[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 12 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1481-S1494]
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, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 205. A bill to authorize the issuance of immigrant visas to, and
the admission to the United States for permanent residence of, certain
scientists, engineers, and technicians who have worked in Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the
United States said something very important about United Nations
inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new
inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that
we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal
activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses
must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond
the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must
have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without
delay, without exceptions.''
The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how
to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of
mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those
banned weapons.
The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge.
On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which
provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all,
including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records,
and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as
immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials
and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the
mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any
aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may
at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may
facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside
of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such
interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi
government.''
The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to
implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families
go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They
can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no
safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible
secrets.
Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and
Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to
South America.
If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with
Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those
people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical,
biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to
absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law
enforcement and security apparatus to guard them.
What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits
large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass
destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,''
and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October,
therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families,
who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us,
to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On
November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S.
3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not
enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation.
Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The
new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable
intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are
beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a
weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack
U.S. forces.
But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from
the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people,
including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid
to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know
that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for
themselves or their families.
To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction,
[[Page S1482]]
UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with
their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this
treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but
that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The protests of those interviewed
can actually be helpful, as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of
his personnel may be willing to tell the truth once they and their
families are given a secure environment.
The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that
secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists
Immigration Act.
I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill,
and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the
Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah.
I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to
see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a
bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to
destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation.
Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and
their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information
will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm
Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it
could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war.
Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants
into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence,
notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are
very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to
accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families.
The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists
Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case-
by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the
Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family
if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of
mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or
has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an
agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has
supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and
will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such
information.
The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal
permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised
information.
Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500
scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the
program, we can do so.
The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial
authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to
reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts
that they and their families will be protected if they help the world
to bring those programs down.
President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are
trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to
world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even
as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the
inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the
President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We
owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to
our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and
with international support.
This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my
colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support.
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. 205
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 ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. ADMISSION OF CRITICAL ALIENS.
(a) Nonimmigrant Category.--Section 101(a)(15) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (U);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (V)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(W) Subject to section 214(s), an alien--
``(i) who the Attorney General determines, in coordination
with the Secretary of State, the Director of Central
Intelligence, and such other officials as he may deem
appropriate, and in the Attorney General's unreviewable
discretion, is an individual--
``(I) who has worked at any time in an Iraqi program to
produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver
them;
``(II) who is in possession of critical and reliable
information concerning any such Iraqi program;
``(III) who is willing to provide, or has provided, such
information to the United States Government;
``(IV) who may be willing to provide, or has provided, such
information to inspectors of the United Nations or of the
International Atomic Energy Agency;
``(V) who will be or has been placed in danger as a result
of providing such information; and
``(VI) whose admission would be in the public interest or
in the interest of national security; or
``(ii) who is the spouse, married or unmarried son or
daughter, parent, or other relative, as determined by the
Attorney General in his unreviewable discretion, of an alien
described in clause (i), if accompanying or following to join
such alien, and whose admission the Attorney General, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
Central Intelligence, determines in his unreviewable
discretion is in the public interest or in the interest of
national security.''.
(b) Limitations and Conditions Applicable to ``W''
Nonimmigrants.--Section 214 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section
105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e)
of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of
Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by
section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act)
as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(s) Numerical Limitations and Conditions of Admission and
Stay For Nonimmigrants Admitted Under Section
101(a)(15)(W).--
``(1) Limitation.--The number of aliens who may be admitted
to the United States or otherwise granted status under
section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) may not exceed a total of 500.
``(2) Conditions.--As a condition for the admission, and
continued stay in lawful status, of any alien admitted to the
United States or otherwise granted status as a nonimmigrant
under section 101(a)(15)(W), the nonimmigrant--
``(A) shall report to the Attorney General such information
concerning the alien's whereabouts and activities as the
Attorney General may require;
``(B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense
punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more after
the date of such admission or grant of status;
``(C) must have executed a form that waives the
nonimmigrant's right to contest, other than on the basis of
an application for withholding of removal or for protection
under the Convention Against Torture, any action for removal
of the alien instituted before the alien obtains lawful
permanent resident status;
``(D) shall cooperate fully with all requests for
information from the United States Government including, but
not limited to, fully and truthfully disclosing to the United
States Government all information in the alien's possession
concerning any Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass
destruction or the means to deliver them; and
``(E) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, or
restriction imposed by the Attorney General.''.
(c) Adjustment of Status.--Section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``or'' before ``(8)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period ``or (9) an alien who
was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(W)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (l), relating to ``U'' visa
nonimmigrants, as subsection (m); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status of `W'
Nonimmigrants.--
``(1) In general.--If, in the opinion of the Attorney
General, a nonimmigrant admitted into the United States (or
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) under section
[[Page S1483]]
101(a)(15)(W)(i) has complied with section 214(s) since such
admission or grant of status, the Attorney General may, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
Central Intelligence, and in his unreviewable discretion,
adjust the status of the alien (and any alien who has
accompanied or followed to join such alien pursuant to
section 101(a)(15)(W)(ii) and who has complied with section
214(s) since admission or grant of nonimmigrant status) to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
the alien is not described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(2) Record of admission; reduction in visa numbers.--Upon
the approval of adjustment of status of any alien under
paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record the alien's
lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of
such approval and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one
the number of visas authorized to be issued under sections
201(d) and 203(b)(4) for the fiscal year then current.''.
(d) Waiver Authority.--Section 212(d) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Attorney General shall determine whether a ground
of inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant
described in section 101(a)(15)(W). The Attorney General, in
the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the application
of subsection (a) in the case of such a nonimmigrant if the
Attorney General considers it to be in the public interest or
in the interest of national security.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 248(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1258(1)) is amended
by striking ``or (S)'' and inserting ``(S), or (W)''.
SEC. 3. WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFINED.
(a) In General.--In this Act, the term ``weapon of mass
destruction'' has the meaning given the term in section
1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717;
50 U.S.C. 2302(1)), as amended by subsection (b).
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 1403(1)(B) of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996
(title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C.
2302(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``a disease organism'' and
inserting ``a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those
terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States
Code)''.
______
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a 10-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
encourage a more environmentally friendly electricity future for the
United States.
The bill I am introducing would provide for a ten-year extension of
the tax credit for producing electricity from wind. I believe that an
extension of this length will provide stability to this important
emerging energy sector.
For the past several years, we have provided short-term extensions,
sometimes retroactively, of this important tax incentive. The result
has been that investors and utilities have been hesitant to commit the
capital necessary to bring wind projects on line.
A major European wind turbine manufacturer had planned to build its
first U.S. manufacturing facility in Portland, OR. The plant was
expected to provide over 1,000 family-wage jobs once operational.
Unfortunately, last November, the corporation announced it would put
those plans on hold and lay off more than 500 employees. This happened
at a time when Oregon already had one of the highest unemployment rates
in the country.
The main reason given for putting on hold this facility was the
failure of the Congress to clarify the production tax credit for wind
energy. Slow demand in this economic downturn was also cited.
However, our economy is going to rebound. And when it does, the
demand for electricity will increase. There is already over 180
megawatts of installed wind energy capacity, with another 150 megawatts
of planned development. The Stateline Wind Energy Project, which
straddles the Oregon-Washington border, has over 263 megawatts of
installed capacity, making it the largest wind farm to date in the
western United States.
When the Senate passed national energy legislation last year, there
was a strong, bipartisan commitment to renewable energy resources. We
can use the tax code to encourage the development of clean, renewable
sources of electricity and a new generation of advanced technology
vehicles. These vehicles can reduce our reliance on imported oil
because their fuel efficiency is greatly improved and there are lower
emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-forming pollutants.
I have always held that if we use technology wisely, we can improve
our environmental stewardship while maintaining our human stewardship
and the standard of living we enjoy in this great Nation.
I would urge my colleague to join me in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 208. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop and implement a plan to provide security for cargo entering the
United States or being transported in intrastate or interestate
commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed
at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's
aviation security network.
In the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks, with the passage of
the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security.
We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put
the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made
significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American
people that it is safe to fly.
We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line''
interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the
gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air
marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues.
But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are
to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the after
math of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-do''
attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done,'' because we are only
as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system.
I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to
this day, is lax air cargo security infrastructure in this country.
According to the GAO, a full 22 percent of all the cargo shipped by air
in this country in 2000 was shipped on passenger flights and typically
half of the hull of every passenger plane is filled with cargo. The
Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that
current air cargo controls be tightened, particularly the process for
certifying freight forwarders and assessing their compliance with
security requirements, and has warned that the existing screening
system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand.
Moreover, according to a Washington Post report last summer, Internal
Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased
risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA
has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen
passengers and luggage.
This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And
time is not on our side. We must act now. The bill I am introducing
today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the TSA to submit a
detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the
shortcomings in the current system.
And while TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would
require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The
interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5
percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that
terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of
each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance,
training and background checks for cargo handlers, and funding for
screening and detection equipment.
On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our
commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation
and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right
direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would
commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men,
women, and children.
This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set in 2001. I
urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.
[[Page S1484]]
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Levin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Allen):
S. 209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive
the income inclusion on a distribution from an individual retirement
account to the extent that the distribution is contributed for
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today that will enhance and encourage charitable giving in the United
States. The Charitable IRA Rollover Act will allow individuals to
rollover assets from an Individual Retirement Account, or ``IRA,'' to a
charity without incurring income tax consequences.
One of my priorities has been to promote charitable giving and expand
the role charities and faith-based institutions play in addressing
social problems in the United States. I hope this legislation moves us
further in that direction.
Government alone cannot solve society's most serious problems. In
fact, government social programs often fail in their missions. The old
welfare system is a perfect example of what often goes wrong when
government tends to throw money at a problem.
Under the old system, while trying to help people, government
actually encouraged them to stay on welfare. It encouraged out-of-
wedlock births and discouraged fathers from living at home. Many of
these unintended consequences were addressed with the welfare reform
bill, which will be reauthorized this year. The success of these
reforms are evident in welfare rolls, which have now dropped by half
across the United States.
But government is not the solution. Charities change hearts and lives
and have a superior track record to the government in tackling social
ills.
America's top charities address a broad range of problems. From the
Salvation Army to the Boys and Girls Clubs, and the American Cancer
Society to the Red Cross, each plays a role in improving America's
health, education and welfare. Their success has been documented. It
has been demonstrated that mentors in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
program can cut drug abuse by 50 percent.
Charitable giving is an American tradition. Americans appreciate the
role of charities and are actively involved in many philanthropic
causes. Nearly half of all Americans volunteer in some capacity on a
regular basis, including nearly 25 percent of Americans who are active
volunteers in religious affiliated organizations. That is why it is
logical to use faith-based organizations as a means of accomplishing
objectives which can be more personal and tailored to the individual in
need.
The legislation I am introducing today helps these organizations by
making it easier for people to make charitable contributions.
Individuals age 59\1/2\ and older will be able to move assets without
penalty from an IRA directly to a charity or into a qualifying deferred
charitable gift plan, such as a charitable remainder trust, pooled
income fund or gift annuity. Current law requires taxpayers to first
withdraw the IRA proceeds and pay taxes on them before contributing the
remaining funds to a charity. While current law allows taxes on the
withdrawal to be offset somewhat by the current charitable deduction,
this ability is limited.
Americans currently hold more than $2 trillion in assets in IRAs, and
nearly 40 percent of American households have IRAs. This bill would
allow senior citizens who have provided well for their retirement to
transfer IRA funds to charities without the government taking a slice.
This will cut bureaucratic obstacles and disincentives to charitable
giving and unlock a substantial amount of new funds that could flow to
America's charitable organizations.
The time for promoting charitable giving has come.
This proposal benefits everyone involved. Individuals will be able to
give more of their savings to charities of importance to them.
Charities will benefit from increased philanthropy, enabling them to
continue their important work. Those needing help will have increased
access to services from these charities. And the government will have
to take care of fewer of those in need as charities are better able to
assume that burden.
This is not a partisan proposal. It is a common sense way to remove
obstacles to charitable giving. Senators Durbin and Levin are original
co-sponsors of this legislation. I look forward to working with them,
the White House and many other colleagues to pass this bill. I hope the
Senate will join in this effort to provide a valuable source of
philanthropy for our nation's charities.
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:
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 ``Charitable IRA Rollover Act
of 2003.''.
SEC. 2. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual
retirement accounts) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account to an organization described
in section 170(c).
``(B) Special rules relating to charitable remainder
trusts, pooled income funds, and charitable gift annuities.--
``(i) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account--
``(I) to a charitable remainder annuity trust or a
charitable remainder unitrust (as such terms are defined in
section 664(d)),
``(II) to a pooled income fund (as defined in section
642(c)(5)), or
``(III) for the issuance of a charitable gift annuity (as
defined in section 501(m)(5)).
The preceding sentence shall apply only if no person holds an
income interest in the amounts in the trust, fund, or annuity
attributable to such distribution other than one or more of
the following: the individual for whose benefit such account
is maintained, the spouse of such individual, or any
organization described in section 170(c).
``(ii) Determination of inclusion of amounts distributed.--
In determining the amount includible in the gross income of
any person by reason of a payment or distribution from a
trust referred to in clause (i)(I) or a charitable gift
annuity (as so defined), the portion of any qualified
charitable distribution to such trust or for such annuity
which would (but for this subparagraph) have been includible
in gross income--
``(I) shall be treated as income described in section
664(b)(1), and
``(II) shall not be treated as an investment in the
contract.
``(iii) No inclusion for distribution to pooled income
fund.--No amount shall be includible in the gross income of a
pooled income fund (as so defined) by reason of a qualified
charitable distribution to such fund.
``(C) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution'
means any distribution from an individual retirement
account--
``(i) which is made on or after the date that the
individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has
attained age 59\1/2\, and
``(ii) which is made directly from the account to--
``(I) an organization described in section 170(c), or
``(II) a trust, fund, or annuity referred to in
subparagraph (B).
``(D) Denial of deduction.--The amount allowable as a
deduction under section 170 to the taxpayer for the taxable
year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the
amounts of the qualified charitable distributions during such
year which would be includible in the gross income of the
taxpayer for such year but for this paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the charitable IRA Rollover Act of 2003.
We have introduced this legislation in the last two Congresses. Senator
Hutchison and I sincerely hope that this legislation will finally
become law this year.
The IRA Charitable Rollover Act has the support of numerous
charitable organizations across the United States. The effect of this
bill would be to unlock billions of dollars in savings Americans hold
and make them available to charities. Our legislation will allow
individuals to roll assets from an Individual Retirement Account into a
charity or a deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income
tax consequences. Thus, the donation
[[Page S1485]]
would be made to charity without ever withdrawing it as income and
paying tax on it.
Americans currently hold about $2 trillion in assets in IRAs. This
represents over one-fifth of Americans' total retirement market assets
and will likely grow due to the increased contribution limits enacted
as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001. Recent studies show that assets of qualified retirement plans,
such as IRAs, comprise a substantial part of peoples' net worth. Many
of these individuals would like to give a portion of these assets to
charity, but are reluctant to do so because of the tax consequences.
Under our current law, if money from an IRA is transferred to a
charitable organization or into a charitable remainder trust, donors
are required to recognize that as income. Therefore, absent the changes
called for in the legislation, the donor will have taxable income in
the year the gift is funded. This is a huge disincentive contained in
our complicated and burdensome tax code. This legislation will unleash
a critical source of funding for our Nation's charities. This
legislation will provide millions of Americans with a commonsense way
to remove obstacles to private charitable giving.
Under the Hutchison-Durbin plan, an individual, upon reaching age
59\1/2\, could move assets penalty- and tax-free from an IRA directly
to charity or into a qualifying deferred charitable gift plan--e.g.
charitable remainder trusts, pooled income funds and gift annuities. In
the latter case the donor would be able to receive an income stream
from the retirement plan assets, which would be taxed according to
normal rules. Upon the death of the individual, the remainder would be
transferred to charity tax free.
There are numerous supporters of this legislation including the Art
Institute of Chicago, the University of Chicago, the Field Museum, the
Catholic Diocese of Peoria, Northwestern University, the Chicago
Symphony Orchestra, Georgetown University, and others. There are over
100 groups in Illinois alone that support this sensible legislation.
I hope the Senate will join in this bipartisan effort to provide a
valuable new source of philanthropy for our Nation's charities. I hope
that our colleagues will cosponsor this important piece of legislation
and that it will be enacted into law this year. I thank the Senator
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for working with me and my staff in this
effort.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN.
S. 210. A bill to provide for the protection of archaeological sites
in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce
legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the
Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two
dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos
dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish
conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they
encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of
religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an
extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up
through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted,
although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700
years of continuous use.
Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only
about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the
first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The
Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to
these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious
significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of
the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local
support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City
of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to
thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past
several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in
helping with this legislation.
Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered
by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already
provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I
was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in
the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from
that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these
sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either
the Santa Fe or Washington hearings.
This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner
with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal
lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that
the bill did not infringe on private property rights.
Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get
the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last
Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a
larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this
bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost,
whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the
Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to
take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for
improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites.
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. 210
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Galisteo Basin
Archaeological Sites Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Galisteo Basin and surrounding area of New Mexico
is the location of many well preserved prehistoric and
historic archaeological resources of Native American and
Spanish colonial cultures;
(2) these resources include the largest ruins of Pueblo
Indian settlements in the United States, spectacular examples
of Native American rock art, and ruins of Spanish colonial
settlements; and
(3) these resources are being threatened by natural causes,
urban development, vandalism, and uncontrolled excavations.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the
preservation, protection, and interpretation of the
nationally significant archaeological resources in the
Galisteo Basin in New Mexico.
SEC. 3. GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROTECTION SITES.
(a) In General.--The following archaeological sites located
in the Galisteo Basin in the State of New Mexico, totaling
approximately 4,591 acres, are hereby designated as Galisteo
Basin Archaeological Protection Sites:
Name Acres
Arroyo Hondo Pueblo..................................................21
Burnt Corn Pueblo...................................................110
Chamisa Locita Pueblo................................................16
Comanche Gap Petroglyphs............................................764
Espinoso Ridge Site.................................................160
La Cienega Pueblo & Petroglyphs.....................................126
La Cienega Pithouse Village.........................................179
La Cieneguilla Petroglyphs/Camino Real Site.........................531
La Cieneguilla Pueblo................................................11
Lamy Pueblo..........................................................30
Lamy Junction Site...................................................80
Las Huertas..........................................................44
Pa'ako Pueblo........................................................29
Petroglyph Hill.....................................................130
Pueblo Blanco.......................................................878
Pueblo Colorado.....................................................120
Pueblo Galisteo/Las Madres..........................................133
Pueblo Largo.........................................................60
Pueblo She..........................................................120
Rote Chert Quarry.....................................................5
San Cristobal Pueblo................................................520
San Lazaro Pueblo...................................................360
San Marcos Pueblo...................................................152
Upper Arroyo Hondo Pueblo............................................12
________
Total Acreage.................................................4,591
(b) Availability of Maps.--The archaeological protection
sites listed in subsection (a) are generally depicted on a
series of 19 maps entitled ``Galisteo Basin Archaeological
Protection Sites'' and dated July, 2002. The Secretary of the
Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
keep the maps on file and available for public inspection in
appropriate offices in New Mexico of the Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service.
(c) Boundary Adjustments.--The Secretary may make minor
boundary adjustments to the archaeological protection sites
[[Page S1486]]
by publishing notice thereof in the Federal Register.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL SITES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) continue to search for additional Native American and
Spanish colonial sites in the Galisteo Basin area of New
Mexico; and
(2) submit to Congress, within three years after the date
funds become available and thereafter as needed,
recommendations for additions to, deletions from, and
modifications of the boundaries of the list of archaeological
protection sites in section 3 of this Act.
(b) Additions Only by Statute.--Additions to or deletions
from the list in section 3 shall be made only by an Act of
Congress.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--
(1) The Secretary shall administer archaeological
protection sites located on Federal land in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.
3001 et seq.), and other applicable laws in a manner that
will protect, preserve, and maintain the archaeological
resources and provide for research thereon.
(2) The Secretary shall have no authority to administer
archaeological protection sites which are on non-Federal
lands except to the extent provided for in a cooperative
agreement entered into between the Secretary and the
landowner.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to extend the
authorities of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act to private lands which are designated as an
archaeological protection site.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Within three complete fiscal years after
the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall
prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on
Natural Resources of the United States House of
Representatives, a general management plan for the
identification, research, protection, and public
interpretation of--
(A) the archaeological protection sites located on Federal
land; and
(B) for sites on State or private lands for which the
Secretary has entered into cooperative agreements pursuant to
section 6 of this Act.
(2) Consultation.--The general management plan shall be
developed by the Secretary in consultation with the Governor
of New Mexico, the New Mexico State Land Commissioner,
affected Native American pueblos, and other interested
parties.
SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with owners of non-Federal lands with regard to an
archaeological protection site, or portion thereof, located
on their property. The purpose of such an agreement shall be
to enable the Secretary to assist with the protection,
preservation, maintenance, and administration of the
archaeological resources and associated lands. Where
appropriate, a cooperative agreement may also provide for
public interpretation of the site.
SEC. 7. ACQUISITIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
lands and interests therein within the boundaries of the
archaeological protection sites, including access thereto, by
donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
by exchange.
(b) Consent of Owner Required.--The Secretary may only
acquire lands or interests therein with the consent of the
owner thereof.
(c) State Lands.--The Secretary may acquire lands or
interests therein owned by the State of New Mexico or a
political subdivision thereof only by donation or exchange,
except that State trust lands may only be acquired by
exchange.
SEC. 8. WITHDRAWAL.
Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within
the archaeological protection sites are hereby withdrawn--
(1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal
under the public land laws and all amendments thereto;
(2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining law
and all amendments thereto; and
(3) from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and
geothermal leasing, and all amendments thereto.
SEC. 9. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to authorize the regulation of privately owned lands
within an area designated as an archaeological protection
site;
(2) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands;
(3) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, tribal, or local governments to manage or
regulate any use of land as provided for by law or
regulation; or
(4) to restrict or limit a tribe from protecting cultural
or religious sites on tribal lands.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 211. A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage
Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern
New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in
sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local
residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are
working together to preserve the area.
By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I
hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern
New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish
colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage
Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents,
students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and
interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural
resources of northern New Mexico.
Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably
reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed
by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage
area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill
prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is
non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that
we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as
soon as possible.
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. 211
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Rio Grande National
Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) northern New Mexico encompasses a mosaic of cultures
and history, including eight Pueblos and the descendants of
Spanish ancestors who settled in the area in 1598;
(2) the combination of cultures, languages, folk arts,
customs, and architecture make northern New Mexico unique;
(3) the area includes spectacular natural, scenic, and
recreational resources;
(4) there is broad support from local governments and
interested individuals to establish a National Heritage Area
to coordinate and assist in the preservation and
interpretation of these resources;
(5) in 1991, the National Park Service study Alternative
Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization identified
several alternatives consistent with the establishment of a
National Heritage Area, including conducting a comprehensive
archaeological and historical research program, coordinating
a comprehensive interpretation program, and interpreting a
cultural heritage scene; and
(6) establishment of a National Heritage Area in northern
New Mexico would assist local communities and residents in
preserving these unique cultural, historical and natural
resources.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``heritage area'' means the Northern Rio
Grande Heritage Area; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
SEC. 4. NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of
New Mexico.
(b) Boundaries.--The heritage area shall include the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Taos.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, Inc., a
non-profit corporation chartered in the State of New Mexico,
shall serve as the management entity for the heritage area.
(2) The Board of Directors for the management entity shall
include representatives of the State of New Mexico, the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Taos, tribes and pueblos
within the heritage area, the cities of Santa Fe, Espanola
and Taos, and members of the general public. The total number
of Board members and the number of Directors representing
State, local and tribal governments and interested
communities shall be established to ensure that all parties
have appropriate representation on the Board.
[[Page S1487]]
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.
(a) Management Plan.--
(1) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the management entity shall develop and forward to
the Secretary a management plan for the heritage area.
(2) The management entity shall develop and implement the
management plan in cooperation with affected communities,
tribal and local governments and shall provide for public
involvement in the development and implementation of the
management plan.
(3) The management plan shall, at a minimum--
(A) provide recommendations for the conservation, funding,
management, and development of the resources of the heritage
area;
(B) identify sources of funding.
(C) include an inventory of the cultural, historical,
archaeological, natural, and recreational resources of the
heritage area;
(D) provide recommendations for educational and
interpretive programs to inform the public about the
resources of the heritage area; and
(E) include an analysis of ways in which local, State,
Federal, and tribal programs may best be coordinated to
promote the purposes of this Act.
(4) If the management entity fails to submit a management
plan to the secretary as provided in paragraph (1), the
heritage area shall no longer be eligible to receive Federal
funding under this Act until such time as a plan is submitted
to the Secretary.
(5) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove the
management plan within 90 days after the date of submission.
If the Secretary disapproves the management plan, the
Secretary shall advise the management entity in writing of
the reasons therefore and shall make recommendations for
revisions to the plan.
(6) The management entity shall periodically review the
management plan and submit to the Secretary any
recommendations for proposed revisions to the management
plan. Any major revisions to the management plan must be
approved by the Secretary.
(b) Authority.--The management entity may make grants and
provide technical assistance to tribal and local governments,
and other public and private entities to carry out the
management plan.
(c) Duties.--The management entity shall--
(1) give priority in implementing actions set forth in the
management plan;
(2) coordinate with tribal and local governments to better
enable them to adopt land use policies consistent with the
goals of the management plan;
(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in
the heritage area consistent with the goals of the management
plan; and
(4) assist local and tribal governments and non-profit
organizations in--
(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the heritage area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the heritage area;
(C) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for,
the cultural, historical, archaeological and natural
resources and sits in the heritage area;
(D) the restoration of historic structures related to the
heritage area; and
(E) carrying out other actions that the management entity
determines appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this Act,
consistent with the management plan.
(d) Prohibition on Acquiring Real Property.--The management
entity may not use Federal funds received under this Act to
acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(e) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall hold
public meetings at least annually regarding the
implementation of the management plan.
(f) Annual Reports and Audits.--
(1) For any year in which the management entity receives
Federal funds under this Act, the management entity shall
submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth
accomplishments, expenses and income, and each entity to
which any grant was made by the management entity.
(2) The management entity shall make available to the
Secretary for audit all records relating to the expenditure
of Federal funds and any matching funds. The management
entity shall also require, for all agreements authorizing
expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organization make available to the Secretary for
audit all records concerning the expenditure of those funds.
SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may,
upon request of the management entity, provide technical and
financial assistance to develop and implement the management
plan.
(b) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions that
facilitate--
(1) the conservation of the significant natural, cultural,
historical, archaeological, scenic, and recreational
resources of the heritage area; and
(2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities consistent with the resources and
associated values of the heritage area.
SEC. 7. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) No Effect on Private Property.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed--
(1) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands; or
(2) to grant the management entity any authority to
regulate the use of privately owned lands.
(b) Tribal Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall restrict or
limit a tribe from protecting cultural or religious sites on
tribal lands.
(c) Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this Act shall--
(1) modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal,
State, tribal, or local governments to manage or regulate any
use of land as provided for by law or regulation; or
(2) authorize the management entity to assume any
management authorities over such lands.
(d) Trust Responsibilities.--Nothing in this Act shall
diminish the Federal Government's trust responsibilities or
government-to-government obligations to any federally
recognized Indian tribe.
SEC. 8. SUNSET.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
total cost of any activity assisted under this Act shall be
not more than 50 percent.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 212. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
cooperate with the High Plains States in conducting a hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High
Plains Aquifer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It
will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization,
mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which
extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the
subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power
Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It
is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full
Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and
Domenici in introducing this bill.
The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the
Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is
experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the
source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains
region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure
that sound and objective science is available with respect to the
hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer.
This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization,
Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,'' would direct the Secretary of
the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High
Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with
the eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The
U.S. Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to
further the goals of this program, with half of the available funds
directed to the State component of the program.
A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and
livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural
areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water,
ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying
the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this
groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the
aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This
threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains.
The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant
science needed to address this problem is available so that we will
have a better understanding of the resources of
[[Page S1488]]
the High Plains Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again
supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 212
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``High Plains Aquifer
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
Association of American State Geologists.
(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Western States
Water Council.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Geological Survey.
(4) Federal Component.--The term ``Federal component''
means the Federal component of the High Plains Aquifer
Comprehensive Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
Modeling and Monitoring Program described in section 3(c).
(5) High Plains Aquifer.--The term ``High Plains Aquifer''
is the groundwater reserve depicted as Figure 1 in the United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-B, titled
``Geohydrology of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of
Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.''.
(6) High Plains Aquifer States.--The term ``High Plains
Aquifer States'' means the States of Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and
Wyoming.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State Component.--The term ``State component'' means
the State component of the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program described in section 3(d).
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) Program.--The Secretary, working through the United
States Geological Survey, and in cooperation with
participating State geological surveys and water management
agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States, shall establish
and carry out the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program, for the purposes of the characterization,
mapping, modeling, and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer.
The Program shall undertake on a county-by-county level or at
the largest scales and most detailed levels determined to be
appropriate on a state-by-state and regional basis: (1)
mapping of the hydrogeological configuration of the High
Plains Aquifer; and (2) with respect to the High Plains
Aquifer, analyses of the current and past rates at which
groundwater is being withdrawn and recharged, the net rate of
decrease or increase in High Plains Aquifer storage, the
factors controlling the rate of horizontal and vertical
migration of water within the High Plains Aquifer, and the
current and past rate of change of saturated thickness within
the High Plains Aquifer. The Program shall also develop, as
recommended by the State panels referred to in subsection
(d)(1), regional data bases and groundwater flow models.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary shall make available fifty
percent of the funds available pursuant to this title for use
in carrying out the State component of the Program, as
provided for by subsection (d).
(c) Federal Program Component.--
(1) Priorities.--The Program shall include a Federal
component, developed in consultation with the Federal Review
Panel provided for by subsection (e), which shall have as its
priorities--
(A) coordinating Federal, State, and local, data, maps, and
models into an integrated physical characterization of the
High Plains Aquifer;
(B) supporting State and local activities with scientific
and technical specialists; and
(C) undertaking activities and providing technical
capabilities not available at the State and local levels.
(2) Interdisciplinary Studies.--The Federal component shall
include interdisciplinary studies that add value to
hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and
monitoring for the High Plains Aquifer.
(d) State Program Component.--
(1) Priorities--Upon election by a High Plains Aquifer
State, the State may participate in the State component of
the Program which shall have as its priorities hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling, and monitoring
activities in areas of the High Plains Aquifer that will
assist in addressing issues relating to groundwater depletion
and resource assessment of the Aquifer. As a condition of
participating in the State component of the Program, the
Governor or Governor's designee shall appoint a State panel
representing a broad range of users of, and persons
knowledgeable regarding, hydrogeologic data and information,
which shall be appointed by the Governor of the State or the
Governor's designee. Priorities under the State component
shall be based upon the recommendations of the State panel.
(2) Awards.--(A) Twenty percent of the Federal funds
available under the State component shall be equally divided
among the State geological surveys of the High Plains Aquifer
States to carry out the purposes of the Program provided for
by this title. In the event that the State geological survey
is unable to utilize the funding for such purposes, the
Secretary may, upon the petition of the Governor of the
State, direct the funding to some other agency of the State
to carry out the purposes of the Program.
(B) In the case of a High Plains Aquifer State that has
elected to participate in the State component of the Program,
the remaining funds under the State component shall be
competitively awarded to State or local agencies or entities
in the High Plains Aquifer States, including State geological
surveys, State water management agencies, institutions of
higher education, or consortia of such agencies or entities.
A State may submit a proposal for the United States
Geological Survey to undertake activities and provide
technical capabilities not available at the State and local
levels. Such funds shall be awarded by the Director only for
proposals that have been recommended by the State panels
referred to in subsection (d)(1), subjected to independent
peer review, and given final prioritization and
recommendation by the Federal Review Panel established under
subsection (e). Proposals for multistate activities must be
recommended by the State panel of at least one of the
affected States.
(e) Federal Review Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--There shall be established a Federal
Review Panel to evaluate the proposals submitted for funding
under the State component under subsection (d)(2)(B) and to
recommend approvals and levels of funding. In addition, the
Federal Review Panel shall review and coordinate the Federal
component priorities under subsection (c)(1), Federal
interdisciplinary studies under subsection (c)(2), and the
State component priorities under subsection (d)(1).
(2) Composition and Support.--Not later than 3 months after
the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall
appoint to the Federal Review Panel: (1) three
representatives of the United States Geological Survey, at
least one of which shall be a hydrologist or hydrogeologist;
and (2) four representatives of the geological surveys and
water management agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States
from lists of nominees provided by the Association and the
Council, so that there are two representatives of the State
geological surveys and two representatives of the State water
management agencies. Appointment to the Panel shall be for a
term of 3 years. The Director shall provide technical and
administrative support to the Federal Review Panel. Expenses
for the Federal Review Panel shall be paid from funds
available under the Federal component of the Program.
(f) Limitation.--The United States Geological Survey shall
not use any of the Federal funds to be made available under
the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect,
servicing, or Program management charges. Recipients of
awards granted under subsection (d)(2)(B) shall not use more
than 18 percent of the Federal award amount for any fiscal
year for indirect, servicing, or Program management charges.
The Federal share of the costs of an activity funded under
subsection (d)(2)(B) shall be no more than 50 percent of the
total cost of that activity. The Secretary may apply the
value of in-kind contributions of property and services to
the non-Federal share of the costs of the activity.
SEC. 4. PLAN.
The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, in
consultation with the Association, the Council, the Federal
Review Panel, and the State panels, prepare a plan for the
High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive Hydrogeologic
Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Program.
The plan shall address overall priorities for the Program and
a management structure and Program operations, including the
role and responsibilities of the United States Geological
Survey and the States in the Program, and mechanisms for
identifying priorities for the Federal component and the
State component.
SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Report on Program Implementation.--One year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter
through fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall submit a report
on the status of implementation of the Program established by
this Act to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate, the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, and the Governors of the High Plains Aquifer
States. The initial report submitted by the Secretary shall
contain the plan required by section 4.
(b) Report on High Plains Aquifer.--One year after the date
of enactment of this Act and every year thereafter through
fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and
the Governors of the High Plains Aquifer States on the status
of the High Plains Aquifer, including aquifer recharge rates,
extraction rates, saturated thickness, and water table
levels.
[[Page S1489]]
(c) Role of Federal Review Panel.--The Federal Review Panel
shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on the
reports required by this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011 to
carry out this Act .
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 213. A bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of
my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate
during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by
clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande.
More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its
plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a
city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational
center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.
The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the
City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of
the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall
project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997,
purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach
has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public
park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased
by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.
In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, in had acquired ownership
of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity
of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the
City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.
This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the
Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation,
the delay with be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has
already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of
the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that
Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the
properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these
properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is
narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the
two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to
project works is left for the courts to decide.
I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue
which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we
do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should
also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to
solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 213
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Albuquerque Biological Park
Title Clarification Act''.
SEC 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) In 1997, the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico paid
$3,875,000 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to
acquire two parcels of land known as Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park.
(2) The City intends to develop and improve Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park as part of its Albuquerque Biological
Park Project.
(3) In 2000, the United States claimed title to Tingley
Beach and San Gabriel Park by asserting that these properties
were transferred to the United States in the 1950's as part
of the establishment of the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(4) The City's ability to continue developing the
Albuquerque Biological Park Project has been hindered by the
United States claim of title to these properties.
(5) The United States claim of ownership over the Middle
Rio Grande Project properties is disputed by the City and
MRGCD in Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III, No.
CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE (D. N.M. filed Nov. 15, 1999).
(6) Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are surplus to the
needs of the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States in
administering the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed conveying
any right, title, and interest the United States may have in
and to Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park to the City, thereby
removing the cloud on the City's title to these lands.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
(2) Middle rio grande conservancy district.--The terms
``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' and ``MRGCD'' mean
a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico, created
in 1925 to provide and maintain flood protection and
drainage, and maintenance of ditches, canals, and
distribution systems for irrigation and water delivery and
operations in the Middle Rio Grande Valley.
(3) Middle rio grande project.--The term ``Middle Rio
Grande Project'' means the works associated with water
deliveries and operations in the Rio Grande basin as
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-
858; 62 Stat. 1175) and the Flood Control Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-516; 64 Stat. 170).
(4) San gabriel park.--The term ``San Gabriel Park'' means
the tract of land containing 40.2236 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 12 and Section 13, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
(5) Tingley beach.--The term ``Tingley Beach'' means the
tract of land containing 25.2005 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 13 and Section 24, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROPERTY INTEREST.
(a) Required Action.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
issue a quitclaim deed conveying any right, title, and
interest the United States may have in and to Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park to the City.
(b) Timing.--The Secretary shall carry out the action in
subsection (a) as soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this title and in accordance with all applicable
law.
(c) No Additional Payment.--The City shall not be required
to pay any additional costs to the United States for the
value of San Gabriel Park and Tingley Beach.
SEC. 5. OTHER RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS UNAFFECTED.
(a) In general.--Except as expressly provided in section 4,
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any right,
title, or interest in and to any land associated with the
Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Ongoing Litigation.--Nothing contained in this Act
shall be construed or utilized to affect or otherwise
interfere with any position set forth by any party in the
lawsuit pending before the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE,
entitled Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III,
concerning the right, title, or interest in and to any
property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 214. A bill to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the
State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New
Mexico as a National Historic Landmark.
Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a
military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its
role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital.
During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its
closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard
served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role
in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical
significance of the site.
[[Page S1490]]
From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its
soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected
settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers
were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought
heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at
Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area
following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men
and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of
what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were
recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was
dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually
became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no
longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western
frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard
was scheduled for closure in 1899.
Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to
depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at
Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the
surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military
sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the
treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from
pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the
fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the
``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years
of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small,
nearly self-sufficient community.
In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United
States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second
phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was
created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating
hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans
requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the
United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the
Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital
No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis,
however, remained the same.
By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility
located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans'
Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in
part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended
upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for
the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since
then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol
rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive
cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the
State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of
the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans'
Administration.
For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort
Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National
Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story
that is important to the entire nation.
Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably
reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in
a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and
it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that
we can expeditiously consider the bill this year.
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. 214
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Bayard National
Historic Landmark Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Bayard, located in southwest New Mexico, was an
Army post from 1866 and 1899, and served an important role in
the settlement of New Mexico;
(2) among the troops stationed at the fort were several
``Buffalo Soldier'' units who fought in the Apache Wars;
(3) following its closure as a military post, Fort Bayard
was established by the War Department as general hospital for
use as a military sanatorium;
(4) in 1965 the State of New Mexico assumed management of
the site and currently operates the Fort Bayard State
Hospital;
(5) the Fort Bayard historic site has been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the
national significance of its history, both as a military fort
and as an historic medical facility.
SEC. 3. FORT BAYARD NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.
(a) Designation.--The Fort Bayard Historic District in
Grant County, New Mexico, as listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, is hereby designated as the Fort Bayard
National Historic Landmark.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Consistent with the Department of the Interior's
regulations concerning National Historic Landmarks (36 C.F.R.
Part 65), designation of the Fort Bayard Historic District as
a National Historic Landmark shall not prohibit under Federal
law or regulations any actions which may otherwise be taken
by the property owner with respect to the property.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the administration of
the Fort Bayard Historic District by the State of New Mexico.
SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State of New Mexico, may enter into cooperative agreements
with appropriate public or private entities, for the purpose
of protecting historic resources at Fort Bayard and providing
educational and interpretive facilities and programs for the
public. The Secretary shall not enter into any agreement or
provide assistance to any activity affecting Fort Bayard
State Hospital without the concurrence of the State of
Mexico.
(b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may
provide technical and financial assistance with any entity
with which the Secretary has entered into a cooperative
agreement under subsection (a) in furtherance of the
agreement.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 215. A bill to authorize funding assistance for the States for the
discharge of homeland security activities by the National Guard; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am
pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson,
Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill.
In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland
security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State,
and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding
for such plans.
The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National
Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect.
112.
Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to
law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported,
manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction
programs.
The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard
Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General
Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the
United States, and National Guardsmen across the country.
Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense
because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government,
is located in almost every American community, and has the
capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks
on the homeland.
In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard
more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country.
Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack,
foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War.
[[Page S1491]]
And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the
troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and
the Spanish-American War.
It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase
the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army
Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their
role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland
duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State
governor.
In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which
generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are
used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil
authorities.
The National Guard's access to military command and control,
discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to
coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency
responders.
The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the
Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United
States.
There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout
the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard.
The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run
from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the
State and recruitment efforts.
In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and
the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard
should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks,
particularly those with weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping
respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also
at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere.
For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil
Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event,
advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional
military forces, if needed.
The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland
security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact
the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country;
integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response
networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal
government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in
Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for
and experienced with homeland security missions, including air
sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass
destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical,
communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has
existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and
a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and
helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal
sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role.
Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005
Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded
role in homeland security.
Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism
commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have
recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the
war on terrorism.
In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our
country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to pass it.
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. 215
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 ``Guaranteeing a United and
Resolute Defense Act of 2003'' or the ``GUARD Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY ACTIVITIES
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 112 the following new
section:
``Sec. 112a. Homeland security activities
``(a) Funding Assistance.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
provide funds to the Governor of a State who submits to the
Secretary a homeland security activities plan satisfying the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(2) To be eligible for assistance under this subsection,
a State shall have a homeland security activities plan in
effect.
``(3) Any funds provided to a State under this subsection
shall be used for the following:
``(A) Pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses, as authorized by State law, of
personnel of the National Guard of the State for service
performed for the purpose of homeland security while not in
Federal service.
``(B) Operation and maintenance of the equipment and
facilities of the National Guard of the State that are used
for the purpose of homeland security.
``(C) Procurement of services and the purchase or leasing
of equipment for the National Guard of the State for use for
the purpose of homeland security.
``(b) Homeland Security Activities Plan Requirements.--The
homeland security activities plan of a State--
``(1) shall specify how personnel and equipment of the
National Guard of the State are to be used in homeland
security activities and include a detailed explanation of the
reasons why the National Guard should be used for the
specified activities;
``(2) shall describe in detail how any available National
Guard training facilities, including any distance learning
programs and projects, are to be used;
``(3) shall include the Governor's certification that the
activities under the plan are to be conducted at a time when
the personnel involved are not in Federal service;
``(4) shall include the Governor's certification that
participation by National Guard personnel in the activities
under the plan is service in addition to training required
under section 502 of this title;
``(5) shall include a certification by the Attorney General
of the State (or, in the case of a State with no position of
Attorney General, a civilian official of the State equivalent
to a State attorney general) that the use of the National
Guard of the State for the activities proposed under the plan
is authorized by, and is consistent with, State law;
``(6) shall include the Governor's certification that the
Governor or a civilian law enforcement official of the State
designated by the Governor has determined that any activities
to be carried out in conjunction with Federal law enforcement
agencies under the plan serve a State law enforcement
purpose; and
``(7) may provide for the use of personnel and equipment of
the National Guard of that State to assist the Directorate of
Immigration Affairs of the Department of Homeland Security in
the transportation of aliens who have violated a Federal or
State law prohibiting terrorist acts.
``(c) Examination and Approval of Plan.--The Secretary of
Defense shall examine the adequacy of each homeland security
activities plan of a State and, if the plan is determined
adequate, approve the plan.
``(d) Annual Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress each year a report on the assistance
provided under this section during the preceding fiscal year,
including the activities carried out with such assistance.
``(2) The annual report under this subsection shall include
the following:
``(A) A description of the homeland security activities
conducted under the homeland security activities plans with
funds provided under this section.
``(B) An accounting of the funds provided to each State
under this section.
``(C) An analysis of the effects on military training and
readiness of using units and personnel of the National Guard
to perform activities under the homeland security activities
plans.
``(e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as limiting the authority of any unit of
the National Guard of a State, when such unit is not in
Federal service, to perform law enforcement functions
authorized to be performed by the National Guard by the laws
of the State concerned.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `Governor', in the case of the District of
Columbia, means the commanding general of the National Guard
of the District of Columbia.
``(2) The term `homeland security activities', with respect
to the National Guard of a State, means the use of National
Guard personnel, when authorized by the law of the State and
requested by the Governor of the State, to prevent, deter,
defend against, and respond to an attack or threat of attack
on the people and territory of the United States.
``(3) The term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands.''.
[[Page S1492]]
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 112 the following new
item:
``112a. Homeland security activities.''.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 216. A bill to authorize the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to develop improvements in building and fire codes,
standards, and practices to reduce the impact of terrorist and other
extreme threats to the safety of buildings, their occupants, and
emergency responders, and to authorize the Department of Homeland
Security to form a task force to recommend ways to strengthen standards
in the private security industry, stabilize the workforce, and create a
safer environment for commercial building and industrial facility
occupants; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as we all know, when terrorists struck
America on September 11, 2001, the greatest loss of life occurred when
the World Trade Center's two towers fell. These two towers were symbols
of America's strength and prosperity, and they were reduced to rubble
by the two massive blows.
As we continue securing America against terrorist attacks, we need to
give more attention to the security of large buildings, especially
skyscrapers and arenas. There are approximately 500 skyscrapers in the
United States that are regularly occupied by at least 5000 people, and
there are 250 major arenas and stadiums that hold many times more.
These buildings will be primary targets of potential terrorist attack.
We must do more to ensure that these buildings are secure.
That is why I am introducing today the Building Security Act of 2003.
The bill does two things: first, it supports the research and funding
we need so that buildings can withstand extreme assaults, including
terrorist attacks. Second, the bill takes steps so that buildings will
be guarded by a security workforce that is adequately prepared to
respond to these dangers.
Consider the construction of large buildings. Today, many older
buildings lack fire retardants and blast-resistant materials that can
save hundreds of lives in a disaster. As a result of the study of the
attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, we know that
design changes that would have increased building costs by only 1 to 2
percent might have saved as many of 85 percent of the people killed in
that attack. The early reports on the World Trade Center collapse have
suggested that the two towers could have endured the impact of the
planes, but that the extraordinary heat generated by the explosions
weakened the steel structure of those buildings. Advanced technologies
in building construction would surely have slowed their collapse. On
the positive side, we know that improvements in the construction of the
Pentagon mitigated the loss of life; the plane struck the Pentagon on
the one side of the building where the windows were blast-resistant and
the structural columns had been reinforced. Those changes likely saved
many lives.
There are new, better construction practices and materials out there,
but we are not using them as much as we should. Part of the reason is
that today, our Nation's brightest scientists and most innovative
companies do not have the resources needed to research, create, and
implement these practices. We must enable these people to develop new
methods and materials, and help industry meet the higher standards we
need, and we must do all that as quickly and efficient as possible.
The bill I introduce today will provide $40 million for the National
Institutes of Science and Technology, or NIST, to help improve
construction standards. The needed research is happening now, but it
needs to move much more quickly. This legislation will do three things:
1. undertake an intensive national research effort to determine both
how to build strong buildings, and how to improve building codes and
standards; 2. specifically research the question of how to ensure that
these higher standards are actually met, whether by mandates, tax
credits, or other incentives; and 3. provide technical guidance to
builders in adopting the new standards and codes.
We also must address standards for private security officers. Our
country's buildings are staffed by almost two million private security
officers. While they have the critical responsibility of preventing
emergencies and protecting building occupants from harm, these officers
are often inadequately trained or compensated to do so. The industry
suffers from low retention, deficient training, and meager salaries.
The job turnover rate within the private security industry is as high
as 300 percent per year. Recent studies show that 4 in 10 private
security officers report no new security measures in their buildings
since September 11, and 7 in 10 report that their buildings never
conduct evacuation and emergency drills. And over half of the States
have no clear oversight for their respective private security
industries, nor do they have standards or screening requirements for
new hires.
This legislation authorizes a review of the private security industry
by a commission in the Department of Homeland Security that includes
all those with critical knowledge of the industry. The commission is
tasked with establishing industry guidelines and standards and
developing a means to implement those guidelines and standards in a
timely way.
Our Nation's buildings have been targeted before, and I believe that
they will be targeted again. We must do much more to make these
buildings secure. This bill is important step in the right direction.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 217. A bill to reinstate felony penalties for licensed gun dealers
who fail to maintain records of sales; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could
have a large impact on reducing gun violence in this country.
Last fall, two snipers terrorized the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area, killing ten victims and wounding others including children. Among
the weapons used by the snipers was a high powered military-style
assault rifle known as a Bushmaster XM15. Following the arrest of
sniper suspects John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo, this weapon was
linked to killings in Maryland, Virginia,Louisiana, and Alabama.
Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced the
Bushmaster weapon to a Tacoma, Washington gun dealership, the Bull's
Eye Shooter Supply. Investigators even found the empty box in which the
weapon was shipped.
But What the agents did not find was any record of the sale of the
weapon because the gun dealer did not keep adequate records. If the gun
was bought from Bull's Eye, we do not know when because there is no
record of the Sale. There is no record of a gun application or a
background check for John Mohammed. Had a background check been carried
out, John Mohammed would not have obtained the weapon because a
domestic violence restraining order had been field against him.
What is the weapon was stolen? If the owner of Bull's Eye had kept
proper records and followed Federal law, he would have reported the
weapon missing or stolen when it disappeared from the store. The
knowledge that a Bushmaster XM15 was missing from a Tacoma area weapons
store could have greatly aided investigators looking into the case.
The sloppy recordkeeping for this particular weapon was not an
isolated case. it has been learned that inspectors had uncovered
record-keeping violations in audits at Bull's Eye in 1998, 2000 and
2001. A total of 160 missing guns could not be accounted for in the
2000 audit.
This type of shoddy recordkeeping is dangerous. A small percentage of
licensed dealers are responsible for a disproportionate number of crime
guns. Specifically, 1.2 percent of all licensed gun dealers are
responsible for the original sale of 57 percent of all firearms used in
crimes, according to data from the ATF.
Gun dealers are not being punished when they ignore Federal
recordkeeping laws. Why? Because in 1986, the National Rifle
Association pushed a law through Congress that significantly weakened
penalties for poor recordkeeping reducing maximum jail time for five
years to one year. This meant that the crime was reduced from
[[Page S1493]]
a felony to a misdemeanor. With this change, the undermanned and
underfunded Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Federal
prosecutors simply could not afford to bring cases against gun dealers
for misdemeanor violations.
It is time we restore record keeping violations to a felony and that
is what my bill does. It is not a new gun law. It is merely making the
penalties tougher for violations for existing law. Regardless of
whether you support or oppose additional gun laws, we all agree that we
need strong enforcement of existing laws. My bill would make
enforcement easier and tougher. I hope my colleagues will support this
common-sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill and a letter of support from the Violence Policy Center be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 217
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF CRIMINAL FELONY PENALTIES FOR
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF FIREARMS SALES.
Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``5 years''.
____
Violence Policy Center,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: The Violence Policy strongly endorses
your legislation to reinstate felony penalties for firearm
recordkeeping violations. That this legislation is urgently
needed is highlighted by the circumstances surrounding the
tragic Washington-area sniper shootings. Bull's Eye Shooter
Supply, the gun dealer in Washington state from which the
snipers acquired their Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, had no
record of the gun leaving its inventory. The store simply
could not account for the disposition of the gun used to kill
10 and would three in a shooting spree that terrorized the
Washington metropolitan area.
This is not surprising taking into account the feeble
penalties that currently apply to gun dealers who fail to
keep adequate records. Your legislation would simply restore
the felony penalty that applied until legislation backed by
the National Rifle Association reduced it to a misdemeanor in
1986.
At the time, the Reagan Administration agreed that reducing
recordkeeping violations to a misdemeanor was a dangerous
idea. In 1986, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF) identified this penalty change as a
``weakness'' of the legislation in which it was included. In
a memorandum to the Department of the Treasury's Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement, the ATF Director wrote, ``By
reducing all licensee recordkeeping violations to
misdemeanors, serious violations could not be adequately
prosecuted and punished, i.e., a dealer's sale of firearms
off-record and his willful refusal to make or maintain any
required record could only be prosecuted as misdemeanors.''
It's time to put the teeth back in dealer recordkeeping
enforcement. The Violence Policy Center strongly supports
swift passage of the Boxer legislation to reinstate felony
penalties for failure to maintain records of firearms
transfers.
Sincerely,
M. Kristen Rand,
Legislative Director.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 218. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone
Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan
support for this bill and to be joined by the Chair and Ranking
Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental
in developing the wide range of support for this bill and I appreciate
their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable
coastal and marine resources.
In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands
being placed on our Nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting
of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly
increased since the Act was originally authorized.
Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous
U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these
coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there
annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361
sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical
habitat for a variety of plants and animals.
This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements
to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this Act,
coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal
Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal
zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into
account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help carry out
their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging
from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating
permits for coastal development.
As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines
for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural,
and economic objectives.
The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the
multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the
people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood.
For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of
the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational
fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value-
added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy
each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the
economy.
The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the
conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal
areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo
needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a
result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating
1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so
that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to
realize the returns.
Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by
environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although
the States are currently taking action to address this problem under
existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of
2003 encourages, but does not require them to take additional steps to
combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.
This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility
needed to deal with their specific non-point source pollution problems.
The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a
broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in non-
point source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool.
I'm proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already
spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has
led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the
restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is
looking forward to this new opportunity to do more.
The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in
developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems
other than on-point source pollution. It increases Federal and State
support of local community-based programs that address coastal
environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on
coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach
is critical.
The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 significantly
increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management
Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management
plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2003,
$141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization
levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This
increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach
their full potential.
Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003
increases authorization for the National
[[Page S1494]]
Estuarine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year
2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal
year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are
operated as a cooperative federal-state partnership.
Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. The provide an
important opportunity for long-term research and education in these
ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide
program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the
addition of new reserves.
I would like to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal
Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The
Administrative Grant program, section 306, serves as the base funding
mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount
of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes
into account both the length of the coastline and the population of
each State.
However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a two
million dollar cap per State on Administrative Grants. This was an
attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating states.
Over the past eight years appropriations for Administrative Grants have
increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The
result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By
fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap.
These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76
percent of our coastal population.
It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines
and populations stuck at a two million dollar cap, despite major
overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional
programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger
States have stagnated.
In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee
that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in
place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has
been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to
ensure that equitable increases or decreases between funding years for
each State. It further requires that States should not experience a
decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall
appropriations increase.
I would like to thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in
resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring
that the States are treated fairly.
The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of
the coastal states due to its history of success. This support has been
clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who
have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several
years.
I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the Ranking Democrat of the
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this
bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain,
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the
Ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure
and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee
so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of
Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation.
This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys
bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now
turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of
preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development.
I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States
with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing
our coastal communities in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
____________________