[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2703-S2712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 434. A bill to authorize the Secretary of agriculture to sell or 
exchange all or part of certain parcels of National Forest System land 
in the State of Idaho and use the proceeds derived from the sale or 
exchange for National Forest System purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho 
Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2003. This bill is an 
opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the 
facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. 
This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of 
land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has 
identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that 
disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these 
sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger 
Station in Idaho's Silver Valley.
  The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal 
include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on 
Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski 
Bowl, south of St. Maries.
  The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a 
new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is 
in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my 
commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service 
in the Silver Valley.
  This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, 
the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels 
of land to be disposed of.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 435. A bill to provide for the conveyance by the Secretary of 
Agriculture of the Sandpoint Federal Building and adjacent land in 
Sandpoint, Idaho, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the, ``Sandpoint 
Land and Facilities Act of 2003''. This bill is a unique opportunity to 
meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to 
provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will 
transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building 
currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also 
provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, 
ID to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange for a 
new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This transfer 
of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the local Forest 
Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their needs but 
also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County.
  The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to 
improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make 
the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and 
allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to 
healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing 
to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better 
services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant 
access to the county courtrooms.
  Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only 
partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities.
  This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, 
GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the Federal 
Government at the local level working with the county government to 
create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations 
and better service to the public.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 436. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 to improve the administration and oversight of foreign 
intelligence surveillance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friends, 
Senators Grassley and Specter, to introduce the Domestic Surveillance 
Oversight Act of 2003. This bill does not change or diminish any power 
available to the government in the pursuit of homeland security, but it 
does create important mechanisms to allow the Congress and the public 
to assess how effectively and appropriately the government is using its 
domestic surveillance powers.
  I also rise to speak about an important bipartisan report being 
released today by myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Grassley 
entitled ``FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee: FISA Implementation Failures,'' ``FIF Report''. The report 
summarizes our joint conclusions based upon our bipartisan oversight of 
the FBI and DOJ's performance in using the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, ``FISA'', an important tool in conducting domestic 
surveillance. The report distills our mutual findings and conclusions 
from numerous bipartisan hearings, classified briefings and other 
oversight activities. It concludes that the FBI continues to be in need 
of serious reform. The report also sets forth our bipartisan 
disappointment with the DOJ and FBI's non-responsiveness to our 
oversight efforts and the resulting necessity for better oversight 
tools, such as the bill we introduce today.
  Our committee worked with the FBI and the Justice Department to 
achieve initial reforms both through administrative steps and also 
through legislation. Most notably, last fall we enacted a new 
Department of Justice charter that included some provisions of the FBI 
Reform Act. We need to enact the rest of that bipartisan bill.
  Taken together, this bill and report represent a bipartisan statement 
about the importance of oversight and, where possible, sunshine on the 
government's domestic surveillance efforts. Only by fulfilling our 
constitutional responsibility to conduct such oversight, can we in 
Congress help to protect both the security and the liberty of the 
American people.
  In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for 
the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed, 
but many times it is not. After the September 11 attacks, we worked 
together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft 
and enact the USA PATRIOT Act which enhanced the government's powers.
  Now, as word continues to circulate about a possible sequel to the 
USA PATRIOT Act that the Department of Justice is considering in secret 
and that supposedly would give government even more power, it is 
constructive for us to first examine and understand how Federal 
agencies are using the power they already have. We must answer two 
questions.
  First, is that power being used effectively, so that our citizens not 
only feel safer, but are in fact safer?
  Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties 
are not sacrificed?
  In short, before we can craft and enact new laws, we must first make 
sure that the Department of Justice and FBI are properly using the laws 
that are already on the books. That is the purpose of enhanced 
Congressional oversight.
  Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act:
  Today, with the Senior Senator from Iowa and the Senior Senator from

[[Page S2704]]

Pennsylvania, I am introducing the bipartisan Domestic Surveillance 
Oversight Act of 2003. This bill provides basic information to Congress 
and the American people about the FBI's use of FISA to conduct 
surveillance on Americans. Such domestic surveillance is certainly 
appropriate in some cases, and the bill does not intrude in any way 
upon law enforcement or diminish its ability to conduct FISA 
surveillance when necessary and appropriate. Nor does it require the 
Department of Justice to publicly release any sensitive or classified 
information. Rather, it seeks reporting only on the aggregate number of 
FISA wiretaps and other surveillance measures directed specifically 
against Americans each year. In this way, the public and Congress can 
assess over time whether the government has turned more of its powerful 
surveillance techniques on its own citizens, as opposed to non-U.S. 
persons. If necessary, we can ask it to explain its actions.
  The amendment also clarifies that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court, FISC, and FISA Court of Review have the authority 
to adopt rules and procedures, and it requires that those rules be 
shared with the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the Senate and 
House of Representatives as well as the Supreme Court. In the last 
year, and only after requests from Senators Grassley, Specter and 
myself, the FISC shared its rules with Congress for the first time. One 
of those rules and one which was eventually rejected by the FISA Review 
Court embodied a controversial legal interpretation of a provision we 
crafted in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Congress ought to have been 
immediately informed of that court rule either by the FISC or the DOJ, 
but it was not. It is entirely appropriate that a court be enabled to 
promulgate its own rules. It is entirely inappropriate that those rules 
be kept secret from Congress.
  Consistent with national security, the bill directs the Attorney 
General to include in an annual public report the portions of 
applications to and opinions of the FISC and FISA Court of Review that 
contain significant legal interpretations of FISA or the Constitution. 
These disclosures will not include the facts of any particular case, 
which this provision requires to be redacted in order to preserve 
national security. This type of disclosure, however, will prevent 
secret case law from developing which interprets both FISA and the 
Constitution in ways unknown to the Congress and the public.
  The first annual report required under this provision is also to 
include the same type of legal information for the four years before 
the year of the first report.
  Finally, the bill would require a report to appropriate committees of 
Congress on the use of National Security Letters to request information 
from public libraries or libraries affiliated with high schools or 
universities. Such letters are functionally equivalent to an 
administrative subpoena and require no court approval. We have heard 
from members of the library community that the FBI may be returning to 
a discredited practice from the Hoover days of monitoring public and 
college libraries to ascertain what books people are reading. In fact, 
a media report from Vermont, which I ask consent to place in the 
Record, indicates that bookstore owners there are scared to keep 
records for just this reason. Again, this provision would not in any 
way limit the use of National Security Letters, but would merely 
require an annual report of such activities to Congress, so that we can 
ascertain whether or not these administrative subpoenas are being used 
for improper purposes. This section would also ensure that reports on 
the use of such letters are provided to all appropriate oversight 
committees.
  This enhanced reporting is exactly what was called for by the 
American Bar Association in a resolution adopted on February 10, and 
echoed in a Washington Post editorial on February 12, 2003. As the Post 
editorialized, the Department of Justice ``needs to disclose how it is 
using the [powers] it already has. Yet the Justice Department has 
balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests . . . 
Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the [D]epartment 
is doing.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy both of the ABA 
resolution as well as the Washington Post editorial in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Adopted February 10, 2003:
       Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (lead 
     sponsor); Section of Litigation; Section of Criminal Justice, 
     Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice; 
     Section of International Law and Practice; Section of Science 
     and Technology Law; Young Lawyers Division.
       Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the 
     Congress to conduct regular and timely oversight, including 
     public hearings (except when Congress determines that the 
     requirements of national security make open proceedings 
     inappropriate), to ensure that government investigations 
     undertaken pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (``FISA'' or ``the Act'') do not 
     violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the 
     Constitution and adhere to the Act's purposes of 
     accommodating and advancing both the government's interest in 
     pursuing legitimate intelligence activity and the 
     individual's interest in being free from improper government 
     intrusion.
       Further resolved, That the American Bar Association urges 
     the Congress to consider amendments to the Act to
       (1) Clarify that the procedures adopted by the Attorney 
     General to protect United States persons, as required by the 
     Act, should ensure that FISA is used when the government has 
     a significant (i.e. not insubstantial) foreign intelligence 
     purpose, as contemplated by the Act, and not to circumvent 
     the Fourth Amendment; and
       (2) Make available to the public an annual statistical 
     report on FISA investigations, comparable to the reports 
     prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 2519, regarding the use of 
     Federal wiretap authority.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2003]

                        Patriot Act: The Sequel

       The Justice Department's draft of a second round of law 
     enforcement and domestic security authorities--a kind of 
     sequel to the USA Patriot Act of 2001--offers an unintended 
     glimpse of additional powers that the Bush administration if 
     coveting. The draft, labeled ``CONFIDENTIAL--NOT FOR 
     DISTRIBUTION'' and dated Jan. 9, was obtained last week by 
     the Center for Public Integrity, Washington-based nonprofit. 
     Department officials quickly stressed that it is not a final 
     version. But the document's proposals may become the next 
     battlefield in the struggle to preserve American liberties 
     while enabling the domestic war on terrorism. The proposals 
     range from constructive to dangerous.
       A government DNA database for terrorists and suspected 
     terrorists could be useful, though it would need refinement 
     to protect suspects who are proved innocent. Another useful 
     proposal would allow the special appeals court that reviews 
     government surveillance requests in national security cases 
     to appoint lawyers to argue against the government. Under 
     current law, it hears only from one side. The draft would 
     create a federal crime for terrorist hoaxes, which now must 
     be prosecuted under provisions designed for other purposes.
       But the draft contains many troubling provisions. It would 
     further expand intelligence surveillance powers into the 
     traditional realm of law enforcement. Like a Senate bill soon 
     to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee, it would allow 
     foreigners suspected of terrorism to be watched as 
     intelligence targets--rather than subjects of law 
     enforcement--even if they could not be linked to any foreign 
     group or state. But it would go further. It would allow 
     intelligence surveillance in certain circumstances even when 
     the government could not produce any evidence of a crime. It 
     also would allow certain snooping with no court 
     authorization, not only--as now--when Congress declared war 
     but when it authorized force or when the country was 
     attacked. The result of such changes would be to magnify the 
     government's discretion to pick the legal regime under which 
     it investigates and prosecutes national security cases and to 
     give it more power unilaterally to exempt people from the 
     protections of the justice system and place them in a kind of 
     alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in the 
     opposite direction.
       Before the department asks Congress for more powers, it 
     needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has. 
     Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight 
     and public information requests. In fact, the draft 
     legislation would allow the department to withhold 
     information concerning the identity of Sept. 11 detainees--a 
     matter now before the courts. At the very least, Congress 
     should insist on a full understanding of what the department 
     is doing before granting the executive branch still more 
     authority.
  This bill does not in any way diminish the government's powers, but 
it does allow Congress and the public to monitor their use. We cannot 
fight terrorism effectively or safely with the lights turned out and 
with little or no accountability. It is time to harness the power of 
the sun to enable us to better win this fight.

[[Page S2705]]

  FIF Report: The wisdom of this bill is also supported by our 
bipartisan report, which Senators Specter, Grassley, and I also release 
today, based on a year of bipartisan effort.
  Today's FBI oversight report focuses on the use of the immense powers 
granted under FISA. We expanded the government's FISA powers after 
September 11 in the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that all three of us had a 
hand in crafting.
  Unfortunately our hearings, briefings and other oversight revealed 
that the FBI is ill-equipped to implement FISA. Nor are its problems 
amenable to legal ``quick fixes.'' In fact, many of these problems are 
not unique to the FISA context, but echo broader and more systemic 
problems that have plagued the FBI for years.
  Here are a few of the report's basic conclusions: Poor training: Key 
FBI agents and officials were inadequately trained in important aspects 
of not only FISA, but also in fundamental aspects of criminal law. 
Excessive secrecy: Secrecy regarding the most basic legal and 
procedural aspects of the FISA have hurt, not helped, implementation of 
FISA. Headquarters Bureaucracy: FBI headquarters often not only fails 
to support the work of many of its best street agents, but it actually 
sometimes hinders them in doing their important jobs. Culture of 
Quashing Criticism: The FBI has a deep rooted culture of punishing 
those who point out problems. Just yesterday, in fact, a DOJ Inspector 
General's Report was released substantiating claims of retaliation 
against FBI United Chief John Roberts for his approved appearance on 60 
Minutes. More troubling, these allegations involved senior officials at 
the FBI, including the head of the division official charged with 
investigating claims of misconduct in the FBI. This culture has 
materially hurt the FBI's intelligence operations.
  Unfortunately, as our report describes in detail, we have run into 
many roadblocks in conducting FBI oversight. Some obstacles were due to 
a lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice and FBI. The FIF 
Report outlines many prime examples supporting the necessity of the 
increased reporting called for in the bill that I introduce with 
Senators Grassley and Specter today. For instance, the FIF Report 
describes how the FISC issued an unclassified opinion last May strongly 
criticizing the DOJ and FBI and containing important legal 
interpretations of FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act amendments to it. Even 
after repeated requests by myself, Senator Specter and Senator Grassley 
for a copy of this unclassified legal opinion, the DOJ refused to 
provide us one. Eventually, the FISC, not DOJ, provided us with a copy 
of this unclassified document and, again only at our request, copies of 
the FISA Court of Review's argument and opinion were made public. I 
hope that this resistance towards legitimate oversight will not be 
shown in the future.
  Sunlight is the best solvent for the sticky and ineffective machinery 
of government, and it is the best disinfectant to discourage the abuse 
of power. Our comprehensive FBI oversight has revealed that there is 
much work to be done.
  Effective oversight of the powers given to the government for 
homeland security means fewer blank checks, and more checks and 
balances.
  I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill I am introducing, 
a sectional analysis, and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
   There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to 
be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 436

       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 ``Domestic Surveillance 
     Oversight Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT 
                   OF 1978.

       (a) Rules and Procedures for FISA Courts.--Section 103 of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1803) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e)(1) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a) 
     and (b) may establish such rules and procedures, and take 
     such actions, as are reasonably necessary to administer their 
     responsibilities under this Act.
       ``(2) The rules and procedures established under paragraph 
     (1), and any modifications of such rules and procedures, 
     shall be recorded, and shall be transmitted to the following:
       ``(A) All of the judges on the court established pursuant 
     to subsection (a).
       ``(B) All of the judges on the court of review established 
     pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(C) The Chief Justice of the United States.
       ``(D) The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
       ``(E) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       ``(F) The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(G) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--(1) The Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is further 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating title VI as title VII, and section 601 
     as section 701, respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after title V the following new title:

                ``TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT


                ``public report of the attorney general

       ``Sec. 601. In addition to the reports required by sections 
     107, 108, 306, 406, and 502, in April of each year, the 
     Attorney General shall issue a public report setting forth 
     with respect to the preceding calendar year--
       ``(1) the aggregate number of United States persons 
     targeted for orders issued under this Act, including those 
     targeted for--
       ``(A) electronic surveillance under section 105;
       ``(B) physical searches under section 304;
       ``(C) pen registers under section 402; and
       ``(D) access to records under section 501;
       ``(2) the number of times that the Attorney General has 
     authorized that information obtained under such sections or 
     any information derived therefrom may be used in a criminal 
     proceeding;
       ``(3) the number of times that a statement was completed 
     pursuant to section 106(b), 305(c), or 405(b) to accompany a 
     disclosure of information acquired under this Act for law 
     enforcement purposes; and
       ``(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of the 
     national security of the United States--
       ``(A) the portions of the documents and applications filed 
     with the courts established under section 103 that include 
     significant construction or interpretation of the provisions 
     of this Act or any provision of the United States 
     Constitution, not including the facts of any particular 
     matter, which may be redacted;
       ``(B) the portions of the opinions and orders of the courts 
     established under section 103 that include significant 
     construction or interpretation of the provisions of this Act 
     or any provision of the United States Constitution, not 
     including the facts of any particular matter, which may be 
     redacted; and
       ``(C) in the first report submitted under this section, the 
     matters specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for all 
     documents and applications filed with the courts established 
     under section 103, and all otherwise unpublished opinions and 
     orders of that court, for the 4 years before the preceding 
     calendar year in addition to that year.''.
       (2) The table of contents for that Act is amended by 
     striking the items for title VI and inserting the following 
     new items:

                ``TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT

``Sec. 601.  Public report of the Attorney General.

                      ``TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

``Sec. 701.  Effective date.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF 
                   SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Title 18, United States Code.--Section 2709(e) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``The information shall include a 
     separate statement of all such requests made of institutions 
     operating as public libraries or serving as libraries of 
     secondary schools or institutions of higher education.''.
       (b) Right to Financial Privacy Act of  1978.--Section 
     1114(a)(5)(C) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 
     (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C)(i) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall 
     fully inform the congressional intelligence committees, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate concerning 
     all requests made pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(ii) In the case of the semiannual reports required to be 
     submitted under clause (i) to the congressional intelligence 
     committees, the submittal dates for such reports shall be as 
     provided in section 507 of the National Security Act of 1947.
       ``(iii) In this subparagraph, the term `congressional 
     intelligence committees' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     401a).''.
       (c) Fair Credit Reporting Act.--Section 625(h)(1) of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(h)(1)), as amended 
     by section 811(b)(8)(B) of the Intelligence Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306), is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
     Urban Affairs of the House of Representatives'' and inserting 
     ``,

[[Page S2706]]

     the Committee on Financial Services, and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives''; and
       (2) by striking ``and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs of the Senate'' and inserting ``, the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate''.

 Sectional Analysis of the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003

       Sec. 1. Short title. The short title of the bill is the 
     ``Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003.''
       Sec. 2. Additional Improvements to Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). This section amends FISA to 
     clarify the authority of the Intelligence Surveillance Court 
     (FISC) and FISA Court of Review to establish such rules and 
     procedures as are reasonably necessary for their operation.
       In addition, the bill requires the FISC and FISA Court of 
     Review to transmit such rules and procedures to the judges on 
     the FISC and Court of Review, the Chief Justice of the U.S., 
     and the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees of the Senate 
     and House. Previously, these rules have not been provided to 
     Congress as a matter of course.
       This section also adds to the public reporting requirements 
     in FISA. It directs the Attorney General (AG) to include in 
     the annual public report the aggregate number of U.S. persons 
     targeted for any type of order under the act.
       The report will also include information about the 
     aggregate number of times FISA is being used for criminal 
     cases, to enhance oversight regarding the changes enacted in 
     the USA PATRIOT Act. The report will list the number of times 
     the AG authorized FISA information to be used in a criminal 
     proceeding or for law enforcement purposes.
       Finally, ``in a manner consistent with the protection of 
     national security,'' this section directs the report to 
     include the portions of applications to and opinions of the 
     FISC and FISA Court of Review that involve significant 
     construction or interpretation of FISA or the Constitution. 
     Such disclosures shall not include the facts of any 
     particular case which are to be redacted. The first annual 
     report is to include application and opinion information for 
     the four years preceding the year of the first report to 
     ensure that important legal interpretations, such as FISA 
     Court of Review opinion that was almost not made public last 
     summer, are publicly disseminated.
       Sec. 3. Additional Improvements of Congressional Oversight 
     of Surveillance Activities. This section adds to a reporting 
     requirement to the House and Senate Judiciary and 
     Intelligence Committees on the use of National Security 
     Letters. The report will include a statement of requests for 
     information directed to public libraries or libraries 
     affiliated with high schools and universities. The section 
     also would ensure that current reports on the use of such 
     letters are provided to both the intelligence and judiciary 
     committees as well as updating the names of certain pertinent 
     committees that receive such reports. The section would allow 
     Congress to assess the validity of public reports that a long 
     discredited program of domestic library surveillance is being 
     revived.
                                                February 25, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy, Grassley and Specter: Wewrite in 
     support of the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003. 
     The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes 
     secret wiretaps and secret searches of the homes and offices 
     of Americans and other forms of data gathering for national 
     security reasons. While the initial enactment of FISA was an 
     appropriate accommodation of national security interests and 
     individual rights to privacy and due process, since its 
     initial enactment FISA has been expanded in ways that pose an 
     increased threat to individual rights. Moreover, FISA 
     surveillance authorities are now being used more and more; 
     indeed, it appears that the federal government carries out 
     more electronic surveillance under the authority of FISA than 
     under criminal rules.
       Given the absolute secrecy of FISA searches and seizures, 
     mechanisms for public accountability are crucial to protect 
     rights of privacy--as well as to insure effective and 
     efficient use of this extraordinary authority. Your bill to 
     require public accounting of the number of US persons 
     subjected to surveillance under FISA, the number of times 
     FISA information is used for law enforcement purposes, and to 
     require disclosure of other information would be an important 
     step in providing for oversight and public scrutiny of these 
     extraordinary powers.
       Disclosure of such information is important to informing 
     the American public and will not be harmful to the national 
     security, as it will not give any greater clues as to who is 
     being targeted, or the scope of the anti-terrorism efforts 
     than is already known from the Justice Department's own 
     extensive public descriptions of those efforts.
       We commend you on your leadership on this issue and look 
     forward to working with you and your colleagues to achieve 
     appropriate policies for responding to terrorism and other 
     national security threats.
     Laura W. Murphy,
       Director, Washington National Office.
     Timothy H. Edgar,
       Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
     James X. Dempsey,
       Executive Director, Center for Democracy and Technology.
     Kate Martin,
       Director, Center for National Security Studies.
     Morton H. Halperin,
       Director, Open Society Policy Center.
                                  ____


            [From the Burlington Free Press, Feb. 19, 2003]

                 Bookstore Owners Fight Disclosure Act

                           (By Cadence Mertz)

       The gears turned in Laurie Kettler's mind as she 
     contemplated how the USA Patriot Act might affect the 
     bookstore she co-owns in St. Albans.
       At first, she thought The Kept Writer Bookshop & Cafe had 
     no records that authorities could use to track what her 
     customers are reading. Then it dawned on her. Records of 
     online purchases stay in the system for a year. Authorities 
     could demand those records under a provision of the USA 
     Patriot Act passed in the wake of Sept. 11 to aid in tracking 
     down possible terrorists.
       ``I guess I'm going to need to do something about that,'' 
     Kettler said of the online records. She doesn't want that 
     information to go to the federal government. ``It just seems 
     like a violation of privacy.''
       Efforts to prevent police from obtaining blueprints of 
     their customers' reading habits are on other bookstore 
     owners' minds. Michael Katzenberg, co-owner of Bear Pond 
     Books in Montpelier, has purged lists of the books its 
     customers buy.
       Other local bookstores cheer Katzenberg's decision. They 
     cite customer privacy and the First Amendment protecting 
     citizens' rights to free speech. The government is over-
     stepping its bounds, and bookstore owners will go to lengths 
     to protect the very law that allows authors to publish 
     without censor.
       ``I support what he did, and I'm right there with him,'' 
     said Mike DeSanto, co-owner of the Book Rack and 
     Children's Pages in Winooski, who declined to disclose 
     whether he has a list of his customers' reading 
     preferences. If he did have a list, he says, he would be 
     considering getting rid of it.
       ``This is wrong what they're doing,'' DeSanto said of the 
     USA Patriot Act.
       Customers at Flying Pig Books in Charlotte participate in a 
     readers' club--after buying $100 of books patrons receive $10 
     off their next purchase, co-owner Josie Leavitt said. It is 
     unlikely the bookstore would purge that record, which has the 
     titles of customers' past purchases, because of its 
     usefulness, Leavitt said. Customers like to have a reminder 
     of what they have bought in the past, she said.
       Faced with a request from law enforcement, Leavitt said the 
     bookstore would refuse to turn over the information. She 
     belongs to the American Booksellers Foundation for Free 
     Expression, the group that helped defend a Colorado bookstore 
     last year against just such an intrusion by law enforcement.
       ``That's what books are all about. Books represent freedom 
     and if people can't read they're not free,'' Leavitt said.
       The Vermont Library Association agrees. The group sent a 
     letter to Vermont's congressional delegation describing the 
     provisions of the USA Patriot Act pertaining to libraries and 
     book stores as unconstitutional.
       ``They are dangerous steps toward the erosion of our most 
     fundamental civil liberties,'' the October letter reads in 
     part.
       Peter Hall, U.S. attorney for Vermont, said the measure 
     would be used only in ``very rare and limited and supervised 
     circumstances,'' Hall said. Bookstore owners can do what they 
     want with records of their customers' purchases, he said.
       Borders Books & Music would review requests from 
     authorities on a case-by-case basis, said Tod Gross, manager 
     of the Burlington store. The national chain keeps no records 
     of customer purchases, except for special orders, and those 
     files are purged monthly, Gross said.
       Two recent court cases have shown law enforcement's 
     willingness to seek records from bookstores.
       Independent counsel Kenneth Starr attempted to obtain a 
     list of the books Monica Lewinsky had bought from a 
     Washington, D.C. bookstore while investigating former 
     President Bill Clinton. Law enforcement in Colorado 
     subpoenaed a bookstore customers' purchases during a drug 
     investigation. A Colorado Supreme Court blocked the subpoena.
       Kettler, in St. Albans, said her first thoughts are for her 
     customers' privacy. A woman seeking a book on ovarian cancer

[[Page S2707]]

     should not have to worry her illness might be disclosed by 
     the shopkeeper, Kettler said.
       ``I guess I'm going to stop keeping such meticulous 
     records,'' she said.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 437. A bill to provide for adjustments to the Central Arizona 
Project in Arizona, to authorize the Gila River indian Community water 
rights settlement, to reauthorize and amend the Southern Arizona Water 
Rights Settlement Act of 1982, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself I am 
introducing legislation today that would codify the largest water 
claims settlement in the history of Arizona. This bill represents the 
tremendous efforts of literally hundreds of people in Arizona and here 
in Washington over a period of five years. Looking ahead, this bill 
could ultimately be nearly as important to Arizona's future as was the 
authorization of the Central Arizona Project, CAP, itself.
  Since Arizona began receiving CAP water from the Colorado River, 
litigation has divided water users over how the CAP water should be 
allocated and exactly how much Arizona was required to repay the 
federal government. This bill will, among other things, codify the 
settlement reached between the United States and the Central Arizona 
Water Conservation District over the state's repayment obligation for 
costs incurred by the United States in constructing the Central Arizona 
Project. It will also resolve, once and for all, the allocation of all 
remaining CAP water. This final allocation will provide the stability 
necessary for State water authorities to plan for Arizona's future 
water needs. In addition, approximately 200,000 acre-feet of CAP water 
will be made available to settle various Indian water claims in the 
State. The bill would also authorize the use of the Lower Colorado 
River Basin Development Fund, which is funded solely from revenues paid 
by Arizona entities, to construct irrigation works necessary for tribes 
with congressionally approved water settlements to use CAP water.
  Title II of this bill settles the water rights claims of the Gila 
River Indian Community. It allocates nearly 100,000 acre-feet of CAP 
water to the Community, and provides funds to subsidize the costs of 
delivering CAP water and to construct the facilities necessary to allow 
the Community to fully utilize the water allocated to it in this 
settlement. Title III provides for long-needed amendments to the 1982 
Southern Arizona Water Settlement Act for the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
which has never been fully implemented.
  This bill will allow Arizona cities to plan for the future, knowing 
how much water they can count on. The Indian tribes will finally get 
``wet'' water, as opposed to the paper rights to water they have now, 
and projects to use the water. In addition, mining companies, farmers, 
and irrigation delivery districts can continue to receive water without 
the fear that they will be stopped by Indian litigation.
  While some minor issues remain, we have every confidence that these 
issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses. In addition, we 
hope that negotiations with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the only party 
not yet included in the settlement, will move forward so that all 
claims can be resolved by this bill.
  In summary, this bill is vital to the citizens of Arizona and will 
provide the certainty needed to move forward with water use decisions. 
Furthermore, the United States can avoid litigating water rights and 
damage claims and satisfy its trust responsibilities to the Tribes. The 
parties have worked many years to reach consensus rather than litigate, 
and I believe this bill represents the best opportunity to achieve a 
fair result for all the people of Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water 
Settlements Act of 2003, which would ratify negotiated settlements for 
Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, 
agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment 
obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water 
rights claims.
  These settlements reflect more than 5 years of intensive negotiations 
by state, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend 
all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary 
commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement 
process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior 
Secretary Gail Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these 
settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I 
recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I 
appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process.
  This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because 
these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to 
Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water 
supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non-
Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment 
obligations of the State of Arizona for construction of the CAP.
  I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements 
embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement 
process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in 
resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this 
agreement in the 107th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to 
the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP 
construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 
settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation 
measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable 
apportionment of drought shortages.
  While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after 
an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it 
is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final 
settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the 
provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. 
We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a 
final agreement early in the next congressional session.
  Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our 
strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve 
conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a 
historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the 
tribal communities, and the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 439. A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social 
Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with 
representative payees, to enhance program protections, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the Social Security system is one of this 
country's most important programs. Millions of older and disabled 
Americans rely on their Social Security checks each month as a reliable 
source of income.
  We all know the long-term financial problems the Social Security 
system faces, and it is critical that Congress enact legislation to 
overhaul the system as soon as possible to ensure that our children and 
grandchildren can rely on a robust and healthy Social Security program.
  Today, I am introducing a bill, the Social Security Protection Act, 
that will immediately begin protecting the integrity and finances of 
the Social Security system by combating fraud and abuse.
  Fraud and abuse in the Social Security system not only threatens its 
long-term viability, but it also robs money from the millions of 
Americans who are contributing a portion of their hard-earned paychecks 
each month to the program.
  The Social Security Protection Act makes several common-sense and 
much-needed changes, including denying Social Security benefits to 
individuals who are fugitive felons and parole violators, creating new 
civil monetary penalties to combat fraud, and providing additional 
protections to Social Security employees while on the job.
  The bill also provides additional oversight of representative payees 
who are appointed by the Social Security

[[Page S2708]]

Administration to manage the finances of beneficiaries who are unable 
to do so by themselves. Aside from additional oversight, the bill also 
imposes harsher penalties on representative payees who have misused 
their clients' funds, and even allows the Social Security 
Administration in certain circumstances to reissue misused funds to 
beneficiaries.
  Finally, the bill makes some changes to Social Security's attorney-
fee withholding process, and expands it to Supplemental Security Income 
claims, as well. The bill also makes some other minor and non-
controversial changes to Social Security law and the Ticket to Work and 
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.
  Last year, a similar version of this legislation came close to 
passing Congress. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion with 
the House of Representatives to get this legislation passed so that our 
Social Security system can be better protected against fraud and abuse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 440. A bill to designate a United States courthouse to be 
constructed in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United 
States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare 
and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United 
States Courthouse.''
  It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for 
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected 
and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and 
persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. 
Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse 
in Fresno for more than a decade.
  In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and 
founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to 
help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This 
Eastern District program was so well received by national court 
administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.
  In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, 
the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown 
revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the 
community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the 
groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.
  Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the 
bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President 
Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the 
Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge 
Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings 
College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a 
Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 
with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained 
until his appointment by President Reagan.
  Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many 
judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and 
Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District 
Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District 
Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar 
of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.
  My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern 
District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the 
community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge 
Robert E. Coyle.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 441. A bill to direct the Administrator of General Services to 
convey to Fresno County, California, the existing Federal courthouses 
in that county; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County 
of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed.
  Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's 
Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a 
serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The 
Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the 
people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing 
security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system.
  This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow 
appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the 
ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet 
another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of 
Fresno County's people.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 442. A bill to provide pay protection for member of the Reserve 
and the National Guard, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
will help our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard who 
have been called to active duty.
  Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its troop 
levels to reflect the end of the Cold War. With the reduction of active 
duty troops, the military has become increasingly dependent on the 
Reserves and National Guard to supplement troops who have been sent to 
deal with crises all over the world.
  In addition to this, we have had to rely on an increasingly diverse 
group of people to fight our wars. The conflict in Afghanistan was 
heavily reliant on new technologies in the air and personnel intensive 
techniques on the ground. In order to properly execute the war on 
terror, we have relied on highly skilled individuals such as linguists 
and Civil Affairs personnel who have worked closely with the population 
of Afghanistan. We will have to rely on them again in Iraq. Many of 
these men and women have been reservists.
  These two trends reflect a dramatic shift in the structure of our 
armed forces. Gone are the Cold War days when we had a massive military 
positioned all over the globe. We are now reliant on a much leaner 
force, which views the Reserves and National Guard as necessary 
components to any conflict, and not forces of last resort.
  Between 1945 and 1989, a period which encompassed most of the Cold 
War, reservists and Guardsmen were called up four times: during the 
Korean War, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and 
the Vietnam War. A majority of those mobilized during this period were 
called up during the Korean War, when over 800,000 troops were 
activated to supplement the 900,000 active duty forces fighting in 
Korea.
  Between 1990 and today, reservists and Guardsmen have been called up 
six separate times. Over 230,000 reservists and Guardsmen were 
mobilized for the Gulf War, forming nearly half of the force that drove 
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Since then, reservists and Guardsmen have 
been activated for the Haiti Intervention, the ongoing Bosnian 
Peacekeeping mission, the ongoing patrol of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, 
the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terrorism which has seen 151,348 
reservists and Guardsmen activated in support of Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Noble Eagle. Many of them are in the Persian Gulf Region 
today.
  Over the past ten years, the OPTEMPO of the Reserves has increased by 
fifty percent.
  This OPTEMPO has had a significant strain on reservists and their 
families. In almost every instance, when a reservist or Guardsman is 
activated, their military salary is significantly smaller then their 
civilian salary. In many cases, service member's income is cut in half. 
This places a particular strain to reservists and Guardsmen as their 
household budget is structured by their civilian salary. The decrease 
in income that activation brings makes it increasingly difficult to pay 
the bills. Whether or not the Nation is at war, mortgages, rent, credit 
card debt, student loans, and other household expenses must be paid.
  When we send our fighting men and women into harm's way, it is 
important that they concentrate on one

[[Page S2709]]

thing: their mission. When Guardsmen and reservists are worried about 
having enough money for rent of the mortgage or whether their children 
have enough to see a doctor, they cannot concentrate on the mission, 
and this becomes a readiness issue.
  Many corporations volunteer to make up the difference between the 
military and civilian salaries of their Guardsmen and reservists. Not 
only do these employers sacrifice important members of their companies 
for national defense, they hold their jobs for them and they 
voluntarily choose to continue paying them. In some instances, 
employers have continued to provide health insurance and other 
benefits. This represents a significant burden that the employer has 
undertaken, in order to ensure that their employees and their families 
are taken care of during times of national emergency.
  In order to alleviate the burden that these employers face and to 
encourage more employers to pay the difference to Reserve and Guard 
employees, I have drafted legislation that would provide an incentive 
for employers to make up the difference between the military and 
civilian pay of activated reservists. The Reservists and Guardsmen Pay 
Protection Act of 2003 provides a tax credit to employers who continue 
paying their service members after they are activated. It also requires 
the Federal Government to make up the difference between civilian and 
military pay for Federal employees who are activated.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 442

       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 ``Reservists and Guardsmen Pay 
     Protection Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS 
                   PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the 
       uniformed services

       ``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of 
     employment with the Federal Government in order to perform 
     service in the uniformed services shall be entitled to 
     receive, for each pay period described in subsection (b), an 
     amount equal to the amount by which--
       ``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have 
     been payable to such employee for such pay period if such 
     employee's civilian employment with the Government had not 
     been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
       ``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined 
     under subsection (d))--
       ``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
       ``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
       ``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with 
     respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if 
     the employee's civilian employment had not been 
     interrupted)--
       ``(A) during which such employee is entitled to 
     reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect 
     to the position from which such employee is absent (as 
     referred to in subsection (a)); and
       ``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive 
     basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other 
     paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of 
     such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which 
     an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter 
     43 of title 38--
       ``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of 
     section 4312(d) of title 38; and
       ``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section 
     4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or 
     apply for employment or reemployment following completion of 
     service in the uniformed services.
       ``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee 
     shall be paid--
       ``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
       ``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to 
     pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
       ``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in 
     the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's 
     civilian employment had not been interrupted.
       ``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in 
     consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any 
     regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions 
     of this section.
       ``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section 
     2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of such agency.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of that agency.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and 
     `uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as 
     given in section 4303 of title 38;
       ``(2) the term `service in the uniformed services' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4303 of title 38 and 
     includes duty performed by a member of the National Guard 
     under section 502(f) of title 32 at the direction of the 
     Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force;
       ``(3) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to 
     an employee entitled to any payments under this section, 
     means the agency or other entity of the Government (including 
     an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with 
     respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under 
     chapter 43 of title 38; and
       ``(4) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable 
     under section 5304.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5537 the following:

``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or 
              National Guard.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in 
     section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     this section) beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

     SEC. 3. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT ADDED TO 
                   GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.

       (a) Ready Reserve-National Guard Credit.--Subpart D of part 
     IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to business-related credits) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 45G. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the Ready 
     Reserve-National Guard employee credit determined under this 
     section for any taxable year is an amount equal to 50 percent 
     of the actual compensation amount for such taxable year.
       ``(b) Definition of Actual Compensation Amount.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `actual compensation 
     amount' means the amount of compensation paid or incurred by 
     an employer with respect to a Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee on any day during a taxable year when the employee 
     was absent from employment for the purpose of performing 
     qualified active duty.
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum period for credit per employee.--The maximum 
     period with respect to which the credit may be allowed with 
     respect to any Ready Reserve-National Guard employee shall 
     not exceed the 12-month period beginning on the first day 
     such credit is so allowed with respect to such employee.
       ``(2) Days other than work days.--No credit shall be 
     allowed with respect to a Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee who performs qualified active duty on any day on 
     which the employee was not scheduled to work (for reason 
     other than to participate in qualified active duty).
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified active duty.--The term `qualified active 
     duty' means--
       ``(A) active duty, other than the training duty specified 
     in section 10147 of title 10, United States Code (relating to 
     training requirements for the Ready Reserve), or section 
     502(a) of title 32, United States Code (relating to required 
     drills and field exercises for the National Guard), in 
     connection with which an employee is entitled to reemployment 
     rights and other benefits or to a leave of absence from 
     employment under chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, 
     and
       ``(B) hospitalization incident to such duty.
       ``(2) Compensation.--The term `compensation' means any 
     remuneration for employment, whether in cash or in kind, 
     which is paid or incurred by a taxpayer and which is 
     deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1).
       ``(3) Ready reserve-national guard employee.--The term 
     `Ready Reserve-National Guard employee' means an employee who 
     is a member of the Ready Reserve or of the National Guard.
       ``(4) National guard.--The term `National Guard' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 101(c)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       ``(5) Ready reserve.--The term `Ready Reserve' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 10142 of title 10, United 
     States Code.''.
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--
     Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code (relating to 
     general business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' at 
     the end of paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
     of paragraph (15) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(16) the Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit 
     determined under section 45G(a).''.

[[Page S2710]]

       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 45F the following:

``Sec. 45G. Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 444. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 
project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration for the 
American River, Sacramento, California, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve 
flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project 
authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to 
one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House.
  Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This 
bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which 
would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento 
region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including 
the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home 
facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and 
approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a 
devastating flood.
  For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood 
protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next 
step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the 
system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the 
American River Watershed.
  Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the 
building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be 
disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction 
project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the 
Folsom Dam Road.
  So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes 
the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of 
California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and 
adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current 
two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by 
moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of 
area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the 
river.
  This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of 
the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and 
replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public 
safety in the Sacramento area. 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. 444

       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 ``Sacramento Public Safety Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 
                   AMERICAN RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry out the 
     project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 
     American River, Sacramento, California, substantially in 
     accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the 
     project dated November 5, 2002.

     SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT BRIDGE ADJACENT TO FOLSOM 
                   DAM.

       (a) In General.--As part of the project authorized by 
     section 2, the Secretary of Transportation shall carry out a 
     project to design and construct a bridge west of and adjacent 
     to Folsom Dam, California. In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary shall also construct necessary linkages from the 
     bridge to existing roadways.
       (b) Design and Construction.--In designing and constructing 
     the bridge, the Secretary shall--
       (1) coordinate with the Secretary of the Army regarding the 
     project authorized by section 2; and
       (2) provide appropriate sizing and linkages to support 
     present and future traffic flow requirements for the city of 
     Folsom, California.
       (c) Grant Assistance.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall make a grant to the State of California in an amount 
     sufficient to pay not less than 80 percent of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation 
being introduced by my colleague from California the Sacramento Public 
Safety Act.
  This Bill would authorize flood control protection and ecosystem 
restoration through a Mini-Raise of the Folsom Dam as well as authorize 
the design and construction of a permanent bridge to replace the road 
that currently runs on top of the Dam.
  Providing Sacramento with flood protection is a critical public 
safety need. Further delays only serve to expand opportunities for a 
catastrophic flood.
  No urban area in the United States is at higher risk of flooding than 
Sacramento, CA.
  Located at the confluence of two major rivers, the American and 
Sacramento, the floodplain is home to half-a-million residents, $40 
billion in property, 5,000 businesses and the necessary supporting 
infrastructure, all of which has less than 100-year flood protection.
  With more than $30 billion in damageable property in the floodplain, 
the Corps of Engineers has estimated the damage from a flood would 
range from a minimum of $7 billion to as much as $15 billion.
  As one of the largest economic engines in the world, a flood in 
California's capital city would effectively shut down the State's 
government and seriously disrupt regional commerce and transportation.
  The Mini-Raise will provide Sacramento with a 213-year level of 
protection. It will allow the system to safely handle a storm 50 
percent larger than anything ever recorded in the 3,000-year history of 
the American River Watershed; it will add 95,000 acre-feet of new 
emergency flood storage capacity to allow operators to control dam 
outflows in accordance to what the downstream levees can safely carry; 
it will bring Folsom Dam into compliance with Federal Dam safety 
standards; it will restore wildlife habitat along the Lower American 
River; and it will improve conditions for naturally spawning Steelhead 
and Salmon by mechanizing temperature control shutters.
  The project has wide support at Federal, State, and local level. It 
is supported by the Army Corp of Engineers and funded in the Bush 
administration's budget request.
  The project has bi-partisan support in Congress including Republican 
Congressman Pombo, as well as Democrats: Robert Matsui, George Miller, 
Mike Thompson, and Ellen Tauscher.
  It has the local support of Heather Fargo, Mayor of Sacramento; 
Deborah Ortiz, California State Senator; Darrell Steinberg, California 
Assemblyman; Illa Collin, Chairman of the Sacramento County Board of 
Supervisors; Butch Hodkins, Executive Director of the Sacramento Area 
Flood Control Agency; Karolyn W. Simon, President of American River 
Flood Control Alliance; Donald Gerth, California State University, 
Sacramento; and Vicki Lee, Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club.
  The bill also calls for a permanent bridge to replace the road that 
currently runs atop Folsom Dam. Given the recent announcement by the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to close the 
road over the Dam, the need for such a bridge has become doubly 
important. This bridge will serve the needs of nearly 20,000 commuters 
who use the Folsom Dam Road every day.
  I want to thank my colleague from California for introducing this 
critical piece of legislation and I ask for support from the rest of 
the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 445. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revise the 
age and service requirements for eligibility to receive retired pay for 
non-regular service; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, many bills were introduced in the last 
Congress that would lower the age at

[[Page S2711]]

which Reservists can receive retirement benefits. Most of these bills 
were met with resistance from the Department of Defense, due to cost 
estimates over a 10-year period. It is my hope that his Bill, the 
Reserve Retirement and Retention Act of 2003, will serve as a 
compromise measure and deliver retirement benefits to Reservists and 
Guardsmen at an earlier age. This legislation would lower the 
retirement age of a Reservist by one year for every 2-year period that 
he or she serves past the requisite 20 years for retirement. For 
example, if a Reservist should serve for 22 years, he or she could 
receive retirement benefits at age 59. This legislation will serve as a 
critical tool in encouraging the most experienced Reservists and 
Guardsmen to stay past the 20-year mark. It is my hope that this 
measure will encourage our Reservists and Guardsmen to stay in their 
units longer, while making their retirement benefits more generous for 
them and their families.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 445

       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 ``Reservists Retirement and 
     Retention Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

       (a) Age and Service Requirements.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is 
     entitled, upon application, to retired pay computed under 
     section 12739 of this title, if the person--
       ``(A) satisfies one of the combinations of requirements for 
     minimum age and minimum number of years of service (computed 
     under section 12732 of this title) that are specified in the 
     table in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) performed the last six years of qualifying service 
     while a member of any category named in section 12732(a)(1) 
     of this title, but not while a member of a regular component, 
     the Fleet Reserve, or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, except 
     that in the case of a person who completed 20 years of 
     service computed under section 12732 of this title before 
     October 5, 1994, the number of years of qualifying service 
     under this subparagraph shall be eight; and
       ``(C) is not entitled, under any other provision of law, to 
     retired pay from an armed force or retainer pay as a member 
     of the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
       ``(2) The combinations of minimum age and minimum years of 
     service required of a person under subparagraph (A) of 
     paragraph (1) for entitlement to retired pay as provided in 
     such paragraph are as follows:

        ``Age, inThe minimum years of service required for that age is:
  55............................................................30 ....

  56............................................................28 ....

  57............................................................26 ....

  58............................................................24 ....

  59............................................................22 ....

  60.........................................................20.''.....

       (b) 20-Year Letter.--Subsection (d) of such section is 
     amended by striking ``the years of service required for 
     eligibility for retired pay under this chapter'' in the first 
     sentence and inserting ``20 years of service computed under 
     section 12732 of this title.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of 
     the first month beginning on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to retired 
     pay payable for that month and subsequent months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 447. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
institutions of higher education to preserve the educational status and 
financial resources of military personnel called to active duty; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, When the President give the order to 
activate reservists and National Guardsmen, the lives of those men and 
women are put on hold. Businesses, careers, and families are left 
behind so that America's interests may be served. Students make up a 
substantial part of our National Guard and Reserve forces. When these 
students are activated, it jeopardizes their academic standing, as well 
as their scholarships and grants. This bill would preserve their 
academic standing for the duration of their service as well as a one 
year period that follows that service. It would also preserve their 
scholarships and grants, as well as entitle them to a refund of unused 
tuition and fees. Federal law already safeguards the employment status 
of activated reservists and Guardsmen. It is time that we extend the 
same guarantee to students.
  This legislation would require colleges, universities, and community 
colleges to grant National Guardsmen and reservists a leave of military 
absence when they are called to active duty. This leave of absence 
would last while the student is serving on active duty and a one year 
period at the conclusion of active service. This bill would preserve 
the academic credits that the student had earned before being 
activated. It would also preserve the scholarships and grants awarded 
to the student before being activated. Under this legislation, students 
would be entitled to receive a refund of tuition and fees or credit the 
tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the student 
returns from military leave. If a student elects to receive a refund, 
it would allow them to receive a full refund, minus the percentage of 
time the student spent enrolled in classes.
  The protections that are already afforded our reservists and 
Guardsmen are appropriate considering the hardships they endure on the 
nation's behalf. We need to acknowledge the many college students who 
are in the ranks of the Guard and Reserve and extend to them the 
protections they deserve. In this day of uncertainty on the world 
stage, our reservists must be prepared to be called up at a moments 
notice. Thousands have already been activated for Operations Enduring 
Freedom, and many thousands more are either in Kuwait or on their way 
there. Once they get to their duty station, they need to focus all of 
their attention on the mission. This legislation provides our student 
reservists with the proper safeguards on their academic career which 
will allow them to accomplish their mission.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 447

       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 ``Reservist Opportunities and 
     Protection of Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

       (a) Obligation as Part of Program Participation 
     Requirements.--Section 487(a)(22) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(22)) is amended by inserting ``and 
     with the policy on leave of absence for active duty military 
     service established pursuant to section 484C'' after 
     ``section 484B''.
       (b) Leave of Absence for Military Service.--Part G of title 
     IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by 
     inserting after section 484B (20 U.S.C. 1091b) the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 484C. LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

       ``(a) Leave of Absence Required.--Whenever a student who is 
     a member of the National Guard or other reserve component of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States, or a member of such 
     Armed Forces in a retired status, is called or ordered to 
     active duty, the institution of higher education in which the 
     student is enrolled shall grant the student a military leave 
     of absence from the institution while such student is serving 
     on active duty, and for one year after the conclusion of such 
     service.
       ``(b) Consequences of Military Leave of Absence.--
       ``(1) Preservation of status and accounts.--A student on a 
     military leave of absence from an institution of higher 
     education shall be entitled, upon release from serving on 
     active duty, to be restored to the educational status such 
     student had attained prior to being ordered to such duty 
     without loss of academic credits earned, scholarships or 
     grants awarded, or, subject to paragraph (2), tuition and 
     other fees paid prior to the commencement of the active duty.
       ``(2) Refunds.--
       ``(A) Option of refund or credit.--An institution of higher 
     education shall refund tuition or fees paid or credit the 
     tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the 
     student returns from a military leave of absence, at the 
     option of the student. Notwithstanding the 180-day limitation 
     referred to in section 484B(a)(2)(B), a student on a military 
     leave of absence under this section shall not be treated as 
     having withdrawn for purposes of section 484B unless the 
     student fails to return at the end of the military leave of 
     absence (as determined under subsection (a) of this section).
       ``(B) Proportionate reduction of refund for time 
     completed.--If a student requests a refund during a period of 
     enrollment, the percentage of the tuition and fees that shall

[[Page S2712]]

     be refunded shall be equal to 100 percent minus--
       ``(i) the percentage of the period of enrollment (for which 
     the tuition and fees were paid) that was completed (as 
     determined in accordance with section 484B(d)) as of the day 
     the student withdrew, provided that such date occurs on or 
     before the completion of 60 percent of the period of 
     enrollment; or
       ``(ii) 100 percent, if the day the student withdrew occurs 
     after the student has completed 60 percent of the period of 
     enrollment.
       ``(c) Active Duty.--In this section, the term `active duty' 
     has the meaning given such term in section 101(d)(1) of title 
     10, United States Code, except that such term--
       ``(1) does not include active duty for training or 
     attendance at a service school; but
       ``(2) includes, in the case of members of the National 
     Guard, active State duty.''.

                          ____________________