[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4169-S4179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 670. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at
95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``James R.
Browning United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am re-introducing legislation today to
name the courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California,
as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse.''
Judge Browning was appointed to the court by President Kennedy and
has spent 40 years as a circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. For twelve of those years, he served as Chief Judge. As
chief judge, Judge Browning reorganized and modernized the
administration of the Ninth Circuit. Now, he is on Senior Status.
He is originally from Montana and graduated from Montana State
University in 1938 and from Montana University Law School in 1941,
achieving the highest scholastic record in his class and serving as
editor-in-chief of the law review. Before being appointed to the Court,
Judge Browning served in the U.S. Army and worked for Department of
Justice and in private practice.
I can think of no more appropriate honor for Judge Browning than to
place his name on the courthouse building where he has worked for 40
years.
______
By Mr. ENSIGN:
S. 672. A bill to require a 50 hour workweek for Federal prison
inmates and to establish a grant program for mandatory drug testing,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory
Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the
continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to
rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal
prisoners.
Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what
happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals
arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable
television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be
better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back
their victims. That's not justice.
The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to
help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and
rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make
restitution to their victims.
First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have
a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills
preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current
federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000
inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a
prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely
unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to
provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners.
Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay
would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent
would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to
victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate
for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a
non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and
the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions
that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs.
Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish
a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal
contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of
rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions,
inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs
not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to
offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any
employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory
drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at
least twice each year.
I understand that many State and local prisons would also be
interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that
reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local
government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing
requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this
legislation.
Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a
requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate
in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program
would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to
deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the
offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to
participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be
confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the
duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be
allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law.
These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already
supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These
programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where
they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments,
coupled
[[Page S4170]]
with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and
life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in
inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self-
direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so
well that over 30 states now have them in place.
Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities
and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to
possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually
explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in
nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot
plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed
to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar,
sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean
women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these
individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they
committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or
better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me
that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding,
taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk.
We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the
gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our
nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as
rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind
of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer
acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day
instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time
that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes
that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum
extent possible, will be made.
Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison
system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of
Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states
in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope
that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug
treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training
time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime
and returning to prison.
I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me
in getting it passed this year.
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 673. A bill to amend part D of title III of the Public Health
Service Act to authorize grants and loan guarantees for health centers
to enable the centers to fund capital needs projects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece
of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety
net--our Nation's health centers--serve the uninsured and medically-
underserved.
The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers'
mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an
artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal
grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health
center needs to do--including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But
federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most
critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or
nonprofit organizations, will ever face--capital improvements.
Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers
are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over
time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious
about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care
access needs, we must allow Federal grant dollars to be used to meet
our health centers' capital needs.
I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about
health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health
centers--which include community health centers, migrant health
centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers--
address the health care access problem by providing primary care
service in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved
communities throughout the United States.
And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious
issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans'
lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing
health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to
a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition,
over 41 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty
accessing care due to the inability to pay.
Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,400 health
center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to more
than 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 850,000
farmworkers, and almost 750,000 homeless individuals each year. The
care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high-
quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best
health care bargains around--the average yearly cost for a health
center patient is just over one dollar per day.
I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health
care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health
centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to
do exactly that. The Senate has voted in support of a proposal I have
made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling
funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has
proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care
in the years ahead.
But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources
flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that
stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I
mentioned, Federal health center grants are currently allowed to be
used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and
administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities,
even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot
be used for capital improvements.
This means that unless health centers can find some other way to
finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the
significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could
provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen.
It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly
expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the
seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find
ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or
even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of-
control.
It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately
in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and
purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment
needed for the desired expansion into dental services.
It means that even if Federal Government is willing to commit grant
funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved
communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for
miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of
funding for a facility in which to house it.
This is more than theory--the evidence shows that many existing
health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation
or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers
reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight
operate out of a facility more than half a century old.
Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 12 states showed that
more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified
need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The
average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the
needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million
efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2
billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers.
And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned,
hundreds of
[[Page S4171]]
medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the
services of a health center. This further shows the need for new
facilities--and more capital--as we expand access to new communities.
So what about possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways--
in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital
improvements. Businesses--large and small--do it all the time. So do
other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use
built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise
money through private donations as part of a capital campaign.
But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other
businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic
as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project.
Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The
revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants,
low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health
insurers is typically all put back into to patient care.
Health centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise
through private donations and non-Federal grant sources. In fact, an
average of 9 percent of health center revenue comes from these sources.
Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating
expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request
further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers
also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like
universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural
middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is
particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and
which can have the most dire health care access problems.
Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for
capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured
patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received
from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant
operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans
because they don't feel assured that a health center will have
sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are
made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue
that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources--such as the
health centers' grant funding and Medicine and Medicaid reimbursements.
So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a
need--many health centers require significant help to build or maintain
adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the
loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal
government from using health center funding to do exactly that.
We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right
now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the
health center mission in the best way possible--and that is going to
mean at times that we should support some new construction or major
renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of
repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a
health center can reach out to, the Federal Government should help with
the major renovation or the new construction needed.
The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the Federal
Government to make grants to health centers for facility construction,
modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal
is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many
uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get
rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers.
Behond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further
and permits the Federal Government to guarantee loans made by a bank or
another private lender to a health center to construct, replace,
modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is
an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other
private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults
on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can
stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the Federal
Government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated
money--perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total--to insure
against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that
for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of
loans can be guaranteed.
There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options--the
facility grants and the facility loan guarantees--to work together.
Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by
guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may
well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure
specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and
the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as
possible.
Let my try to respond in advance to a few potential criticism of this
legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the
government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar
projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just
about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of
specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects.
Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction
projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used
for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance
to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's
funding level, this would mean up to $75 million for facility grants
and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow
some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily
mean help for more than $200 million in health center capital projects.
But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to
five-percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible
runaway spending.
Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not Federal assistance is
going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be
expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction
or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are
expected to help. No more than 90 percent of the total costs of a major
project can come from Federal sources--and this is the absolute upper
limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which
federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This
bill does not give local areas a free ride.
The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are
hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically-
underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help
these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their
building is literally crumbling around them.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help
our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making
this bill law.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 674. A bill to amend the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994 to
reaffirm and revise the designation of America's National Maritime
Museum, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing America's
National Maritime Museum Designation Act of 2003. This legislation
would designate an additional 19 maritime museums as ``America's
National Maritime Museums'' nationwide. Maritime Museums are dedicated
to advancing maritime and nautical science by fostering the exchange of
maritime information and experience and by promoting advances in
nautical education.
The America's National Maritime Museum designation would include a
[[Page S4172]]
commitment on the part of each institution toward accomplishing a
coordinated education initiative, resources management program,
awareness campaign, and heritage grants program. Maritime museums in
America are dedicated to illuminating humankind's experience with the
sea and the events that shaped the course and progress of civilization.
Museum collections are composed of hundreds of thousands of maritime
items, including ship models, scrimshaw, maritime paintings, decorative
arts, intricately carved figureheads, working steam engines, and much
more. Maritime museums offer a variety of learning experiences for
children and adults through hands-on workshops and programs that focus
on maritime history.
Maritime lecture series offer an opportunity to learn about the
history and lore of the sea from some of the Nation's leading maritime
experts. Visitors learn the broad concept of sea power--the historic
and modern importance of the sea in matters commercial, military,
economic, political, artistic, and social.
The legislation that I am proposing would help museums better
interpret maritime and social history to the public using their
extensive collections of artifacts, exhibits and expertise. These
programs and facilities are used by schools, civic organizations,
genealogists, maritime scholars, and the visiting public, thus, serving
students of all ages.
I urge all members of the Senate to join me in support of The
America's National Maritime Museum Designation Act of 2003.
______
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Crapo, and Mr.
Kyl):
S. 675. A bill to require the Congressional Budget Office and the
Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic modeling in
addition to static economic modeling in the preparation of budgetary
estimates of proposed changes in Federal revenue law; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget, jointly,
pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one
Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be
discharged.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget
Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when
estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.
For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering
how those changes might affect the economy.
The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes
have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not
surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base.
The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our
economy is not new to the 21st Century.
On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect
of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:
Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or
incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy
into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic
ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate
reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans
aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-
overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment
incentives for business. . .
What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today.
Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more
Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides
economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand
not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the
benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term
increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can
provide.
The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy
changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower
revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget.
This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on
our economy.
The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not
just a Republican ideal.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:
It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in
power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an
economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce
enough jobs or enough profits.
Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White
House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that
Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before
we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to
American families.
The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside-
the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to
estimate revenues does have important real world implications.
For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier
to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the
pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on
our economy.
Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be
less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the
positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a
simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.
American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden;
providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work
even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their
medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or
put money away for retirement.
We know that when government takes money away from working families,
it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money
back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.
I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress'
use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply
directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic
scoring.
This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide
analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on
January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a
way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative
scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the
traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring
method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''
By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President,
through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic,
and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the
antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 675
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that it is necessary to ensure
that Congress is presented with reliable information from the
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation as to the dynamic macroeconomic feedback effects to
changes in Federal law and the probable behavioral responses
of taxpayers, businesses, and other parties to such changes.
Specifically, the Congress intends that, while not excluding
any other estimating method, dynamic estimating techniques
shall also be used in estimating the fiscal impact of
proposals to change Federal laws, to the extent that data are
available to permit estimates to be made in such a manner.
SEC. 2. ESTIMATES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION.
In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any
proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate
shall be prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation of each
such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that
estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and
business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that
proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback
effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall
apply only to a proposed change that the Joint
[[Page S4173]]
Committee on Taxation determines, pursuant to a static fiscal
estimate, has a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in
any fiscal year.
SEC. 3. ESTIMATES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any
proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate
shall be prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of each
such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that
estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and
business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that
proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback
effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall
apply only to a proposed change that the Congressional Budget
Office determines, pursuant to a static fiscal estimate, has
a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in any fiscal year.
SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF ASSUMPTIONS.
Any report to Congress or the public made by the Joint
Committee on Taxation or the Congressional Budget Office that
contains an estimate made under this Act of the effect that
any legislation will have on revenues shall be accompanied
by--
(1) a written statement fully disclosing the economic,
technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in
producing that estimate, and
(2) the static fiscal estimate made with respect to the
same legislation and a written statement of the economic,
technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in
producing that estimate.
SEC. 5. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.
In performing the tasks specified in this Act, the Joint
Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office
may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter
into contracts with universities or other private or public
organizations to perform such estimations or to develop
protocols and models for making such estimates.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bayh, and Mr.
Rockefeller):
S. 676. A bill to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator
Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators
Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation.
The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review
decisions of the World Trade Organization.
Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that
the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we
negotiated.
WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well
beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide-
ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and
safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into
question.
Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment''
violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties
collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and
redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade.
The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite
this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an
impermissible penalty for dumping.
I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the
Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming
majority of the Senate.
In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in
support of this important law.
Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood
lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its
lumber industry, and I applaud that decision.
But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled
that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy-
distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S.
prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO
practice.
We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing
these and other cases.
In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our
trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the
rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own
judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles.
In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights
the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to
accept.
Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of
Congress and the American public.
The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is
to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate.
Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress,
would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate
judges to serve 5-year terms.
The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United
States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority.
The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress.
Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely
consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also
allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it
should.
The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission
finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence
critics--and perhaps earn converts.
But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated
boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the
oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation.
I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we
need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority
and honestly applying the rules under which it operates.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this
important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 676
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``World
Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Review Commission
Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States joined the World Trade Organization
(in this Act referred to as the ``WTO'') as an original
member with the goal of creating an improved global trading
system and providing expanded economic opportunities for
United States firms and workers, while preserving United
States sovereignty.
(2) The American people must receive assurances that United
States sovereignty will be protected, and United States
interests will be advanced, within the global trading system
which the WTO will oversee.
(3) The WTO's dispute settlement rules are meant to enhance
the likelihood that governments will observe their WTO
obligations. These dispute settlement rules will help ensure
that the United States will reap the full benefits of its
participation in the WTO.
(4) United States support for the WTO depends on obtaining
mutual trade benefits through the openness of foreign markets
and the maintenance of effective United States and WTO
remedies against unfair and otherwise harmful trade
practices.
(5) Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act based
on its understanding that effective trade remedies would not
be eroded. These remedies are essential to continue the
process of opening foreign markets to imports of goods and
services and to prevent harm to American industry and
agriculture.
(6) In particular, WTO dispute panels and the Appellate
Body should--
(A) operate with fairness and in an impartial manner;
(B) not add to the obligations, or diminish the rights, of
WTO members under the Uruguay Round Agreements; and
(C) observe the terms of reference and any applicable WTO
standard of review.
(c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide for
the establishment of the WTO Dispute Settlement Review
Commission to achieve the objectives described in subsection
(b)(6).
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Adverse finding.--The term ``adverse finding'' means--
(A) in a panel or Appellate Body proceeding initiated
against the United States, a finding by the panel or the
Appellate Body that, any law or regulation of, or application
thereof by, the United States, or any State, is inconsistent
with the obligations of the United States under a Uruguay
Round Agreement (or nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to
a WTO member under such an Agreement); or
(B) in a panel or Appellate Body proceeding in which the
United States is a complaining party, any finding by the
panel or the Appellate Body that a measure of the party
complained against is not inconsistent with that
[[Page S4174]]
party's obligations under a Uruguay Round Agreement (or does
not nullify or impair benefits accruing to the United States
under such an Agreement).
(2) Affirmative report.--The term ``affirmative report''
means a report described in section 234(b)(2) which contains
affirmative determinations made by the Commission under
paragraph (3) of section 4(a).
(3) Appellate body.--The term ``Appellate Body'' means the
Appellate Body established by the Dispute Settlement Body
pursuant to Article 17.1 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding.
(4) Dispute settlement body.--The term ``Dispute Settlement
Body'' means the Dispute Settlement Body established pursuant
to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
(5) Dispute settlement panel; panel.--The terms ``dispute
settlement panel'' and ``panel'' mean a panel established
pursuant to Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding.
(6) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute
Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes referred
to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(7) Terms of reference.--The term ``terms of reference''
has the meaning given such term in the Dispute Settlement
Understanding.
(8) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade
Representative'' means the United States Trade
Representative.
(9) Uruguay round agreement.--The term ``Uruguay Round
Agreement'' means any of the Agreements described in section
101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(10) World trade organization; wto.--The terms ``World
Trade Organization'' and ``WTO'' mean the organization
established pursuant to the WTO Agreement.
(11) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered
into on April 15, 1994.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement
Review Commission (in this Act referred to as the
``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 5
members, all of whom shall be retired judges of the Federal
judicial circuits, and who shall be appointed by the
President, after consultation with the Majority Leader and
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority
Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate, the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives, and the chairman and ranking member
of the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
(2) Date of appointment.--The appointments of the members
of the Commission shall be made not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--
(1) In general.--Members of the Commission first appointed
shall each be appointed for a term of 5 years.
(2) Subsequent terms.--After the initial 5-year term, 3
members of the Commission shall be appointed for terms of 3
years and the remaining 2 members shall be appointed for
terms of 2 years.
(3) Vacancies.--
(A) In general.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as
the original appointment and shall be subject to the same
conditions as the original appointment.
(B) Unexpired term.--An individual chosen to fill a vacancy
shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member
replaced.
(d) Meetings.--
(1) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(2) Subsequent meetings.--The Commission shall meet
subsequently at the call of the chairperson.
(e) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall
select a chairperson and vice chairperson from among its
members.
(g) Affirmative Determinations.--An affirmative vote by a
majority of the members of the Commission shall be required
for any affirmative determination by the Commission under
section 4.
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Review of World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement
Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall review--
(A) all reports of dispute settlement panels or the
Apellate Body of the WTO in proceedings initiated by other
parties to the WTO that are adverse to the United States and
that are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body; and
(B) upon request of the Trade Representative, the chairman
or ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives, or the chairman or ranking member
of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, any other report
of a dispute settlement panel, or the Appellate Body that is
adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.
(2) Scope of review.--In the case of a report described in
paragraph (1), the Commission shall conduct a complete review
and determine whether the panel or Appellate Body, as the
case may be--
(A) exceeded its authority or its terms of reference;
(B) added to the obligations, or diminished the rights of
the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreement that is
the subject of the report;
(C) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in
misconduct, or demonstrably departed from the procedures
specified for panels and Appellate Bodies in the applicable
Uruguay Round Agreement; and
(D) deviated from the applicable standard of review,
including in antidumping, countervailing duty, and other
unfair trade remedy cases, the standard of review set forth
in Article 17.6 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994.
(3) Affirmative determination.--If the Commission makes an
affirmative determination with respect to the action of a
panel or an Appellate Body under subparagraph (A), (B), (C),
or (D) of paragraph (2), the Commission shall determine
whether the action of the panel or Appellate Body materially
affected the outcome of the report of the panel or Appellate
Body.
(b) Determination; Report.--
(1) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date
that a report of a panel or Appellate Body described in
subsection (a) is adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body, the
Commission shall make a written determination with respect to
matters described in subsection (a) (2) and (3).
(2) Reports.--The Commission shall report the determination
described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold any hearings, sit
and act at any time and place, take any testimony, and
receive any evidence as the Commission considers advisable to
carry out the purposes of this Act. The Commission shall
provide reasonable notice of a hearing held pursuant to this
subsection.
(b) Information From Interested Parties and Federal
Agencies.--
(1) Notice of panel or appellate body report.--The Trade
Representative shall advise the Commission not later than 5
days after the date the Dispute Settlement Body adopts the
report of a panel or Appellate Body that is adverse to the
United States and shall immediately publish notice of that
advice in the Federal Register, along with notice of an
opportunity for interested parties to submit comments to the
Commission.
(2) Submissions and requests for information.--Any
interested party may submit comments to the Commission
regarding the panel or Appellate Body report. The Commission
may also secure directly from any Federal department or
agency any information the Commission considers necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of that department or
agency shall furnish the requested information to the
Commission.
(3) Access to panel and appellate body documents.--
(A) In general.--The Trade Representative shall make
available to the Commission all submissions and relevant
documents relating to the panel or Appellate Body report,
including any information contained in submissions identified
by the provider of the information as proprietary information
or information treated as confidential by a foreign
government.
(B) Public access.--Any document which the Trade
Representative submits to the Commission shall be available
to the public, except information which is identified as
proprietary or confidential.
(4) Assistance from federal agencies; confidentiality.--
(A) Administrative assistance.--Any agency or department of
the United States that is designated by the President shall
provide administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, or
other support services to the Commission to assist the
Commission with the performance of the Commission's
functions.
(B) Confidentiality.--The Commission shall protect from
disclosure any document or information submitted to it by a
department or agency of the United States which the agency or
department requests be kept confidential. The Commission
shall not be considered to be an agency for purposes of
section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 677. A bill to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in
the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation
Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003.'' I introduced a similar bill in
the 107th Congress. I am confident that the 108th Congress will quickly
pass this bill on to the President for his signature so
[[Page S4175]]
that we can continue to celebrate this special place.
My bill improves upon my earlier efforts designating the park.
The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be
enjoyed by all. The park's combination of geological wonders and
diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in North
America.
The first person to survey the canyon, Abraham Lincoln Fellows, noted
in 1901, ``our surroundings were of the wildest possible description.
The roar of the water . . . was constantly in our ears, and the walls
of the canyon, towering half mile in height above us, were seemingly
vertical.'' Similarly, today, visitors can enjoy hiking the deep gorge
to the Gunnison River raging below, or look overhead to marvel at
eagles and peregrine falcons soaring in the sky.
This bill modifies the legislative boundary of the Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area allowing even greater access to the park's
many recreational opportunities including boating, fishing, and hiking.
This important legislation would expand the National Park by 2,725
acres, for a total of 33,025 acres. The Conservation area will be
increased by 5,700 acres, for a total of 63,425 acres. In total this
bill adds approximately 8,400 acres to provide habitat for several
listed, threatened, endangered and BLM sensitive species including, the
Bald Eagle, the River Otter, Delta Lomation, and Clay-Loving Buckwheat.
Furthermore, I have added specific language to ensure that the Bureau
of Reclamation retains its traditional jurisdiction over water and
water delivery systems.
This legislation helps preserve a unique national resource and a
source of national pride.
I urge quick passage of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 677
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 ``Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area
Boundary Revision Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY
REVISION.
(a) Establishment.--Section 4(a) of the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``There is hereby established'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There is established''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Boundary revision.--The boundary of the Park is
revised to include the addition of not more than 2,725 acres,
as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary Modifications'
and dated January 21, 2003.''.
(b) Administration.--Section 4(b) of the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Upon'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Land transfer.--
``(A) In general.--On''; and
(2) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Additional land.--On the date of enactment of the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003, the
Secretary shall transfer the land under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management identified as `Tract C' on the
map described in subsection (a)(2) to the administrative
jurisdiction of the National Park Service for inclusion in
the Park.
``(2) Authority.--The Secretary shall''.
SEC. 3. GRAZING PRIVILEGES AT BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON
NATIONAL PARK.
Section 4(e) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of
1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Transfer.--If land authorized for grazing under
subparagraph (A) is exchanged for private land under this
Act, the Secretary shall transfer any grazing privileges to
the private land acquired in the exchange in accordance with
this section.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) with respect to the permit or lease issued to
LeValley Ranch Ltd., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2
limited partners as of October 21, 1999;
``(C) with respect to the permit or lease issued to Sanburg
Herefords, L.L.P., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2
general partners as of October 21, 1999; and''; and
(D) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) by striking ``partnership, corporation, or'' in each
place it appears and inserting ``corporation or''; and
(ii) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C)''.
SEC. 4. ACQUISITION OF LAND.
(a) Authority To Acquire Land.--Section 5(a)(1) of the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-
3(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or the map described in
section 4(a)(2)'' after ``the Map''.
(b) Method of Acquisition.--
(1) In general.--Land or interest in land acquired under
the amendments made by this Act shall be made in accordance
with section 5(a)(2)(A) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area
Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-3(a)(2)(A)).
(2) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired
without the consent of the landowner.
SEC. 5. GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA BOUNDARY
REVISION.
Section 7(a) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of
1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-5(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In General.--There is established''
and inserting the following:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Boundary revision.--The boundary of the Conservation
Area is revised to include the addition of not more than
7,100 acres, as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary
Modifications' and dated January 21, 2003.''.
SEC. 6. ACCESS TO WATER DELIVERY FACILITIES.
The Commissioner of Reclamation shall retain administrative
jurisdiction over, and access to, land, facilities, and roads
of the Bureau of Reclamation in the East Portal area and the
Crystal Dam area, as depicted on the map identified in
section 4(a)(2) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of
1999 (as added by section 2(a)(2)) for the maintenance,
repair, construction, replacement, and operation of any
facilities relating to the delivery of water under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau to users of the water (as of the
date of enactment of this Act).
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 678. A bill to amend chapter 10 of title 39, United States Code,
to include postmasters and postmasters organizations in the process for
the development and planning of certain policies, schedules, and
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Postmasters
Equity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to have Senators Collins, Daschle,
Jeffords, Inouye, Mikulski, and Sarbanes join me as original
cosponsors. Our bill modifies legislation I offered in the 107th
Congress. That bill, S. 177, the Postmasters Fairness Act, enjoyed the
bipartisan support of 49 members of the U.S. Senate. Its House
companion bill, H.R. 250, had 291 cosponsors.
The measure I introduce today differs from its predecessor in that it
provides postmasters the option of fact finding rather than binding
arbitration if the postmasters management associations and the Postal
Service are unable to reach agreement on specific issues. Fact finding
would allow for an unbiased review of the issues in dispute and the
issuance of non-binding recommendations. The measure would also define
the term postmaster for the first time.
Extending the option of fact finding to postmasters will enable them
to take a more active and constructive role in managing their
individual post offices and discussing compensation issues with the
Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created a
consultative process for postmasters and other non-union postal
[[Page S4176]]
employees to negotiate pay and benefits. However, under the current
system, postmasters have seen an erosion of their role in improving the
quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local
post offices. This has been particularly true for postmasters
responsible for small and medium sized post offices where they serve as
front line managers. These circumstances are among factors contributing
to the decline in the number of postmasters since the reorganization of
the Postal Service over three decades ago.
At the present time, postmasters lack recourse when consultation
fails, and my bill extends to our Nation's postmasters what is
currently enjoyed by postal supervisors. While postal supervisors have
the same consultation process as postmasters, the supervisors also have
fact finding, which provides them with greater ability to negotiate
with USPS management.
The Postal Service estimates that each day seven million customers
transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of the
mail, six days a week, and the Postal Service does not disappoint us.
Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans
visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view
our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our communities. In
fact, many of our towns and cities have developed around a post office
where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal
government.
Our Nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the
mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they help fuel the
infrastructure that continues to boost the performance ratings of the
Postal Service. Postmasters have enabled us to communicate with one
another since the dawn of this great republic. I urge my colleagues to
join me in showing their support for our Nation's postmasters by
cosponsoring this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 678
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 ``Postmaster Equity Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. POSTMASTERS AND POSTMASTERS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 1004 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, postmaster,'' after
``supervisory'' both places it appears;
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, postmaster,''
after ``supervisory''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``or that a managerial organization (other
than an organization representing supervisors)'' and insert
``that a postmaster organization represents a substantial
percentage of postmasters (as defined under subsection
(j)(3)), or that a managerial organization (other than an
organization representing supervisors or postmasters)''; and
(ii) by striking ``relating to supervisory'' and inserting
``relating to supervisory, postmasters,'';
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, and the Postal
Service and the postmasters organization (or
organizations),'' after ``supervisors' organization'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``and the postmasters organization (or organizations)'' after
``the supervisors' organization'' both places it appears;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and
inserting ``organizations''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``organization'' and
inserting ``organizations'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and the postmasters
organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors'
organization''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and
inserting ``organizations'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and the postmasters
organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors'
organization''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and
inserting ``organizations''; and
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, and the Postal
Service and the postmasters organization (or
organizations),'';
(5) in subsections (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and the postmasters
organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors'
organization'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, the postmasters
organization (or organizations),'' after ``The Postal
Service''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and the postmasters
organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors'
organizations'';
(6) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) `postmasters organization' means, with respect to a
calendar year, any organization whose membership on June 30th
of the preceding year included not less than 20 percent of
all individuals employed as postmasters on that date; and
``(4) `postmaster' means an individual who is the manager-
in-charge, with or without the assistance of subordinate
managers or supervisors, the operations of a post office.'';
and
(7) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j), and
inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h)(1) If, notwithstanding the mutual efforts required by
subsection (e) of this section, the postmasters organization
(or organizations), believes that the decision of the Postal
Service is not in accordance with the provisions of this
title, the organization may, within 10 days following its
receipt of such decision, request the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to convene a factfinding panel (in this
subsection referred to as the `panel') concerning such
matter.
``(2) Within 15 days after receiving a request under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service shall provide a list of 7 individuals
recognized as experts in supervisory and managerial pay
policies. The postmasters organization (or organizations) and
the Postal Service shall each designate 1 individual from the
list to serve on the panel. If, within 10 days after the list
is provided, either of the parties has not designated an
individual from the list, the Director of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service shall make the
designation. The first 2 individuals designated from the list
shall meet within 5 days and shall designate a third
individual from the list. The third individual shall chair
the panel. If the 2 individuals designated from the list are
unable to designate a third individual within 5 days after
their first meeting, the Director shall designate the third
individual.
``(3)(A) The panel shall recommend standards for pay
policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs affecting
the members of the postmasters organization (or
organizations) for the period covered by the collective
bargaining agreement specified in subsection (e)(1) of this
section. The standards shall be consistent with the policies
of this title, including sections 1003(a) and 1004(a) of this
title.
``(B) The panel shall, consistent with such standards, make
appropriate recommendations concerning the differences
between the parties on such policies, schedules, and
programs.
``(4) The panel shall make its recommendation no more than
30 days after its appointment, unless the Postal Service and
the postmasters organization (or organizations) agree to a
longer period. The panel shall hear from the Postal Service
and the postmasters organization (or organizations) in such a
manner as it shall direct. The cost of the panel shall be
borne equally by the Postal Service and the postmasters
organization (or organizations), with the Service to be
responsible for one-half the costs and the postmasters
organization (or organizations) to be responsible for the
remainder.
``(5) Not more than 15 days after the panel has made its
recommendation, the Postal Service shall provide the
postmasters organization (or organizations) its final
decision on the matters covered by factfinding under this
subsection. The Postal Service shall give full and fair
consideration to the panel's recommendation and shall explain
in writing any differences between its final decision and the
panel's recommendation.
``(i) Not earlier than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, and from time to time
thereafter, the Postal Service or the postmasters
organization (or organizations) may request, by written
notice to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and
to the other party, the creation of a panel to review the
effectiveness of the procedures and the other provisions of
this section and the provisions of section 1003 of this
title. The panel shall be designated in accordance with the
procedure established in subsection (h)(2) of this section.
The panel shall make recommendations to Congress for changes
in this title as it finds appropriate.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--
(1) Section heading.--The section heading for section 1004
of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 1004. Supervisory, postmaster, and other managerial
organizations''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
10 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking
the item relating to section 1004 and inserting the
following:
``1004. Supervisory, postmaster, and other managerial organizations.''.
[[Page S4177]]
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus,
Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Carper, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Specter, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Lincoln, and
Mr. Reid):
S 679. A bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education,
community prosecutors, and training in our neighborhoods; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the COPS program through 2009.
Since September 11, our local police have been asked to do more for
their communities than ever before. Walk the beat. Be on guard against
terrorists. Secure critical infrastructures. And gather intelligence on
future terrorist acts when possible. Washington has a role in securing
the homeland, but the burdens fall heaviest on our local communities.
There are more than 700,000 police officers and sheriffs in the
country, compared with nearly 11,000 FBI agents. It is our local police
chiefs and sheriffs who are called upon more and more to protect us
against the new threats from abroad. We had a sobering reminder this
week. As President Bush braced the Nation for war in Iraq, Homeland
Security Director Tom Ridge ratcheted our alert level back up to orange
and called all 50 governors to request that they provide an increased
police presence at airports.
Our mayors and police chiefs are hurting. Local budgets are
incredibly tight--some communities have been forced to lay officers
off, or to consider freeing criminals before their sentences are up, to
cut costs. Even before 9/11, it was clear that the crime drop of the
nineties was coming to a close. Last winter, the FBI reported that
crime jumped for the second straight year. The FBI has had to
necessarily refocus its resources. Recently, the Washington Post
reported that the FBI has plans to ``mobilize as many as 5,000 agents
to guard against terrorist attacks'' during hostilities with Iraq. The
FBI's criminal surveillance operations ``would be temporarily
suspended.'' Local police will be called upon to pick up the slack once
the FBI is forced to pull almost half of its agents out of traditional
crime-fighting work.
The fight to secure our streets does not end with preventing
terrorism. Crime is up again. The newest figures tell us the historic
crime drop the nation experienced during the 1990s is over. Property
crimes--offenses that tend to jump in a week economy--are rising
particularly fast. The FBI recently reported a 4 percent hike in
burglaries and motor vehicle thefts last year alone. Where fighting
violent crime and bank robberies used to be among the FBI's highest
priorities, the FBI is now focused on counter-
terrorism efforts. Increasingly, local police departments, statewide
crimefighting task forces and drug-fighting projects are being told by
the Bush administration that they are on their own when it comes to
fighting crime.
What's worse, all of this is happening during a time of unprecedented
economic hardship in our cities and States. States are facing dramatic
budgetary shortfalls. A new report finds that budget gaps for State
governments soared by nearly 50 percent in the past three months and
state legislatures face a minimum $68.5 billion budget shortfall for
the coming fiscal year. Mayors nationwide report that cities spent $2.6
billion through the end of last year on new security costs.
The response of the administration to these concerns has been
disappointing. This year, for the second budget cycle in a row, the
President proposes to eliminate the COPS hiring program. COPS is the
only initiative in the entire Federal Government that targets its
resources directly towards police. There is no middleman. There is very
little red tape. Police chiefs report they have never worked with such
a responsive, effective Federal program. And yet the administration
wants to shut it down.
Since we created COPS as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, the program has
awarded grants to hire and redeploy 117,000 police officers to the
streets. 87,300 are on the beat. In the most recent year of hiring
grants, 2002, 4,400 officers were hired or redeployed.
The President's budget gives several justifications for shutting down
COPS. First, the administration claims the program doesn't work, that
it hasn't cut crime. That is a curious assertion. Crime dropped for
seven straight years after COPS resources began to be put to use in
cities and towns. There was a 28 percent drop in crime from 1994 to
2000.
Two studies support the assertion that COPS grants help cut crime.
One, released just this past November by the American Society of
Criminology, found that COPS hiring grants have ``resulted in
significant reductions in local crime rates.'' In 2000, the urban
Institute concluded that COPS has had a ``broad national impact'' on
the levels and styles of policing, and that it provided ``significant
support for the adoption of community policing around the country.''
It's not just criminologists and think tanks who agree with me that
COPS works. Leading law enforcement officials share the view. Last
year, our friend and former colleague Attorney General Ashcroft called
COPS a ``miraculous sort of success.'' He said, ``it's one of those
things that Congress hopes will happen when it sets up a program.'' At
a conference last July, the Attorney General endorsed the theory that
COPS cuts crime. ``Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with
citizens through community policing, we've seen significant drops in
crime rates,'' he noted.
The administration offers a second reason for wanting to eliminate
COPS: The disparity between ``officers hired'' and ``officers funded''.
Because COPS has funded 117,000 cops, but only 87,000 are on the
street, the President argues, the program is not accountable. That
assertion overlooks the operations of the Office of community Policing
Services. Few Federal programs operate with as much oversight and
internal review as does COPS. The disparity that seems to so concern
the Administration is simple to explain: It takes time to hire a new
cop. Once COPS awards a hiring grant, it can take anywhere from six to
eighteen months to find, hire, train and deploy the new officer. There
is no accounting problem. It is good public policy for police
departments to take the appropriate amount of time to find suitable
candidates for new community policing positions, and this discrepancy
between officers funded and officers hired is the result.
Post 9/11, COPS is about much more than fighting crime. It's about
homeland security. The Attorney General again said it best last July
when he noted that ``COPS provides resources that reflect our national
priority of terrorism prevention.'' The new assistant director at the
FBI in charge of coordinating with local law enforcement agreed: ``The
FBI fully understands that our success in the fight against terrorism
is directly related to the strength of our relationship with our State
and local partners.'' These aren't my words. They're the words of the
top cops.
COPS does not just hire new officers. It requires these officers to
practice community policing. Community policing is a philosophy that
gives more power to line officers. They get assigned to fixed
geographic areas. This decision-making power and neighborhood
familiarity can be invaluable in a crisis, when relationships with
community residents and the ability to make quick decisions is
critical. Community relationships that come from COPS can also help
unearth intelligence about potential terrorist actions.
By taking cops out of their cars and having them walk the streets,
police
[[Page S4178]]
officers get to know the residents of the neighborhood where they're
assigned. This has proven extremely effective at building trust and
partnership between local police and the residents they protect.
Community residents consistently sing the praises of community
policing. It pays dividends by creating a climate in which neighborhood
residents partner with police, not only providing police with valuable
information about criminal activity in their neighborhood, but
restoring overall confidence in the criminal justice system.
We need to continue the COPS program. The Justice Department reports
that for the past several grant-making cycles, demand for new police
hiring grants has outstripped available funds by a factor of almost
three to one. To meet this need, the legislation I introduce today
authorizes $600 million per year over the next 6 years, enough to hire
up to 50,000 more officers. We have made this portion of the program
more flexible: up to half of these hiring dollars can be used to help
police departments retain those community police officers currently on
payroll. In another change from current law, a portion of these funds
can be used for officer training and education.
We make a key change to the current COPS program in the bill I
introduce today. In response to the needs of first responders across
the country, the bill authorizes a new, permanent COPS Overtime
Program. This initiative, funded at up to $150 million per year for 6
years, will help ease the homeland security burdens faced by police
departments across the country by reimbursing local police departments
for the homeland security overtime expenses they incur. I was pleased
that the Appropriations Committee included a 1-year, $60 million
version of this program in the recently-passed omnibus appropriations
bill. The permanent COPS Overtime Program in this bill builds on that
appropriations provision.
The legislation also provides funding for new technologies, so law
enforcement can have access to the latest high-tech crime fighting
equipment to keep pace with today's sophisticated criminals. Also
included are funds to help local district attorneys hire more community
prosecutors. These prosecutors will expand the community justice
concept and engage the entire community in preventing and fighting
crime. The statistics we have on community prosecutions are quite
promising, and we should increase the funds available to local
prosecutors, a piece of our criminal justice puzzle that has too often
gone overlooked.
I would like to thank the men and women of law enforcement for their
service and heroism during these difficult times. They are up to the
challenge, but we should support them any way we can. The bill I
introduced today gives local police the support they deserve. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to continue the COPS program.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 680. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance
book donations and literacy; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax
deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational
purposes. This proposal would simplify a complex area of the current
law and eliminate significant roadblocks that now stand in the way of
businesses with excess book inventory to donating those books to
schools, libraries, and literacy programs, where they are much needed.
Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it
comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers
or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or
libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the
landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company
to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the
trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and
shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and
easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling
center.
While there are provisions in the current law where a larger
deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies
have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the
requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service
challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to
making a contribution.
This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most,
of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and
literacy programs.
The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher
deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of
the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult
for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits
libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions.
This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often
serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further
complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has
been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The
tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to
charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.
The bill I am introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating
excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any
donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy
program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that
booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for
donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be
encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out
qualified donees and making the contributions.
My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem
with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy,
between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States,
about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can
read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a
food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent
of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are
estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can
perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or
integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading
and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with
skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills
to function successfully in our society.
While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it
will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our
tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books
while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.
The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill.
During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment,
which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was
dropped in the conference with the House. Moreover, the Finance
Committee has also approved this provision, having included it in S.
476, the CARE Act, which is currently pending on the Senate calendar.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision would
decrease revenues to the Treasury by $283 million over a ten-year
period. This estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the
books that are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help
America's adults and children.
I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is
wrong for our tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to
the landfill instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.
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. 680
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S4179]]
SECTION 1. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF BOOK
INVENTORIES.
(a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to certain contributions of ordinary
income and capital gain property) is amended by redesignating
subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by inserting after
subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Special rule for contributions of book inventory for
educational purposes.--
``(i) Contributions of book inventory.--In determining
whether a qualified book contribution is a qualified
contribution, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without
regard to whether--
``(I) the donee is an organization described in the matter
preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A), and
``(II) the property is to be used by the donee solely for
the care of the ill, the needy, or infants.
``(ii) Amount of reduction.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(B), the amount of the reduction determined under paragraph
(1)(A) shall not exceed the amount by which the fair market
value of the contributed property (as determined by the
taxpayer using a bona fide published market price for such
book) exceeds twice the basis of such property.
``(iii) Qualified book contribution.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified book contribution' means a
charitable contribution of books, but only if the
requirements of clauses (iv) and (v) are met.
``(iv) Identity of donee.--The requirement of this clause
is met if the contribution is to an organization--
``(I) described in subclause (I) or (III) of paragraph
(6)(B)(i), or
``(II) described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax
under section 501(a) (other than a private foundation, as
defined in section 509(a), which is not an operating
foundation, as defined in section 4942(j)(3)), which is
organized primarily to make books available to the general
public at no cost or to operate a literacy program.
``(v) Certification by donee.--The requirement of this
clause is met if, in addition to the certifications required
by subparagraph (A) (as modified by this subparagraph), the
donee certifies in writing that--
``(I) the books are suitable, in terms of currency,
content, and quantity, for use in the donee's educational
programs, and
``(II) the donee will use the books in its educational
programs.
``(vi) Bona fide published market price.--For purposes of
this subparagraph, the term `bona fide published market
price' means, with respect to any book, a price--
``(I) determined using the same printing and edition,
``(II) determined in the usual market in which such a book
has been customarily sold by the taxpayer, and
``(III) for which the taxpayer can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the taxpayer customarily
sold such books in arm's length transactions within 7 years
preceding the contribution of such a book.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____________________