[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.''.
____________________