conditions and soil conditions
and moisture content and so forth.
And that is incredibly valuable information to a farming operation.
But to really use that information, you need a broadband connection to
send it from the tractor to, say, a plant specialist a hundred miles
away. Without that broadband connection, it will take a very long time
to transmit the data, which makes it a lot less useful.
One economist, Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute, has
estimated that accelerated deployment of broadband will generate up to
$500 billion in economic growth annually. Talk about an economic
stimulus. I think we would all be delighted to have that happen, and I
believe we should take steps to allow it to do so. This legislation is
an important step in that direction.
And one important reason for us to encourage more broadband
investment is international competitiveness. A number of other
countries, like Japan and China, are now making much greater
investments than the United States in optical fiber and other advanced
telecommunications infrastructure. Japan is now the world's largest
purchaser of fiber, much of which is going to deploy fiber-to-the-home.
In 1 month last year, they wired more homes with fiber than we did in
the entire year.
And although China has been playing catch up on building out their
Internet backbone, they are doing so at a very fast pace and could soon
overtake Japan as the world's biggest fiber market.
It is also happening in Europe. The Government of Sweden has
dedicated

[[Page S303]]

$800 million for broadband deployment in rural areas of the country,
while they have already wired much of Stockholm with fiber-to-the-home.
Last year, France announced that it would invest $1.5 billion on
broadband infrastructure over the next 5 years.
I believe it is extremely important that the United States not fall
behind in telecom and Internet technology, and a financial incentive of
the type provided by this legislation will help ensure that we do not.
Let me briefly describe the specifics of the bill. As I said earlier,
it provides 50 percent expensing for investments in rural and
underserved areas of ``current generation'' broadband technologies,
which are defined as those delivering at least 1.0 megabits per second
of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 128 kilobits
per second upstream from the subscriber.
It provides 100 percent expensing for investments in ``next
generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those
delivering at least 22 megabits per second of information downstream to
the subscriber, and at least 5 megabits per second upstream from the
subscriber. It is technology neutral, it makes no difference if you are
using as your medium copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber,
terrestrial wireless, satellite or something else. If you deliver the
threshold speeds, you are eligible for the benefit. And it sunsets in 5
years. The intent is not to provide a permanent benefit to the telecom
sector, but rather to provide incentive to build out new infrastructure
within a short time period.
And so that my colleagues and the public can read the specifics
themselves, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed
in the Record.
Let me just conclude by saying that I believe this is important
legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will join in supporting it.
I look forward to working with my home State colleague, Senator Baucus,
and also Senator Rockefeller and others to ensure that we push it
through the Congress this year and send it to the President for
signature.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and fellow
Montanan, Senator Burns, in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act.
Montana has led the way in the innovation of a tax incentive to promote
broadband deployment to rural and underserved areas. And today, Senator
Burns and I are continuing to work together to provide Montana and the
Nation with the tools it needs to stay on the cutting edge of
communication technology.
My top goal for my State and the country is to help boost our economy
and create more good paying jobs. This bill will help to do that.
The Broadband Expensing Act will allow businesses to depreciate their
capital investment quicker, allowing them to deploy next generation
networks at a faster pace. In short, the benefits are two-fold:
businesses will benefit by receiving an incentive to roll out their
network into rural areas. And customers will benefit by being able to
send and receive massive amounts of data much faster than before.
The ability to communicate clearly, quickly and effectively is vital
to a healthy economy. The Internet has been an incredible innovation,
but its abilities are limited by an outdated infrastructure. Much of
the network still relies on the same copper wire that Alexander Graham
Bell used when he first designed our telephone system.
It is time to update that infrastructure to soup up the copper wire,
to soup up coaxial cable, to move to optical technologies, and to
develop new wireless products.
As many in the industry have told me, our communications network is
slowly being upgraded all across the country--but often not in rural
America. The main reason is cost. Companies are in business to make
money, and if their costs are too high, they are reluctant to make the
investment. But rural Americans deserve the same kind of high-speed
service that urban Americans have access to.
Long ago we determined that rural Americans deserved the same basic
services electricity, telephone and transportation--and we found
creative ways to provide them with those services. Now it is time to
ensure they have access to broadband as well.
In addition to helping us bring ``current generation'' broadband to
rural and underserved areas, this bill that Senator Burns and I have
introduced will help us move to the ``next generation'' of broadband
state-of-the-art systems that carry much greater amounts of data than
copper wire and coaxial cable.
It is fitting that we introduce this bill today, as we are beginning
discussions about an economic stimulus package. Boosting broadband
service across the country is one more way to boost the economy and
bring more jobs to our rural areas. Broadband will help ensure that our
productivity remains high and that our citizens receive the best
services modern telecommunications have to offer.
The potentials of broadband are limitless. From telemedicine to
distance learning to video conferencing. In rural areas, we will find
even more ways to use broadband, such as tele-veterinary services,
remote monitoring of crops or on-line livestock auctions.
And I want to echo Senator Burns concerns about international
competitiveness. A recent study by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development found that the United States is now sixth
in the world in broadband penetration. Two years ago, we were third.
Last year, we were fourth. Now we are sixth, behind South Korea,
Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium.
We need to move back up the ladder. The United States invented the
Internet. We invented the computer. We invented optical fiber. We
invented many of the devices upon which the Internet depends. So we
can't allow ourselves to fall behind in high-speed Internet service.
I also want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator
Rockefeller, for his important work on the broadband tax credit
legislation. I look forward to his reintroduction of that important
bill and working together to provide Americans with broadband
incentives.
Let me conclude by asking my Senate colleagues for their support of
this bill that will stimulate broadband investment around the country.
Every single American, urban or rural, rich or poor, young or old,
deserve access to this new and exciting technology. I look forward to
working with Senator Burns and others to get this legislation enacted
this year.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my
colleagues from Montana in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. If
enacted, this legislation would bring economic growth to rural America,
and it would help bring community benefits to rural and underserved
areas of the Nation, including many in my home State of Utah.
I think it is striking that most Americans still rely on very
outdated telecommunications infrastructure, the same copper wire we
have used for decades, for their connection to one of the most
important communications innovations in history, the Internet.
This is true in my home State of Utah, where the telecommunications
infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing number of high-tech
firms, manufacturing companies, and very sophisticated workers. Our
major metropolitan areas, of course, have access to high-speed Internet
services. But the connections to most homes and many businesses have
not been upgraded, meaning that data signals hit a bottleneck there and
slow down dramatically.
Consequently, many wonderful Internet applications, such as video
conferencing, large file sharing, telemedicine, and distance learning,
are ineffective or unavailable. And this is certainly true outside the
metropolitan areas of Utah, in the rural communities that are found all
over the State.
One way to help overcome this situation is to offer a financial
incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to
underserved areas of the Nation. That is what this legislation would
do. It would help broadband providers reduce the cost of new
infrastructure. But it is important to note that they will only receive
the benefit of this incentive if they actually build new infrastructure
and actually provide broadband service. No new broadband network, no
tax benefit. That is eminently fair and reasonable, and it is good tax
and public policy.

[[Page S304]]

This is a two-tiered tax incentive. Companies that bring new
``current generation broadband'' to rural and underserved areas would
be able to expense, or write-off, half of their investment immediately.
Companies that bring new ``next generation broadband'' to those rural
or underserved areas, or to other residential areas, would get to write
off immediately 100 percent of their investment.
What is ``current generation'' broadband? It is essentially cable
modem, digital subscriber line, DSL, or wireless broadband service, and
is generally five to ten times faster than a dial-up connection.
Current generation broadband brings photo images to a computer screen
very quickly, and allows the use of simple video applications. ``Next
generation'' broadband, on the other hand, is hundreds of times faster
than dial-up and allows television-quality images to flow from one
computer to another.
In many rural areas of the Nation, dial-up service is all that is
available. Current generation broadband is available in many urban and
suburban communities, but still generally unavailable in rural areas.
And next-generation broadband is only in its infant stages, available
to fewer than 100,000 homes in the United States.
This legislation is well crafted to meet the broadband needs of the
Nation. It would help spur current generation broadband deployment in
areas of the Nation still relying on dial-up, but it would not provide
tax incentives to areas that already have a broadband connection. And
it would help spur the deployment of next generation broadband
everywhere, since that level of service is available to very few people
in the country today.
I look forward to taking a leading role in helping move this bill
through the Finance Committee and the Senate. I am confident that this
legislation will make an important contribution to the construction of
a 21st century telecommunications network that will serve the Nation
well.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs.
Hutchison):
S. 161. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
Protection from Violent Programming Act. This legislation is of vital
importance to our young children and their families.
The purpose of the bill is to require the Federal Communications
Commission to consider whether to institute a ``Safe Harbor'' during
which gratuitously violent television programming could not be
televised to America's children. Today, I am joined in this effort by
several of my colleagues, Senators Hutchison, Inouye, and Dorgan, who
are all original cosponsors of the legislation. I have sponsored
similar legislation in each of the last five Congresses and this same
legislation was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee during
the 106th Congress by a vote of 17 to 1. I feel compelled to
reintroduce this bill again to stem the tide of violent programming
that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society. Unfortunately,
violence in the media begets violence by our youths and we have an
obligation to address this societal problem head on. We know commercial
interests will not, so we must act.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress with
respect to human rights in Central Asia; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the Joint Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect
to human rights in Central Asia, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 3

Whereas the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan provided
the United States with important assistance in the war in
Afghanistan, from military basing and overflight rights to
the facilitation of humanitarian relief;
Whereas America's victory over the Taliban in turn provided
important benefits to the Central Asian nations, removing a
regime that threatened their security, and significantly
weakening the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a terrorist
organization that had previously staged armed raids from
Afghanistan into the region;
Whereas, the United States has consistently urged the
nations of Central Asia to open their political systems and
economies and to respect human rights, both before and since
the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
and Uzbekistan are members of the United Nations and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, both of
which confer a range of human rights obligations on their
members;
Whereas, according to the State Department Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices, the Government of Kazakhstan
harasses and monitors independent media and human rights
activists, restricts freedom of association and opposition
political activity, and allows security forces to commit
extrajudicial executions, torture, and arbitrary detention
with impunity;
Whereas, according to the Department of State, the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic engages in arbitrary arrest
and detention, restricts the activities of political
opposition figures, religious organizations deemed
``extremist,'' human rights activists, and nongovernmental
organizations, and discriminates against ethnic minorities;
Whereas, according to the Department of State, the
Government of Tajikistan remains authoritarian, curtailing
freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, with security
forces committing extrajudicial executions, kidnappings,
disappearances, and torture;
Whereas, according to the Department of State, Turkmenistan
is a Soviet-style one-party state centered around the
glorification of its president, which engages in serious
human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest and
detention, severe restrictions of personal privacy,
repression of political opposition, and restrictions on
freedom of speech and nongovernmental activity;
Whereas, according to the Department of State, the
government of Uzbekistan continues to commit serious human
rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest, detention and
torture in custody, particularly of Muslims who practice
their religion outside state controls, the severe restriction
of freedom of speech, the press, religion, independent
political activity and nongovernmental organizations, and
detains over 7,000 people for political or religious reasons;
Whereas the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom has expressed concern about religious
persecution in the region, recommending that Turkmenistan be
named a Country of Particular Concern under the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and that Uzbekistan be placed
on a special ``Watch List'';
Whereas, by continuing to suppress human rights and to deny
citizens peaceful, democratic means of expressing their
convictions, the nations of Central Asia risk fueling popular
support for violent and extremist movements, thus undermining
the goals of the war on terrorism;
Whereas President Bush has made the defense of ``human
dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state,
respect for women and private property and free speech and
equal justice and religious tolerance'' strategic goals of
United States foreign policy in the Islamic world, arguing
that ``a truly strong nation will permit legal avenues of
dissent for all groups that pursue their aspirations without
violence''; and
Whereas the Congress has expressed its desire to see deeper
reform in Central Asia in past resolutions and other
legislation, most recently conditioning assistance to
Uzbekistan on its progress in meeting human rights and
democracy commitments to the United States: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it
is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan should accelerate democratic
reforms and fulfill their human rights obligations including,
where appropriate, by--
(A) releasing from prison all those jailed for peaceful
political activism or the nonviolent expression of their
political or religious beliefs;
(B) fully investigating any credible allegations of torture
and prosecuting those responsible;
(C) permitting the free and unfettered functioning of
independent media outlets, independent political parties, and
nongovernmental organizations, whether officially registered
or not;
(D) permitting the free exercise of religious beliefs and
ceasing the persecution of members of religious groups and
denominations not registered with the state;
(E) holding free, competitive, and fair elections; and

[[Page S305]]

(F) making publicly available documentation of their
revenues and punishing those engaged in official corruption;
(2) the President, the Secretary of State, and the
Secretary of Defense should--
(A) continue to raise at the highest levels with the
governments of the nations of Central Asia specific cases of
political and religious persecution, and urge greater respect
for human rights and democratic freedoms at every diplomatic
opportunity;
(B) take progress in meeting the goals outlined in
paragraph (1) into account when determining the level and
frequency of United States diplomatic engagement with the
governments of the Central Asian nations, the allocation of
United States assistance, and the nature of United States
military engagement with the countries of the region;
(C) ensure that the provisions of the foreign operations
appropriations Acts are fully implemented to ensure that no
United States assistance benefits security forces in Central
Asia implicated in violations of human rights;
(D) follow the recommendations of the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom by designating
Turkmenistan a Country of Particular Concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and by making
clear that Uzbekistan risks designation if conditions there
do not improve;
(E) press the Government of Turkmenistan to respect the
right of imprisoned opposition leader Boris Shikmuradov to
due process and a fair trial and to release democratic
activists and their family members from prison, and urge the
Government of Russia not to extradite to Turkmenistan members
of that country's political opposition;
(F) work with the Government of Kazakhstan to create a
political climate free of intimidation and harassment,
including releasing political prisoners and permitting the
return of political exiles, most notably Akezan Kazegeldin,
and to reduce official corruption, including by urging the
Government of Kazakhstan to cooperate with the ongoing
Department of Justice investigation; and
(G) support through United States assistance programs those
individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and media outlets
in Central Asia working to build more open societies, to
support the victims of human rights abuses, and to expose
official corruption; and
(3) increased levels of United States assistance to the
governments of the Central Asian nations made possible by
their cooperation in the war in Afghanistan can be sustained
only if there is substantial and continuing progress towards
meeting the goals outlined in paragraph (1).

____________________