[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 96 (Thursday, June 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8729-S8762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1338. A bill to decrease the matching funds requirement and 
authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical 
Park in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the Keweenaw National Historical Park bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1338

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

     SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

       (a) Matching Funds.--Section 8(b) of Public Law 102-543 (16 
     U.S.C. 410yy-7(b)) is amended by striking ``$4'' and 
     inserting ``$1''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10(a) of 
     Public Law 102-543 (16 U.S.C. 410yy-9(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000''.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will authorize additional judgeships in the Middle and 
Southern Federal Judicial Districts of Florida.
  Additional judgeships are needed in these two districts in order to 
deal with a large volume of filings, heavy pending caseloads, the 
considerable number of senior judges, and a rapidly growing population. 
It is vital that we add two additional permanent and one temporary 
judgeship in the Middle District and four additional permanent 
judgeships in the Southern District of Florida.
  Florida's Middle District is one of the busiest Federal district 
courts in the Nation. In 2001 it was ranked fifth in the Nation for the 
number of criminal defendants charged with fraud and drug related 
offenses among all district courts. It handles cases filed in three of 
the four largest cities in the State of Florida, Jacksonville, Orlando 
and Tampa, which comprise 60 percent of the State's population.
  In 1999 four judges were added to the Middle District of Florida. The 
numbers of weighted filings and pending caseload both decreased in 
2000. However, numbers quickly rose again in 2001. A biennial judgeship 
survey conducted in 2003 showed that in 2001 there were 553 weighted 
filings in this district versus the national average of 490. In 
addition, the United States Department of Justice has identified 
Central Florida as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Enforcement Area.
  The Southern and Middle Districts are parallel in some of the 
challenges that they face. Despite the additional judgeships that were 
created in the Southern District in 2001, the amount of weighted 
filings continues to rise. Since 1994, civil and criminal filings per 
judgeship have stayed above the national average, with civil filings 
rising by 67 percent and criminal filings increasing by 58 percent. 
Many of these increases in criminal filings are linked to the increase 
in fraud, drugs, firearms and immigration prosecutions.
  The administration of justice will continue to be a challenge in 
Florida's Federal courts unless adequate resources are committed. It is 
projected that by 2015 Florida may surpass third-ranked New York in 
population. As the population increases, so do the number of people 
seeking justice from the Federal courts in our State. I ask that my 
colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1342. A bill to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give 
the Secretary of the Interior discretion regarding taking land into 
trust; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the State of 
California and the local communities of Sonoma, Napa, and Marin 
counties the opportunity for input and review of the tribe's plan for a 
major casino in the Bay Area.
  I am offering this legislation because the Boards of Supervisors of 
the local communities impacted by this planned casino have asked me to 
amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. The Boards of Supervisors 
of Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties have each unanimously passed 
resolutions seeking a change in Federal law to restore the Secretary of 
Interior's discretion in approving land into trust and allowing the 
State and local government to have a voice in the process.
  Prior to today's introduction I have met with the Presidents of the 
Sonoma and Marin Boards of Supervisors, the Graton tribe, and Senators 
Campbell and Inouye the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee.
  This week I had a very spirited and frank conversation with Graton 
Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris and representatives from the casino 
investors. During the meeting Chairman Sarris committed to work with 
the local Boards of Supervisors and he committed to look at alternative 
sites for the casino. Chairman Sarris also said the Tribe and the 
casino investors would conduct an environmental review based on the 
criteria laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 
before a site is selected. These are positive signs and I have told 
both the Boards of Supervisors and the Tribe that I would like to see 
them continue to work together.
  This legislation guarantees that the local and State officials have a 
voice in the process. Without this change to the Graton Rancheria 
Restoration Act they do not have that voice.
  In 2000, Congress passed the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to 
restore Federal recognition to the 355 members of the Federated Indians 
of the Graton Rancheria.
  The Graton Tribe's original Rancheria was in the northern Sonoma 
County town of Graton on land purchased by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, BIA, in 1920 for the ``village home'' of otherwise homeless 
Miwok and Pomo Indians. The Rancheria was terminated in 1958 when the 
BIA approved a plan to distribute the assets to resident Indians and 
remove the Rancheria from Federal trust.
  The original version of the Graton restoration bill, H.R. 946, 
sponsored by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey in the 106th Congress, passed 
the House of Representatives with a gaming restriction, to which the 
Tribe agreed.
  In testimony before the House Resources Committee in May 2000, and in 
other public comments, Graton Chairman Greg Sarris stated that the 
Tribe had no intention of conducting gaming.
  In fact, before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Sarris 
stated, ``Many may think our motives for restoration have been 
influenced by the opportunity gaming affords some other recognized 
tribes. Because our local political constituency, both democratic and 
republican has opposed any sort of development for environmental 
reasons, we agreed with these local political forces to not develop a 
gaming complex. So, as proof, we voted as a tribe to include a non-
gaming clause in our bill, stipulating that we will not be a gaming 
tribe.''
  Furthermore, in an article in the Marin Independent Journal on 
September 21, 2000, Chairman Sarris said, ``All we want is to be 
formally recognized as Indians and have the same rights that other 
Indians do for education and health care. We are not interested in 
gambling.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of this article in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Marin Independent Journal, Sept. 21, 2000]

                 Gambling Dispute Threatens Miwok Bill

                        (By Gannet News Service)

       Washington.--Legislation to formally re-establish the 
     identity and standing of Marin's band of Coast Miwok Indians 
     appears all but dead in the face of a House-Senate dispute 
     over how tight guarantees must be that the tribe will never 
     allow casino gambling.
       ``This is insane, this is frustrating, and I just can't see 
     why we can't find a way out of this,'' said Greg Sarris, the 
     tribe's chief who is an English professor at UCLA.

[[Page S8730]]

       Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the Petaluma Democrat who authored the 
     original bill, said she shares the frustration but sees 
     little hope other than the fact that ``down the road there 
     will be other Congresses.''
       The problem is that the bill to restore the all-but-
     vanquished tribe, approved by the full House in June, 
     included specific language that waived in perpetuity any 
     right to establish gaming on the tribe's remaining one-acre 
     ancestral plot in the Sonoma County town of Graton.
       Woolsey sought that waiver in agreement with the tiny 
     tribe. In hearings last spring and summer, she and Sarris 
     said the tribe was happy to agree to the waiver. They were 
     not interested in gaming, and their acreage was too small 
     even if they were interested. Additionally, the fine print in 
     a state-passed referendum in California to divide gaming 
     resources among tribes prevents them from operating any kind 
     of casino.
       Adding a federal gaming ban on top of an existing state ban 
     was an easy and harmless layer of extra insurance to reassure 
     the community that the tribe would not be bringing high-
     stakes bingo to Marin.
       ``All we want is to be formally recognized as Indians and 
     have the same rights that other Indians do for education and 
     health care,'' said Sarris, one of some 300 descendants of 
     the tribe that the government declared extinct in the 1950s. 
     ``We are not interested in gambling.''
       But when the bill reached the Senate as an identical 
     version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
     Calif., numerous Indian advocates and the government's Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs objected. The surrender of sovereignty by 
     the Miwoks, however well-intentioned, would set a precedent 
     that could be used against other tribes in other states--in 
     effect a means to pressure tribes on the sensitive issue of 
     gambling.
       ``It's not that we don't have sympathy with what the Miwoks 
     want to do, or in this case don't want to do. It's a question 
     of eroding the hard-won sovereignty that is the legal basis 
     for the gambling that has been an important resource of many 
     tribes,'' said John Sanchez, an expert on Indian sovereignty 
     at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the 
     Apache tribe.
       Boxer's spokesman, David Sandretti, said his bill was still 
     hopeful, but the key lawmaker on the issue is Sen. Daniel 
     Inouye of Hawaii, vice chairman of the Indian Affairs 
     Committee and long a powerful voice on behalf of American 
     Indians and native Hawaiians. Without his support, the bill 
     wouldn't survive in the Senate, Sandretti said.
       Inouye made it clear this week that the bill is dead unless 
     Woolsey agreed to drop the gambling ban in her legislation.
       ``If you set that precedent, that creates a lot of 
     problems,'' Inouye said. ``I would prefer to see a measure 
     without the waiver, and if I do I'd be likely to support 
     it.''
       Inouye added that it's a meaningless, symbolic waiver to 
     begin with, because the tribe is already prevented from 
     opening a casino by state law. ``I just don't think this is 
     something that the federal government should be involved 
     in,'' he said.
       Woolsey said she has no intention of agreeing to anything 
     that doesn't include the anti-gaming clause as written.
       ``I got it out of the House, and now it's in the Senate, 
     and I guess that's just where it is,'' Woolsey said. ``I've 
     heard some proposals for compromise, but I haven't seen 
     anything that would offer the level of protection against 
     gaming that the community and the 6th Congressional District 
     would be prepared to accept.''
       Gene Buvelot of Novato, vice chairman of the Federated 
     Indians of Graton Rancheria, said his group is disappointed 
     in Woolsey, because members believe she should allow the bill 
     to go forward without the clause.
       ``We're disappointed, deeply disappointed with Woolsey 
     because she seems to be the one who's dropped the ball on 
     this, not Barbara Boxer,'' he said. ``It's a shame that it's 
     getting this far and that Woolsey is letting it bog down like 
     this.''
       Coast Miwok tribal elder Joanne Campbell, a former Marin 
     resident now living in Daly City, said she often visited her 
     great aunt at the Miwok's Graton Rancheria in Sonoma County.
       ``I'm really steamed, I'm just so upset that this bill 
     maybe will not pass,'' Campbell said. ``I think it's a just 
     bill and it's about time we got some recognition because we 
     have all these other issues to deal with, Health issues, 
     education issues, and we need this recognition to move 
     forward.''
       The bill would make the tribe eligible for a wide range of 
     U.S. and California health, education and housing grants and 
     assistance from various federal agencies, give the tribe the 
     right to establish a reservation and exempt the tribe from 
     some local, state, or federal taxes and local zoning 
     ordinances on reservation land.
       If the bill is not passed by Oct. 5, when the Senate 
     recesses, a new restoration bill would have to wait until the 
     next Congress.
       Camobell described Woolsey's refusal to drop the redundant 
     anti-gaming clause from the Senate version as ``unrelenting'' 
     and ``unreasonable.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator Boxer sponsored legislation identical to 
Congresswoman Woolsey's in the Senate, but the gaming restriction was 
stricken when the bill was ultimately passed as part of the Omnibus 
Indian Advancement Act of 2000.
  The day the legislation passed on December 11, 2000, Senator Boxer 
stated on the Senate Floor that dropping the gaming restriction was 
necessary because of opposition to the no-gaming clause by the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs and the Clinton Administration and because, 
according to Senator Boxer, ``Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming 
clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of 
conducting gaming.''
  So what has changed one might ask?
  Well, even though the Gratons voluntarily and repeatedly took a no-
gaming pledge while their restoration bill was under consideration by 
Congress, on April 23, 2003, the Tribe and its partner, Stations 
Casinos of Las Vegas, announced plans to purchase approximately 2,000 
acres of land in Southern Sonoma County near Sears Point for the 
development of a casino.
  This site is located on environmentally sensative open space and San 
Francisco--North Bay tidelands which have been the subject of a 
decades-long conservation effort by environmentalists and local 
residents.
  This site is roughly 30 miles from San Francisco--along the gateway 
to Sonoma that leads thousands of travelers into the beautiful wine 
country each day.
  The Tribe's casino proposal has outraged local elected officials and 
residents who had sympathized with the Tribe's plight and supported 
their restoration on the condition that they not seek to develop a 
casino. The Sonoma and Marin County Boards of Supervisors have each 
passed unanimous resolutions objecting to the Graton casino proposal. 
In fact, even the Board of Supervisors of neighboring Napa has also 
passed a resolution against the casino proposal. I ask unanimous 
consent to print these resolutions and letters from the counties in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Marin County, San Rafael, CA and Sonoma County, Santa 
           Rose, CA,
                                                     May 29, 2003.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We write this joint letter to 
     request your assistance with an urgent matter facing Marin 
     and Sonoma counties. As you are aware, the Graton Rancheria 
     Tribe has announced plans to acquire lands adjacent to the 
     San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge and to construct a 
     major casino in partnership with Stations Casinos of Las 
     Vegas. The proposal came as a shock to us since, at the time 
     it sought restoration in 2000, the Graton tribe represented 
     to Congress that it would not engage in gaming. It now 
     appears that the Secretary of the Interior believes she must 
     take into trust any land within our counties acquired by the 
     tribe, and that gaming will be permitted on these lands 
     without consultation with local governments or discretionary 
     review by the Secretary.
       We ask that you sponsor legislation to require that tribal 
     trust land acquisitions be subject to consultation with local 
     governments and an appropriate administrative review. We ask 
     that restored tribal land acquired for gaming be subject to 
     the two part test that it is not detrimental to the community 
     and is supported by the Governor. Finally, we ask that the 
     Secretary be given discretion with respect to accepting land 
     into trust for the benefit of the Graton tribe. County 
     Counsel from our two counties have prepared a letter to you 
     providing background and supporting details regarding our 
     proposals.
       We know that you share our concern about the proliferation 
     of casinos in California, especially those which are close to 
     metropolitan areas or have impacts on sensitive lands.
       We look forward to working with you to bring about changes 
     in the law which can advance the economic interests of tribes 
     without harm to the local community.
           Very truly yours,
     Annette Rose,
       President, Marin County Board of Supervisors.
     Paul Kelley,
       Chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
                                  ____


                         Resolution No. 03-0512

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the 
     Bay;
       Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway 
     afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not 
     only to the people of Sonoma County but to the populace of 
     the entire Bay Area;

[[Page S8731]]

       Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most 
     cherished community separators, and represent an important 
     scenic gateway to Sonoma County;
       Whereas, these bay, agriculture and wet lands have been the 
     focus of preservation and conservation efforts by 
     environmentalists and local communities for many years;
       Whereas, based upon press reports, approximately 2,000 
     acres of such lands are presently in imminent danger of being 
     withdrawn from County land use control and placed into trust 
     for the purposes of casino development--including the 
     potential of an extensive gaming complex, including a hotel, 
     parking and other support services as well as possible 
     residential development, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-
     based developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton 
     Rancheria (``Tribe'');
       Whereas, the Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in part, on 
     its promise not to engage in Indian casino gaming;
       Whereas, the federal legislation restoring the Tribe 
     contains language that could be used to circumvent the 
     normally required environmental review and administrative 
     regulatory process for taking land into trust by the United 
     States government on behalf of the Tribe;
       Whereas, the Tribe's gaming plans were announced in the 
     media without any government to government consultation with 
     affected local communities;
       Whereas, the Board and Tribe have initiated communication 
     regarding the proposed casino but details regarding the 
     project and siting have not yet been made available;
       Whereas, the proposed project could overwhelm the local 
     infrastructure in the area in which the casino project is 
     proposed;
       Whereas, the environmental impacts of the prosed project 
     have the potential of being are reaching and of such a 
     magnitude that they would negatively affect a significant 
     portion of the North Bay, including grossly aggravating 
     existing traffic problems along State Highways 37 and 101 (as 
     well as County roads in the project vicinity), pose severe 
     water quality risks, and have profound negative visual 
     impacts in the scenic area;
       Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A 
     (Indian Gaming) in March of 2000 as a means of supporting the 
     laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
     sufficiency, they were not aware that such approval would 
     allow Nevada developers to seize prized off-reservation 
     environmental resources of intense development without 
     regarding to locally approved general plans or any meaningful 
     environmental review or protection;
       Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the 
     Tribal-State Compact, local communities have been granted no 
     effective input into the development of proposed tribal 
     casinos that threaten their rights and the State appears to 
     have no effective redress for significant environmental 
     impacts these gambling casinos impose on local communities: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Sonoma County Board of supervisors, 
     based on the information currently available, strongly 
     opposes the creation of a gambling casino on the site 
     proposed by the Tribe; and be it further
       Resolved, That County staff is directed to enter into good 
     faith discussions with tribal representatives for the 
     purposes of facilitating government to government 
     communications, exploring casino development and reviewing 
     alternative sites, as well as minimizing and mitigating 
     environmental impacts of any casino project; be it further
       Resolved, That County staff is authorized to take all 
     reasonably required action, including submitting comments to 
     agencies involved in considering the trust application and 
     casino proposal, requesting assistance from State and Federal 
     elected representative, proposing legislation, participating 
     in administrative proceedings, and initiating litigation to 
     insure that any proposed gaming project in Sonoma County 
     complies with the county General Plan and meets all federal 
     and state environmental, public health, and public safety 
     requirements that otherwise would apply to a non-Indian 
     development project, and to require that any land proposed to 
     be taken into trust goes through a thorough regulatory and 
     environmental review process.
                                  ____


                         Resolution No. 2003-70

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly in to the 
     Bay; and
       Whereas, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have 
     announced their intention to acquire 2000 acres of land along 
     Highway 37 and develop a casino, hotel, housing and related 
     development on this precious natural resource; and
       Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this 
     magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this 
     single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity with 
     local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent 
     with their respective General Plans; and
       Whereas, when Congress passed the Graton Rancheria 
     Restoration Act, the Federated Indians of Graton had pledged 
     not to engage in gaming on any lands placed in trust by the 
     federal government; and
       Whereas, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria take 
     the position that under the provisions of the Graton 
     Rancheria Restoration Act, and the tribal state compact, 
     local residents have no effective input into the development 
     of the proposed tribal casino, yet these residents 
     nevertheless bear the resultant environmental, societal, 
     traffic, infrastructure, public safety, and other burdens 
     which these gambling casinos impose on their communities: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Marin calls on its elected members of the United States 
     Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and its elected 
     member of the House of Representative, Lynn Woolsey, to 
     assist the residents of Marin and the entire North Bay to 
     preserve their environment by introducing legislation that 
     would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/or the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation 
     of tribal lands and to subject any development of tribal 
     lands in the newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act.
                                  ____


                          Resolution No. 03-94

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the 
     Bay; and
       Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway 
     afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not 
     only to the people of Sonoma County but also to the populace 
     of the entire Bay Area; and
       Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most 
     cherished community separators, enjoyed and remembered by all 
     who traverse Highway 37; and
       Whereas, these agricultural lands, bay and wetlands have 
     been the focus of preservation and conservation efforts by 
     environmentalists and local communities for many years; and
       Whereas, such land are presently in imminent danger of 
     intense development--including an enormous casino, a high-
     rise hotel, an amphitheater, a residential development, and 
     acres of parking--by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based 
     developer, and
       Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this 
     magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this 
     single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity, which 
     local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent 
     with their respective General Plans; and
       Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A 
     (Indian Gaming) in March 2000 as a means of supporting the 
     laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
     sufficiency, they had no way of knowing that such approval 
     would allow Nevada developers to seize our most prized 
     environmental resources for intense development in violation 
     of all local zoning controls and health and safety 
     ordinances; and
       Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the 
     tribal state compact, local residents have been granted no 
     effective input into the development of proposed tribal 
     casinos that threaten their civil and property rights, yet 
     these residents must nevertheless bear the resultant 
     environmental, societal, traffic, infrastructure, public 
     safety, and other burdens that these gambling casinos impose 
     on their communities: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Napa strongly oppose the creation of a gambling casino along 
     highway 37 or Lakeville Highway; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Napa calls on Governor Davis, the California State 
     Legislature, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Department of 
     the Interior to take any and all steps within their powers 
     and prerogatives to block the creation of new tribal land 
     bases that are intended for gambling casinos and other 
     development inconsistent with local zoning and controls and 
     to require that all commercial development on new and 
     existing tribal lands comply with federal, state, and local 
     laws and regulations intended to safeguard the environment 
     and to protect public health and safety.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just read one part of the Resolution from 
Marin County which will give you an idea of the opposition to the 
Graton tribe's proposed casino:
  RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin calls 
on its elected members of the United States Senate, Dianne Feinstein 
and Barbara Boxer, and its elected member of the House of 
Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, to assist the residents of Marin and the 
entire North Bay to preserve their environment by introducing 
legislation that would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/
or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation of 
tribal lands and to subject development of tribal lands in the Marin 
and Sonoma Counties at a minimum to the regulatory and approval 
processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
  While the counties acknowledge that the Graton have a right to be 
recognized, they object to the site selected by the tribe and they 
especially object to language in the Restoration Act

[[Page S8732]]

that precludes the local community, the Governor, or the Secretary of 
the Interior from providing input on the suitability of this location 
for land taken into trust for gaming purposes.
  There is a problematic section of the Restoration Act that states, 
``Upon application by the Tribe, the Secretary shall accept into trust 
for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or 
Sonoma County . . .'' According to the Department of the Interior, this 
language removes any discretion by the Secretary as well as any tribal 
obligations for consultation with the surrounding community or 
environmental review, as required by the normal process under the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for newly acquired land taken into trust 
for gaming purposes.
  According to the Department of the Interior, the tribe must only 
conduct a hazardous materials review and show title to the land for 
land to be taken into trust. This could be completed in 9 months--and 
it is an inadequate review in my opinion.
  Since the local communities are seeking a remedy which would restore 
the Secretary's discretion in approving its land trust application and 
allow local government to provide input in the process, I am 
introducing this legislation today that will change the ``shall take 
land into trust'' to ``may take land into trust.'' This legislation 
will also require the two-part test that is standard under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to apply so that the State and local 
communities have input in the process.
  There is precedent for this change. In 1994, legislation was passed 
restoring the United Auburn Tribe with the same directive to the 
Secretary of the Interior, requiring that land ``shall'' be taken into 
trust for the Tribe. One of the restoration act's sponsors, Congressman 
John Doolittle sponsored an amendment to change ``shall'' to ``may'' 
after it had been passed, thereby affording the Secretary of Interior 
discretion in accepting particular parcels of land into trust and local 
government officials an opportunity to weigh in on the Tribe's proposed 
site.
  The result of that change was that the Auburn Tribe and Placer County 
officials successfully cooperated in not only identifying a mutually 
agreeable site, but they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to 
mitigate potential impacts from the proposed Thunder Valley Casino. And 
earlier this month, the tribe opened its casino.
  Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 61 
tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal 
casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and 
approximately 23 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the 
Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are 
expected to surpass Nevada's by the end of the decade.
  The dramatic growth in tribal gaming in California has the potential 
to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of 
healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California 
voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be 
permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions were asked and 
answered in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, IGRA. But without 
the modest change made by this legislation, the Graton tribe will be 
allowed to develop an off-reservation casino outside the requirements 
established in IGRA, the first time such an exception has ever been 
made for a California tribe. Allowing this to happen would set a 
dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where 
tribal gaming is permitted.
  The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not 
reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native 
American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We 
are only seeking to give the State and the local communities a voice in 
the process. They were promised the tribe would not open a casino. That 
promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review 
will take place.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward 
to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs 
Committee to pass this legislation quickly.
  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. 1342

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GIVE SECRETARY DISCRETION CONCERNING 
                   LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST.

       (a) Review.--Section 1404 of the Graton Rancheria 
     Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n-2) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Review.--No land taken into trust for the benefit of 
     the Tribe shall be construed to satisfy the terms for an 
     exception under section 20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)) to the prohibition 
     on gaming on lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the 
     benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17, 1988, under 
     section 20(a) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(a)).''.
       (b) Land Into Trust.--Section 1405(a) of the Graton 
     Rancheria Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n-3(a)) is amended 
     by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 1344. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to require 
additional disclosures relating to exchange rates in transfers 
involving international transactions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished 
colleagues Senators Schumer, Akaka, and Boxer, I am introducing ``The 
Money Wire Improvement and Remittance Enhancement Act'' (The ``Money 
WIRE Act''), legislation that will protect consumers who send cash 
remittances through international money wire transmitters by providing 
them with increased disclosure of the exchange rate and service fees, 
as well as hidden costs, for those transactions. The legislation also 
expands access to mainstream money wiring, check cashing, and other 
important services for millions of the unbanked in America, 
particularly immigrants, through our Nation's credit unions.
  Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives 
$40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of 
these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by 
immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom 
are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases 
their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their 
families and their loved ones.
  Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being 
preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who 
not only charge consumers with an upfront charge for the money wire 
transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. 
Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the 
consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed 
to be paid out to the friend of the family member.
  This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and 
Caribbean countries, where much of these types of transactions occur. 
According to the Multilateral Investment Fund and the Inter-American 
Development Bank, Latin American and Caribbean immigrants sent a record 
$32 billion to their home countries in 2002--a dramatic increase 
compared with $23 billion in 2001. Many of these dollars were used to 
pay for basic needs, such as food, medicine, and schooling, and to 
alleviate the suffering of loved ones during a difficult economic year.
  To bring this amount into even greater perspective, the remittances 
that flowed into Latin America and the Caribbean last year equaled 
roughly the amount of direct foreign investment that flowed into the 
region, and exceeded the amount of development aid to Latin America 
from all sources. For this decade alone, Latin America and the 
Caribbean could receive more than $300 billion. And experts believe 
that number is likely to grow significantly in coming years.
  These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for 
greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring 
money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of 
dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees,'' and other 
service costs.

[[Page S8733]]

  In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant 
communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for 
international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly 
disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged.
  While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign 
currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion 
fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to 
Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the 
benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering 
profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the 
stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.
  Last year alone, immigrants who sent money to Latin America and the 
Caribbean paid approximately $4 billion in transaction costs to the 
money wire transfer companies that dominate this business. In other 
words, for every $100 that an immigrant sent home, to help their family 
and loved ones, $12 was siphoned off by these businesses in order to 
``service'' that transaction.
  That adds up to a $20-$30 average cost, occasionally it can be 
considerably more, for poor, hard-working folks for whom the typical 
remittance--around $250 to $300 a month--represents a significant 
percentage of their monthly income.
  Multiplied by millions, these excessive charges constitute a 
significant major economic force. These millions could have otherwise 
been used to feed children, house a family, or invest in a small 
business--all of which markedly improve overall quality of life.
  The ``Money WIRE Act'' would require money wire transmitting 
businesses to disclose to senders, and receivers, of international 
money wire transfers the exchange rate used in association with the 
transaction; any surcharges, commissions or fees charged to the 
customer for the service; and the exact amount of the foreign currency 
to be received by the recipient in the foreign country.
  It also requires that that rate and fee information be prominently 
displayed at the wire transmitting service location and on all receipts 
associated with the money wire transaction--and it ensures that those 
disclosures occur in the same language as that principally used by the 
business to advertise its money transmitting services, if that language 
is other than English.
  The bill also requires Federal banking regulators and the Department 
of Treasury to conduct a study, and submit a report to Congress, of the 
fees and fees disclosure at traditional financial institutions compared 
to those that occur at money transmitting businesses for money wire 
transactions.
  Finally, the Act includes a provision that expands the ``field of 
membership'' definition for credit unions to give non-members, 
particularly unbanked and immigrant communities, access to credit 
unions for international money transfer, money order, and check cashing 
services, where the costs for these services are significantly less.
  This legislation does more than merely provide better information to 
consumers--it actually helps them and their families financially. 
Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer service 
providers because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That 
competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services 
that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to 
the friends and families that they were originally intended for.
  In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do 
their part to help America's economy move forward.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and 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. 1344

       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 ``Money Wire Improvement and 
     Remittance Enhancement Act of 2003'' (or the ``Money WIRE Act 
     of 2003'').

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
     sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 918. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--
       ``(1) International money transfer.--The term 
     `international money transfer' means any money transmitting 
     service involving an international transaction which is 
     provided by a financial institution or a money transmitting 
     business.
       ``(2) Money transmitting service.--The term `money 
     transmitting service' has the meaning given to such term in 
     section 5330(d)(2) of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(3) Money transmitting business.--The term `money 
     transmitting business' means any business which--
       ``(A) provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money 
     transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems 
     money orders, travelers' checks, and other similar 
     instruments; and
       ``(B) is not a depository institution (as defined in 
     section 5313(g) of title 31, United States Code).
       ``(b) Exchange Rate and Fees Disclosures Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any financial institution or money 
     transmitting business which initiates an international money 
     transfer on behalf of a consumer (whether or not the consumer 
     maintains an account at such institution or business) shall 
     provide the following disclosures in the manner required 
     under this section:
       ``(A) The exchange rate used by the financial institution 
     or money transmitting business in connection with such 
     transaction.
       ``(B) The exchange rate prevailing at a major financial 
     center of the foreign country whose currency is involved in 
     the transaction, as of the close of business on the business 
     day immediately preceding the date of the transaction (or the 
     official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central 
     bank of such foreign country).
       ``(C) All commissions and fees charged by the financial 
     institution or money transmitting business in connection with 
     such transaction.
       ``(D) The exact amount of foreign currency to be received 
     by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be 
     disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is 
     consummated and printed on the receipt referred to in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Prominent disclosure inside and outside the place of 
     business where an international money transfer is 
     initiated.--The information required to be disclosed under 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) shall be 
     prominently displayed on the premises of the financial 
     institution or money transmitting business both at the 
     interior location to which the public is admitted for 
     purposes of initiating an international money transfer and on 
     the exterior of any such premises.
       ``(3) Prominent disclosure in all receipts and forms used 
     in the place of business where an international money 
     transfer is initiated.--The information required to be 
     disclosed under paragraph (1) shall be prominently displayed 
     on all forms and receipts used by the financial institution 
     or money transmitting business when initiating an 
     international money transfer in such premises.
       ``(c) Advertisements in Print, Broadcast, and Electronic 
     Media and Outdoor Advertising.--The information required to 
     be disclosed under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(1) shall be included--
       ``(1) in any advertisement, announcements, or solicitation 
     which is mailed by the financial institution or money 
     transmitting business and pertains to international money 
     transfer; or
       ``(2) in any print, broadcast, or electronic medium or 
     outdoor advertising display not on the premises of the 
     financial institution or money transmitting business and 
     pertaining to international money transfer.
       ``(d) Disclosures in Languages Other Than English.--The 
     disclosures required under this section shall be in English 
     and in the same language as that principally used by the 
     financial institution or money transmitting business, or any 
     of its agents, to advertise, solicit, or negotiate, either 
     orally or in writing, at that office if other than 
     English.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect at the end of the 3-month period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. STUDY ON FEE DISCLOSURES FOR MONEY WIRE 
                   TRANSMISSIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Federal banking agencies (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly conduct a study on 
     fees charged and fee disclosures for money wire 
     transmissions.
       (b) Comparison of Prices.--The study required by subsection 
     (a) shall compare the disclosures provided by federally 
     insured depository institutions for money wire transmissions 
     with disclosures provided by money transmitting businesses 
     (as defined in section 5330(d)(1) of title 31, United States 
     Code) for such transmissions.

[[Page S8734]]

       (c) Report Required.--The Federal banking agencies and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly submit a report on 
     the study required under subsection (a) to the Congress 
     before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ACT AMENDMENT.

       Paragraph (12) of section 107 of the Federal Credit Union 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(12)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(12) in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Board--
       ``(A) to sell, to persons in the field of membership, 
     negotiable checks (including travelers checks), money orders, 
     and other similar money transfer instruments; and
       ``(B) to cash checks and money orders for persons in the 
     field of membership for a fee;''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Money Wire 
Improvement and Remittance Enhancement Act introduced by my colleague, 
Senator Corzine. I thank Senator Corzine for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Immigrants often send a portion of their hard-earned wages to their 
relatives abroad. Remittances are often used to improve the standard of 
living of recipients by increasing access to health care, education, 
and essentials of daily life. In addition, remittances contribute 
significantly to the economic development of nations. For example, 
Philippines workers across the globe sent an estimated $6.4 billion 
back to the Philippines in 2001.
  Despite the tremendous importance of remittances, people who send 
them are often unaware of the fees and exchange rates assessed in these 
transactions which reduce the amount of money received by their family 
members. Fees for sending remittances often can be ten to twenty 
percent of the value of the transaction. Also, the exchange rate used 
in the transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate.
  Consumers and their families cannot afford to remain uninformed about 
their financial service options and the fees placed on their 
transactions. This legislation would ensure that each customer is fully 
informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in sending 
money.
  I am hopeful that the enactment of this legislation will result in 
more people utilizing banks and credit unions for remittances because 
these institutions do not charge the exorbitant fees often associated 
with remittances processed by certain other entities. In addition, if 
unbanked immigrants take advantage of the remittance services offered 
by banks and credit unions, they will be more likely to open up an 
account. This would allow immigrants to take advantage of the 
opportunities for saving and borrowing found at mainstream financial 
institutions and offer them alternatives to fringe banking products, 
such as check cashing services.
  The Money Wire Improvement and Remittance Enhancement Act has special 
significance to my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is home to significant 
numbers of recent immigrants from many nations, including the 
Philippines, who send remittances to their relatives abroad. We must do 
what we can to ensure that their hard-earned dollars are not eroded by 
unnecessary fees or a lack of transparency regarding exchange rates.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1345. A bill to extend the authorization for the ferry boat 
discretionary program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and 
improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.
  Today I am introducing the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act. I am 
proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Corzine, Clinton, Edwards, 
Feinstein, Hollings, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Schumer as original 
cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to 
state governments, public ferry systems, and public entities 
responsible for developing facilities for ferries.
  Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the 
Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2009. This is approximately four times the 
$38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; 
add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of 
funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; 
establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate Federal programs 
affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and 
operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the Nation's 
transportation system; establish an information database on ferry 
systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and 
establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training 
programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and 
preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now 
exist for highways, transit, and rail.
  Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one 
percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually 
no coordination at the Federal level to encourage and promote ferries 
as there are for other modes of transportation.
  We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means 
of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including 
Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.
  Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of 
commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/
New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.
  Finally, in many States--like my home State of Washington--they are 
an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our 
cultural identity.
  The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of 
the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as 
computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.
  Ferry use is growing.
  In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest--currently 
transports 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million 
vehicles.
  Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San 
Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using 
the ferries.
  The Nation's six largest ferry systems carried 73 million people and 
13 million vehicles last year.
  The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger 
systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent 
increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being 
carried by ferries compared to 2002.
  In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.
  It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using 
them in the future.
  This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.
  Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the Federal 
investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.
  Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems 
for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, 
and for maintenance facilities.
  The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels 
Program.
  Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is 
environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them 
eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to 
design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make 
ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of 
transportation than it already is today.
  Finally, setting up a Ferry Joint Program Office, keeping track of 
ferry statistics, and establishing a National Ferry Institute will 
increase the profile of ferries as part of our Nation's infrastructure 
and provide a method to analyze and research ways to improve their use.
  In the end, I hope this proposal can be included in the TEA-21 
Reauthorization.
  Ferries are an important part of our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure.

[[Page S8735]]

This bill recognizes their importance by providing the resources and 
support they need to grow and serve passengers.
  I urge the Senate support this bill, and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to see it passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1346. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
provide for strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, strategic skills 
gap action plans, and strategic training capacity enhancement seed 
grants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 1347. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
provide for training service and delivery innovation projects; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 1348. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to modify 
the computation of eligibility for certain Federal Pell Grants, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a 
topic that I believe is critical to our Nation's economic growth and 
future competitiveness--the training of our workforce.
  We are living in tough economic times. The economy of the State of 
Washington and the Nation at large are suffering through a recession 
where jobs are scarce and workers are scrambling to pay the bills. The 
most recent employment data available from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics have offered little comfort in Washington where the 
unemployment rate is 7.3 percent. Washington, along with the other 
Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continues to have among 
the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
  Just a month ago, the Senate moved quickly to extend the temporary 
extension of unemployment compensation program, so that approximately 
four million workers across this country will not lose their Federal 
extended unemployment benefits. I am proud that the Senate acted 
quickly to extend this important program. This means that over 100,000 
unemployed workers in Washington State will receive 26 weeks of Federal 
extended benefits. I am disappointed, however, that we were not able to 
pass coverage for the estimated 1.1 million unemployed workers who have 
entirely exhausted their State and Federal benefits. Therefore, I am 
fighting to pass a bill that would extend coverage to the long-term 
unemployed, so that help is available to the hardest hit workers in 
this weak economy.
  Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment 
insurance extension. We must continue to pursue long-term strategies 
for a sustained economic recovery. The fundamental strength of our 
economy lies in the working men and women of this Nation whose 
innovation and hard work propelled the massive economic expansion of 
the past decade.
  The competitive edge that will keep our workers ahead in this 
changing global economy is their skills. Our economy is global, linked 
by international markets and communications networks. The sustained 
success of U.S. companies depends on adaptability and innovation, which 
means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually 
update job skills.
  Even in this time of high unemployment, businesses throughout the 
country cannot find workers with the skills they need. According to a 
study completed by Heldrich Work Trends Survey, American employers are 
finding it difficult to hire qualified workers. Nearly half, 46 
percent, of American businesses say they have had trouble finding 
workers with the necessary skills. At the same time, over three million 
workers are laid off each year, but well under 500,000 receive any sort 
of training to learn the skills demanded by those businesses that face 
worker shortages. Job training is an answer to meeting those skill 
demands and bridging the skills gaps that persist. However, it will not 
occur widely without a strong financial commitment from the Federal 
Government to ensure access to job training programs, and ongoing 
efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already 
invest.
  Investment in job training must be our first priority not our last--
the decisions we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many 
times over in the form of stronger local economies, healthier 
communities, and improved quality of life.
  But the reality is that we are delivering a trickle of funding while 
faced with a tidal wave of need. I have traveled across my state, from 
Olympia to Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cities to Spokane 
and received a great deal of feedback from Washingtonians who are 
seeking training, are providing it, or are serving as employers who 
need to hire skilled workers. And I heard similar concerns repeated in 
each of these areas: first, as our economy continues to evolve, the 
demand for new skills has grown; second, the enormous increase in 
demand for skills training by individual workers who are upgrading 
skills or changing jobs is a trend that appears to be widespread 
throughout the Nation; but third, far too many of those workers seeking 
access to training cannot get the training they need due to limited 
space at training institutions and the limited tuition assistance.
  Last year, my office released a study of this apparent shortfall in 
capacity of training systems in my State, and the results of that study 
were staggering to me. There are over 110,000 dislocated workers in my 
state, the majority of whom want to upgrade their skills but cannot do 
so because of budgetary limitations that prevent institutions from 
offering enough courses, and the limited numbers of available training 
vouchers.
  To make things worse, this year, the State of Washington received 
approximately 40 percent less in Workforce Investment Act, WIA, formula 
funding compared to last year. This drastic cut in WIA funding means 
that services will be cut back at a time when the demand is at an all 
time high. It is imperative that during this time of State deficits, 
States receive additional help from the Federal Government for 
important services such as education and job training.
  As my colleagues know, the Workforce Investment Act is up for 
reauthorization this year. The WIA system is clearly the centerpiece of 
the Federal job training programs. It provides a one-stop delivery 
system designed to meet a broad range of worker needs, and it emerged 
from years of bipartisan work by Congress to consolidate over 33 
Federal programs into one system for delivering employment and training 
services.
  Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon 
the existing workforce structure to expand opportunities for training 
and improve its effectiveness.
  The first piece of legislation would change the Pell Grant program to 
make certain that student financial aid is available to recently laid 
off workers. Under current law, the standard practice in the 
determination of Pell Grant eligibility for student aid is to base 
grant awards upon the applicant's income during the previous year. The 
use of tax forms for this purpose, in many cases, is the most 
appropriate and easiest administrative method of obtaining a clear and 
official statement of financial need. But, as a result, many recently 
laid-off workers are not eligible for critical financial assistance at 
a time when the workers' families are experiencing a dramatic decrease 
in income. My legislation would explicitly provide the authority for 
educational institutions, after taking sufficient precautions to 
prevent fraud, to consider current-year income levels for applicants 
seeking training through Pell Grant-eligible programs. It does this in 
a very narrow way, by only allowing institutions in States with high 
unemployment rates to consider current year financial circumstances 
rather than previous year income.
  The second bill addresses issues of distance-learning and delivery of 
training to hard to reach areas in a comprehensive manner. While many 
distance-learning technologies have been developed in recent years, 
those technologies have not necessarily reached many of those who are 
most in need of training. Many workers in need of

[[Page S8736]]

training may not be aware of online distance learning opportunities and 
may not be able to take advantage of them even if they do know about 
them. I believe, it is not enough to create a distance learning 
curriculum and passively provide it through an educational institution 
website. Rather, comprehensive solutions need to be developed that 
integrate curriculum innovations, technological access, and the 
promotion and linkage of workers in need of training with such 
opportunities, especially to help workers in rural areas. That's why my 
bill encourages the local workforce development boards to plan a 
comprehensive approach to improve access to and delivery of employment 
training services by using technology and online resources to connect 
workers with the information and tools they need to upgrade their 
skills.
  The third bill that I am introducing today is designed to help local 
workforce development boards better understand regional labor market 
dynamics and improve system performance by identifying emerging sectors 
and industries with chronic worker shortages. My legislation encourages 
local workforce development boards to target employment and training 
resources so that workers can get training in occupations where 
employers need workers.
  My legislation provides new resources to the state level so that 
states can direct funding down to the local workforce development 
boards to form partnerships with employers, unions, service providers 
and other key players in order to develop a strategic plan for 
addressing regional industry and workforce needs.
  I want to make clear that this legislation is not intended to 
reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral 
approaches within existing workforce development systems. In fact, 
Washington State is a leader in sector approaches: in 2000, the 
Washington State Legislature enacted legislation to support industry 
skills panels known as the ``Skills Initiative.'' The Skills Initiative 
provides grants to local workforce development councils to engage 
business and industry in strategies to close the skill gaps in my 
State. My legislation emphasizes this work by providing funding to 
support these partnerships.
  This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal 
job training systems, and it is critical, now more than ever, that 
Congress increase funding for the job training programs under the 
Workforce Investment Act. By providing the necessary resources, we send 
a strong message to the American public that our government must invest 
in our greatest resource--the American worker. Each of these bills is 
an important component of that broader strategy, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues as we begin to look at the reauthorization 
of WIA and the Higher Education Act this year and next.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1346

       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 ``Sectoral Market Assessment 
     for Regional Training Enhancement and Revitalization Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) More than \1/3\ of the Nation's current workforce lacks 
     the basic skills necessary to succeed in today's labor 
     market.
       (2) Globalization of the economy is leading to losses of 
     jobs in key domestic industries, as well as challenges to 
     competitiveness and productivity in other domestic 
     industries.
       (3) To remain economically vital and competitive, the 
     Nation must invest in generating jobs and train a workforce 
     skilled enough to contribute productively to the United 
     States economy.
       (4) Strategic planning that links workforce development and 
     economic development, and the targeting of resources to 
     industries that can build strong regional economies and 
     create jobs with living wages for workers, need to be 
     priorities for the workforce investment system.
       (5) States and local workforce investment boards can play 
     lead roles in guiding a more strategic process for achieving 
     economic growth through workforce development.

     SEC. 3. SKILLS GAP CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.

       Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 137 as section 138; and
       (2) by inserting after section 136 the following:

     ``SEC. 137. SKILLS GAP CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to assist States and local boards in better focusing 
     funds provided under this subtitle on activities and programs 
     that address labor shortages and meet the emerging demand for 
     skills in high-quality jobs in area industries;
       ``(2) to enhance the efficiency of the one-stop delivery 
     systems and providers of training services;
       ``(3) to establish and improve partnerships between local 
     boards, industry sectors, economic development agencies, 
     providers of training services (including secondary schools, 
     postsecondary educational institutions, community-based 
     organizations, business associations, and providers of joint 
     labor-management programs), providers of supportive services, 
     and other related public and private entities;
       ``(4) to strengthen integration of workforce development 
     strategies and economic development strategies in States, 
     local areas, and labor markets;
       ``(5) to retain vital industries in the local areas and 
     regions involved, avoid dislocation of workers, and 
     strengthen the competitiveness of key industries; and
       ``(6) to encourage the development of career ladders and 
     advancement efforts in local industries.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Consortium.--The term `consortium' means a consortium 
     of local boards, established as described in subsection 
     (d)(3).
       ``(2) Region.--The term `region' means 2 or more local 
     areas that comprise a common labor market for an industry 
     sector or group of related occupations.
       ``(3) Training services.--The term `training services' 
     means services described in section 134(d)(4).
       ``(c) Grants to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     States, to enable the States to assist local boards and 
     consortia in carrying out the activities described in 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) Formula.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make the grants in 
     accordance with the formula used to make grants to States 
     under section 132(b)(1)(B) (other than clause (iv)), subject 
     to subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Small state minimum allotment.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that no State shall receive an allotment under this 
     paragraph for a fiscal year that is less than \1/2\ of 1 
     percent of the funds made available to carry out this section 
     for that fiscal year.
       ``(d) Grants to Local Boards.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under 
     subsection (c)--
       ``(A) shall use the funds made available through the grant 
     to make grants to local boards and consortia to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (e); and
       ``(B) may use not more than 15 percent of the funds made 
     available through the grant, at the election of the State, to 
     prepare strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, as 
     described in subsection (e)(2), in the local areas or regions 
     involved, or to provide technical assistance to local boards, 
     consortia, or partnerships described in subsection (e)(3).
       ``(2) Consideration.--In making the grants, the State may 
     take into account the size of the workforce in each local 
     area or region.
       ``(3) Consortia.--States shall encourage local boards to 
     aggregate, to the maximum extent practicable, into consortia 
     representing regions, for purposes of carrying out activities 
     described in subsection (e). Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed to require local boards to aggregate into such 
     consortia.
       ``(4) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, a local board or consortium shall submit 
     an application to the State, at such time and in such manner 
     as the State may require, containing--
       ``(A) information identifying the members of the 
     partnership described in subsection (e)(3) that will carry 
     out the activities described in subsection (e); and
       ``(B) an assurance that the board or consortium will use, 
     or ensure that the partnership uses, the funds to carry out 
     the activities described in subsection (e).
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local board or consortium that 
     receives a grant under this section--
       ``(A) shall ensure that the partnership described in 
     paragraph (3) uses the funds made available through the grant 
     to--
       ``(i) prepare a strategic sectoral skills gap assessment, 
     as described in paragraph (2), unless the State elects to 
     prepare the assessment;
       ``(ii) develop a strategic skills gap action plan, as 
     described in paragraph (4); and
       ``(iii) provide strategic training capacity enhancement 
     seed grants to providers of training services specified in 
     subsection (a)(3), one-stop operators, and other appropriate 
     intermediaries, as described in paragraph (5); and
       ``(B) may use funds made available through the grant to 
     ensure that activities carried

[[Page S8737]]

     out under this subtitle are carried out in accordance with 
     the strategic skills gap action plan.
       ``(2) Strategic sectoral skills gap assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (E), 
     the local board or consortium (or, at the election of the 
     State, that State) shall prepare a strategic sectoral skills 
     gap assessment, which shall--
       ``(i) identify areas of current and expected demand for 
     labor and skills in a specific industry sector or group of 
     related occupations that is--

       ``(I) producing high-quality jobs in the local area or 
     region involved;
       ``(II) developing emerging jobs in that area or region; or
       ``(III) suffering chronic worker shortages;

       ``(ii) identify the current and expected supply of labor 
     and skills in that sector or group in the local area or 
     region; and
       ``(iii) identify gaps between the current and expected 
     demand and supply of labor and skills in that sector or group 
     in the local area or region.
       ``(B) Specific contents.--The assessment shall contain data 
     regarding--
       ``(i)(I) specific high-quality employment opportunities 
     offered by industries in the local area or region; and
       ``(II) specific skills desired for such opportunities;
       ``(ii)(I) occupations and positions in the local area or 
     region that are difficult to fill; and
       ``(II) specific skills desired for such occupations and 
     positions;
       ``(iii)(I) areas of growth and decline among industries and 
     occupations in the local area or region; and
       ``(II) specific skills desired for such growth areas; and
       ``(iv) specific inventories of skills of unemployed or 
     underemployed individuals in the local area or region.
       ``(C) Information.--The assessment shall contain current 
     (as of the date of preparation of the assessment) information 
     including specific information from multiple employers in the 
     sector or group described in subparagraph (A)(i), labor 
     organizations, and others connected to the businesses and 
     workers in that sector or group, to illuminate local needs of 
     both employers and workers. To the maximum extent possible, 
     the information shall be regularly updated information.
       ``(D) Survey.--The assessment shall contain the results of 
     a survey or focus group interviews of employers and labor 
     organizations and other relevant individuals and 
     organizations in the local area or region.
       ``(E) Exception.--
       ``(i) State.--A State shall not be required to use the 
     funds made available through a grant received under this 
     section, to prepare an assessment described in this 
     paragraph.
       ``(ii) Local board or consortium.--A local board or 
     consortium shall not be required to use the funds 
     made available through a grant received under this 
     section, to prepare an assessment described in this 
     paragraph, if the local board or consortium demonstrates 
     that, within the 2 years prior to receiving the grant, an 
     assessment that meets the requirements of this paragraph 
     has been prepared for the local area or region involved.
       ``(3) Skills partnership.--In carrying out this section, 
     local boards and consortia shall enter into partnerships that 
     include--
       ``(A) representatives of the local boards for the local 
     area or region involved;
       ``(B) representatives of multiple employers for a specific 
     industry sector or group of related occupations, and related 
     sectors or occupations, identified through the assessment 
     described in paragraph (2) as having identified gaps between 
     the current and expected demand and supply of labor and 
     skills in the industry sector or group of related occupations 
     in the local area or region involved;
       ``(C) representatives of economic development agencies for 
     the local area or region;
       ``(D) representatives of providers of training services 
     described in subsection (a)(3) in the local area or region;
       ``(E) representatives nominated by State labor federations 
     or local labor federations; and
       ``(F) other entities that can provide needed supportive 
     services tailored to the needs of workers in the sector or 
     group.
       ``(4) Strategic skills gap action plan.--The partnership 
     shall develop a strategic skills gap action plan, based on 
     the assessment, that--
       ``(A)(i) identifies specific barriers to adequate supply of 
     labor and skills in demand in a specific industry sector or 
     group of related occupations that is producing high-quality 
     jobs in the local area or region involved; and
       ``(ii) identifies activities (which may include the 
     provision of needed supportive services) that will remove or 
     alleviate the barriers described in clause (i) that could be 
     undertaken by one-stop operators and providers of training 
     services described in subsection (a)(3);
       ``(B) specifies how the local board (or consortium) and 
     economic development agencies in the partnership will 
     integrate the board's or consortium's workforce development 
     strategies with local or regional economic development 
     strategies in that sector or group; and
       ``(C) identifies resources and strategies that will be used 
     in the local area or region to address the skill gaps for 
     both unemployed and incumbent workers in that sector or 
     group.
       ``(5) Strategic training capacity enhancement seed 
     grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The local board or consortium, after 
     consultation with the partnership, shall make grants to 
     providers of training services described in subsection 
     (a)(3), one-stop operators, and other appropriate 
     intermediaries to pay for the Federal share of the cost of--
       ``(i) developing curricula to meet needs identified in the 
     assessment described in paragraph (2) and to overcome 
     barriers identified in the plan described in paragraph (4);
       ``(ii) modifying the programs of training services offered 
     by the providers in order to meet those needs and overcome 
     those barriers;
       ``(iii) operating pilot training efforts that demonstrate 
     new curricula, or modifications to curricula, described in 
     clause (i);
       ``(iv) expanding capacity of providers of training services 
     in sectors or groups described in paragraph (2)(A)(i);
       ``(v) reorganizing service delivery systems to better serve 
     the needs of employers and workers in the sectors or groups; 
     or
       ``(vi) developing business services to ensure retention and 
     greater competitiveness of the sectors or groups.
       ``(B) Federal share.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described 
     in subparagraph (A) shall be 75 percent.
       ``(ii) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including plant, equipment, or services.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 138 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2872), as redesignated by section 3(1), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Skills Gap Capacity Enhancement Grants.--In addition 
     to any amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out section 137 such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2007.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 137 and inserting the 
     following:

``Sec. 137. Skills gap capacity enhancement grants.
``Sec. 138. Authorization of appropriations.''.

       (b) References to Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Youth activities.--Subsections (a) and (b)(1) of 
     section 127 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2852) are amended by striking ``section 137(a)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``section 138(a)''.
       (2) Adult employment and training activities.--Section 
     132(a)(1) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2862(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 137(b)'' and 
     inserting ``section 138(b)''.
       (3) Dislocated worker employment and training activities.--
     Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2)(A)(i) of section 132 of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2862) are amended 
     by striking ``section 137(c)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 138(c)''.

                                S. 1347

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

     SECTION 1. TRAINING SERVICE AND DELIVERY INNOVATION PROJECTS.

       Section 171(b)(1)(D) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916(b)(1)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) targeted innovation projects that improve access to 
     and delivery of employment and training services, with 
     emphasis given to projects that incorporate advanced 
     technologies to facilitate the connection of individuals to 
     the information and tools they need to upgrade skills, 
     including projects that link individuals in need of training 
     to opportunities for self-guided learning, and with priority 
     given to projects that--
       ``(i) actively promote sources of information about 
     training opportunities and training content by providing 
     technology directly to eligible training recipients;
       ``(ii) provide for the conduct of online eligibility 
     determinations for Federal and State training programs, and 
     direct individuals to the appropriate programs in the area; 
     and
       ``(iii) integrate high-quality employment and training 
     services information with the delivery of information 
     regarding other social services and health care programs;''.

                                S. 1348

       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 ``Federal Pell Grant 
     Eligibility Clarification Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT YEAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

       Section 480(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087vv(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Consideration of current year circumstances for 
     certain pell grant awards.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a student is a resident of a State 
     that is in an extended benefit period (within the meaning of 
     section 203 of the

[[Page S8738]]

     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147)), then for purposes of calculating total 
     income under paragraph (1) for a student seeking assistance 
     under subpart 1 of part A, the Secretary shall reduce the 
     student's total income by an amount by which--
       ``(i) the adjusted gross income plus untaxed income and 
     benefits for the preceding tax year minus excludable income 
     (as defined in subsection (e)), exceeds
       ``(ii) the projected gross income plus untaxed income and 
     benefits for the current tax year minus the projected 
     excludable income (as defined in subsection (e)).
       ``(B) Anti-fraud procedures.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures to ensure that computations made pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) are not fraudulent.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1349. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with 
respect to the eligibility of veterans for mortgage bond financing, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Mr. 
Kohl of Wisconsin, Mrs. Boxer of California, Mr. Cornyn of Texas, Mr. 
Feingold of Wisconsin, Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, Ms. Murkowski of 
Alaska, and Mr. Wyden of Oregon, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill, the ``Veterans American Dream Home Ownership Act'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1349

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

     SECTION 1. ALL VETERANS ELIGIBLE FOR STATE HOME LOAN PROGRAMS 
                   FUNDED BY QUALIFIED VETERANS' MORTGAGE BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 143(l)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining qualified veteran) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``at some time before January 1, 1977'' in 
     subparagraph (A), and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) who applied for the financing before the date 30 
     years after the last on which such veteran left active 
     service.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to financing provided and mortgage credit 
     certificates issued after June 30, 2003.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF STATE VETERANS LIMIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 143(l)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to volume 
     limitation) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) State veterans limit.--A State veterans limit for any 
     calendar year is the amount equal to--
       ``(i) $425,000,000 for the State of Texas,
       ``(ii) $537,000,000 for the State of California,
       ``(iii) $200,000,000 for the State of Oregon,
       ``(iv) $200,000,000 for the State of Wisconsin, and
       ``(v) $200,000,000 for the State of Alaska.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2003.

     SEC. 3. ELECTIVE CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 143(l)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to volume limitation) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Elective carryforward of unused limitation.--
       ``(i) In general.--If--

       ``(I) a State veterans limit for any calendar year after 
     2002, exceeds
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of qualified veterans' mortgage 
     bonds issued by such State,

     such State may irrevocably elect to treat such excess as a 
     carryforward for qualified veterans' mortgage bonds.
       ``(ii) Use of carryforward.--

       ``(I) In general.--If a State elects a carryforward under 
     clause (i), qualified veterans' mortgage bonds issued during 
     the 3 calendar years following the calendar year in which the 
     carryforward arose shall not be taken into account under 
     subparagraph (A) to the extent the amount of such bonds does 
     not exceed the amount of the carryforward so elected.
       ``(II) Order in which carryforward used.--Carryforwards 
     elected shall be used in the order of the calendar years in 
     which such carryforwards arose.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued and carryforward elections made 
     after December 31, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S 1350. A bill to require Federal agencies, and persons engaged in 
interstate commerce, in possession of electronic data containing 
personal information, to disclose any unauthorized acquisition of such 
information; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification 
of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2003. This legislation will require 
that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal 
information is stolen from a corporate or government database.
  Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities 
to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social 
Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit 
card number, or financial account numbers.
  In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a 
crime, the victim is notified. But that isn't the case if an 
individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an 
electronic database.
  Unfortunately, data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider 
the following incidents which have compromised the records of hundreds 
of thousands of Americans.
  On April 5, 2002, a hacker broke into the electronic records of 
Steven P. Teale Data Center, the payroll facility for California State 
employees. The hacker compromises files containing the first initials, 
middle initials, and last names, Social Security numbers, and payroll 
deduction information of approximately 265,000 people. Despite the 
breathtaking potential harm of the crime, the breach was not publicly 
acknowledged and State employees were not made aware of their 
vulnerability to identify theft until May 24, 2002--17 days later.
  On December 14, 2002, TriWest Health Care Alliance, a company that 
provides health care coverage for military personnel and their 
families, was burglarized at its Phoenix, AZ offices. Thieves broke 
into a management suite and stole laptop computers and computer hard 
drives containing the names, addressed, telephone numbers, birth dates 
and Social Security numbers of 562,000 military service members, 
dependents and retirees, as well as medical claims records for people 
on active duty in the Persian Gulf.
  In February 2003, a hacker gained access to 10 million Visa, 
MasterCard, American Express Card and Discovery Card numbers from the 
databases of a credit processor, DPI Merchant services of Omaha, NE. 
Company officials maintained that the intruder did not obtain any 
personal information for these card numbers such as the account 
holder's name, address, telephone number or Social Security number. 
However, at least one bank canceled and replaced 8,800 cards when it 
found out about the security breach.
  And in March of this year, a University of Texas student was charged 
with hacking into the university's computer system and stealing 55,000 
Social Security numbers.
  These are just some examples of the types of breaches that are 
occurring today. Except for California, which as a notification law 
going into effect in July, no State of Federal law requires companies 
or agencies to tell individuals of the misappropriation of their 
personal data.
  I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets 
access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle 
and a practical measure to curb identity theft.
  Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation.
  The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national 
standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs.
  Specifically, the legislation requires a business or government 
entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to 
conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted 
personal data maintained by the entity.
  Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social 
Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, 
financial account number, or credit card number.
  The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on 
companies or agencies that must report a data breach.
  In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose 
data was compromised in writing or through e-mail. But there are 
important exceptions.
  First, companies that have developed their own reasonable 
notification policies are given a safe harbor under the

[[Page S8739]]

bill and are exempted from its notification requirements.
  Second, encrypted data is exempted.
  Third, where it is too expensive or impractical, e.g., contact 
address information is incomplete, to notify every individual who is 
harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of 
notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting 
notice on a website or notifying major media.
  Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors 
exist: 1. the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing 
direct notice would exceed $250,000; 2. the affected class of subject 
persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or 3. the agency or person does 
not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose 
information is at risk.
  The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail 
to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade 
Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the 
violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to 
enforce the statute.
  Additionally, the bill would allow California's new law to remain in 
effect, but preempt conflicting State laws. It is my understanding that 
legislators in a number of States are developing bills modeled after 
the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements 
that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair 
to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with 
database notification laws of 50 different States.
  I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their 
most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their 
information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would 
like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their 
personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding 
yes.
  Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security 
breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growth 
scourge of identity theft. According to the Identity Theft Resources 
Center, a typical identity theft victim takes six to 12 months to 
discover that a fraud has been perpetuated against them.
  As Linda Foley, Executive Director of the Identity Theft Resources 
center puts it: ``Identity theft is a crime of opportunity and time is 
essential at every junction. Every minute that passes after the breach 
until detection and notification increases the damage done to the 
consumer victim, the commercial entities, and law enforcement's ability 
to track and catch the criminals. It takes less than a minute to fill 
out a credit application and to start an action that could permanently 
affect the victim's life. Multiply that times hundreds of minutes, 
hundreds of opportunities to use or sell the information stolen and you 
just begin to understand the enormity of the problem that the lack of 
notification can cause.''
  If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security 
numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate 
preventative action.
  They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks 
from obtaining credit cards in their name; they can monitor their 
credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred; they can 
cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; they can 
change their phone numbers if necessary.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally 
needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control 
and confidence about the safety of their personal information. 
Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, 
they will be notified and be able to take protective action.
  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. 1350

       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 ``Notification of Risk to 
     Personal Data Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Breach of security of the system.--The term ``breach of 
     security of the system''--
       (A) means the compromise of the security, confidentiality, 
     or integrity of computerized data that results in, or there 
     is a reasonable basis to conclude has resulted in, the 
     unauthorized acquisition of and access to personal 
     information maintained by the person or business; and
       (B) does not include good faith acquisition of personal 
     information by an employee or agent of the person or business 
     for the purposes of the person or business, if the personal 
     information is not used or subject to further unauthorized 
     disclosure.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 551(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Personal information.--The term ``personal 
     information'' means an individual's last name in combination 
     with any 1 or more of the following data elements, when 
     either the name or the data elements are not encrypted:
       (A) Social security number.
       (B) Driver's license number or State identification number.
       (C) Account number, credit or debit card number, in 
     combination with any required security code, access code, or 
     password that would permit access to an individual's 
     financial account.
       (5) Substitute notice.--The term ``substitute notice'' 
     means--
       (A) e-mail notice, if the agency or person has an e-mail 
     address for the subject persons;
       (B) conspicuous posting of the notice on the Internet site 
     of the agency or person, if the agency or person maintains an 
     Internet site; or
       (C) notification to major media.

     SEC. 3. DATABASE SECURITY.

       (a) Disclosure of Security Breach.--
       (1) In general.--Any agency, or person engaged in 
     interstate commerce, that owns or licenses electronic data 
     containing personal information shall, following the 
     discovery of a breach of security of the system containing 
     such data, notify any resident of the United States whose 
     unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably 
     believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.
       (2) Notification of owner or licensee.--Any agency, or 
     person engaged in interstate commerce, in possession of 
     electronic data containing personal information that the 
     agency does not own or license shall notify the owner or 
     licensee of the information if the personal information was, 
     or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an 
     unauthorized person through a breach of security of the 
     system containing such data.
       (3) Timeliness of notification.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (4), all notifications required under paragraph (1) 
     or (2) shall be made as expediently as possible and without 
     unreasonable delay following--
       (A) the discovery by the agency or person of a breach of 
     security of the system; and
       (B) any measures necessary to determine the scope of the 
     breach, prevent further disclosures, and restore the 
     reasonable integrity of the data system.
       (4) Delay of notification authorized for law enforcement 
     purposes.--If a law enforcement agency determines that the 
     notification required under this subsection would impede a 
     criminal investigation, such notification may be delayed 
     until such law enforcement agency determines that the 
     notification will no longer compromise such investigation.
       (5) Methods of notice.--An agency, or person engaged in 
     interstate commerce, shall be in compliance with this 
     subsection if it provides the resident, owner, or licensee, 
     as appropriate, with--
       (A) written notification;
       (B) e-mail notice, if the person or business has an e-mail 
     address for the subject person; or
       (C) substitute notice, if--
       (i) the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of 
     providing direct notice would exceed $250,000;
       (ii) the affected class of subject persons to be notified 
     exceeds 500,000; or
       (iii) the agency or person does not have sufficient contact 
     information for those to be notified.
       (6) Alternative notification procedures.--Notwithstanding 
     any other obligation under this subsection, an agency, or 
     person engaged in interstate commerce, shall be deemed to be 
     in compliance with this subsection if the agency or person--
       (A) maintains its own reasonable notification procedures as 
     part of an information security policy for the treatment of 
     personal information; and
       (B) notifies subject persons in accordance with its 
     information security policy in the event of a breach of 
     security of the system.
       (7) Reasonable notification procedures.--As used in 
     paragraph (6), with respect to a breach of security of the 
     system involving personal information described in section 
     2(4)(C), the term ``reasonable notification procedures'' 
     means procedures that--
       (A) use a security program reasonably designed to block 
     unauthorized transactions before they are charged to the 
     customer's account;

[[Page S8740]]

       (B) provide for notice to be given by the owner or licensee 
     of the database, or another party acting on behalf of such 
     owner or licensee, after the security program indicates that 
     the breach of security of the system has resulted in fraud or 
     unauthorized transactions, but does not necessarily require 
     notice in other circumstances; and
       (C) are subject to examination for compliance with the 
     requirements of this Act by 1 or more Federal functional 
     regulators (as defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach 
     Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)), with respect to the operation 
     of the security program and the notification procedures.
       (b) Civil Remedies.--
       (1) Penalties.--Any agency, or person engaged in interstate 
     commerce, that violates this section shall be subject to a 
     fine of not more than $5,000 per violation, to a maximum of 
     $25,000 per day while such violations persist.
       (2) Equitable relief.--Any person engaged in interstate 
     commerce that violates, proposes to violate, or has violated 
     this section may be enjoined from further violations by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction.
       (3) Other rights and remedies.--The rights and remedies 
     available under this subsection are cumulative and shall not 
     affect any other rights and remedies available under law.
       (c) Enforcement.--The Federal Trade Commission is 
     authorized to enforce compliance with this section, including 
     the assessment of fines under subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a 
     practice that is prohibited under this Act, the State, as 
     parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the 
     residents of the State in a district court of the United 
     States of appropriate jurisdiction to--
       (A) enjoin that practice;
       (B) enforce compliance with this Act;
       (C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on 
     behalf of residents of the State; or
       (D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to 
     be appropriate.
       (2) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide 
     to the Attorney General--
       (i) written notice of the action; and
       (ii) a copy of the complaint for the action.
       (B) Exemption.--
       (i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of 
     a State under this subsection, if the State attorney general 
     determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice 
     described in such subparagraph before the filing of the 
     action.
       (ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i), 
     the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a 
     copy of the complaint to the Attorney General at the time the 
     State attorney general files the action.
       (b) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on such attorney general by 
     the laws of that State to--
       (1) conduct investigations;
       (2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
       (3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       (c) Venue; Service of Process.--
       (1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     subsection (a), process may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant--
       (A) is an inhabitant; or
       (B) may be found.

     SEC. 5. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       The provisions of this Act shall supersede any inconsistent 
     provisions of law of any State or unit of local government 
     relating to the notification of any resident of the United 
     States of any breach of security of an electronic database 
     containing such resident's personal information (as defined 
     in this Act), except as provided under sections 1798.82 and 
     1798.29 of the California Civil Code.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the expiration of the date 
     which is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 1351. A bill to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 
to modify provisions relating to the Board of Directors of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 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. 1351

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

     SECTION 1. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION, OPERATION, AND DUTIES OF 
                   THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 
     (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.) is amended by striking section 2 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP, OPERATION, AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF 
                   DIRECTORS.

       ``(a) Membership.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Board of Directors of the 
     Corporation (referred to in this Act as the `Board') shall be 
     composed of 9 members appointed by the President by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall be legal 
     residents of the service area.
       ``(2) Chairman.--The members of the Board shall select 1 of 
     the members to act as chairman of the Board.
       ``(b) Qualifications.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to be appointed as a 
     member of the Board, an individual--
       ``(A) shall be a citizen of the United States;
       ``(B) shall have widely recognized experience or applicable 
     expertise in the management of or decisionmaking for a large 
     corporate structure;
       ``(C) shall not be an employee of the Corporation;
       ``(D) shall have no substantial direct financial interest 
     in--
       ``(i) any public-utility corporation engaged in the 
     business of distributing and selling power to the public; or
       ``(ii) any business that may be adversely affected by the 
     success of the Corporation as a producer of electric power; 
     and
       ``(E) shall profess a belief in the feasibility and wisdom 
     of this Act.
       ``(2) Party affiliation.--Not more than 5 of the 9 members 
     of the Board may be affiliated with a single political party.
       ``(c) Recommendations.--In appointing members of the Board, 
     the President shall--
       ``(1) consider recommendations from such public officials 
     as--
       ``(A) the Governors of States in the service area;
       ``(B) individual citizens;
       ``(C) business, industrial, labor, electric power 
     distribution, environmental, civic, and service 
     organizations; and
       ``(D) the congressional delegations of the States in the 
     service area; and
       ``(2) seek qualified members from among persons who reflect 
     the diversity and needs of the service area of the 
     Corporation.
       ``(d) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--A member of the Board shall serve a term 
     of 5 years, except that in first making appointments after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph, the President shall 
     appoint--
       ``(A) 2 members to a term of 2 years;
       ``(B) 1 member to a term of 3 years; and
       ``(C) 2 members to a term of 4 years.
       ``(2) Vacancies.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy in 
     the Board occurring before the expiration of the term for 
     which the predecessor of the member was appointed shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of that term.
       ``(3) Reappointment.--
       ``(A) In general.--A member of the Board that was appointed 
     for a full term may be reappointed for 1 additional term.
       ``(B) Appointment to fill vacancy.--For the purpose of 
     subparagraph (A), a member appointed to serve the remainder 
     of the term of a vacating member for a period of more than 2 
     years shall be considered to have been appointed for a 
     full term.
       ``(e) Quorum.--
       ``(1) In general.--Six members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       ``(2) Minimum number of members.--A vacancy in the Board 
     shall not impair the power of the Board to act, so long as 
     there are 6 members in office.
       ``(f) Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--A member of the Board shall be entitled 
     to receive--
       ``(A)(i) a stipend of $30,000 per year; plus
       ``(ii) compensation, not to exceed $10,000 for any year, at 
     a rate that does not exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed under level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties as a member of the Board at meetings or 
     hearings; and
       ``(B) travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed 
     intermittently in Government service under section 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Adjustments in stipends.--The amount of the stipend 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall be adjusted by the same 
     percentage, at the same time and manner, and subject to the 
     same limitations as are applicable to adjustments under 
     section 5318 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(g) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Board shall--
       ``(A) establish the broad goals, objectives, and policies 
     of the Corporation that are appropriate to carry out this 
     Act;
       ``(B) develop long-range plans to guide the Corporation in 
     achieving the goals, objectives, and policies of the 
     Corporation and provide assistance to the chief executive 
     officer to achieve those goals, objectives, and policies, 
     including preparing the Corporation

[[Page S8741]]

     for fundamental changes in the electric utilities industry;
       ``(C) ensure that those goals, objectives, and policies are 
     achieved;
       ``(D) approve an annual budget for the Corporation;
       ``(E) establish a compensation plan for employees of the 
     Corporation in accordance with subsection (i);
       ``(F) approve the salaries, benefits, and incentives for 
     managers and technical personnel that report directly to the 
     chief executive officer;
       ``(G) ensure that all activities of the Corporation are 
     carried out in compliance with applicable law;
       ``(H) create an audit committee, composed solely of Board 
     members independent of the management of the Corporation, 
     which shall--
       ``(i) recommend to the Board an external auditor;
       ``(ii) receive and review reports from the external 
     auditor; and
       ``(iii) make such recommendations to the Board as the audit 
     committee considers necessary;
       ``(I) create such other committees of Board members as the 
     Board considers to be appropriate;
       ``(J) conduct public hearings on issues that could have a 
     substantial effect on--
       ``(i) the electric ratepayers in the service area; or
       ``(ii) the economic, environmental, social, or physical 
     well-being of the people of the service area; and
       ``(K) establish the electricity rate schedule.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at least 4 times each 
     year.
       ``(h) Chief Executive Officer.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall appoint a person to 
     serve as chief executive officer of the Corporation.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--To serve as chief executive officer 
     of the Corporation, a person--
       ``(A) shall be a citizen of the United States;
       ``(B) shall have management experience in large, complex 
     organizations;
       ``(C) shall not be a current member of the Board or have 
     served as a member of the Board within 2 years before being 
     appointed chief executive officer; and
       ``(D) shall have no substantial direct financial interest 
     in--
       ``(i) any public-utility corporation engaged in the 
     business of distributing and selling power to the public; or
       ``(ii) any business that may be adversely affected by the 
     success of the Corporation as a producer of electric power; 
     and
       ``(3) Tenure.--The chief executive officer shall serve at 
     the pleasure of the Board.
       ``(i) Compensation Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Board shall approve a compensation 
     plan that specifies salaries, benefits, and incentives for 
     the chief executive officer and employees of the Corporation.
       ``(2) Annual survey.--The compensation plan shall be based 
     on an annual survey of the prevailing salaries, benefits, and 
     incentives for similar work in private industry, including 
     engineering and electric utility companies, publicly owned 
     electric utilities, and Federal, State, and local 
     governments.
       ``(3) Considerations.--The compensation plan shall provide 
     that education, experience, level of responsibility, 
     geographic differences, and retention and recruitment needs 
     will be taken into account in determining salaries of 
     employees.
       ``(4) Submission to congress.--No salary shall be 
     established under a compensation plan until after the 
     compensation plan and the survey on which it is based have 
     been submitted to Congress and made available to the public 
     for a period of 30 days.
       ``(5) Positions at or below level iv.--The chief executive 
     officer shall determine the salary and benefits of employees 
     whose annual salary is not greater than the annual rate 
     payable for positions at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       ``(6) Positions above level iv.--On the recommendation of 
     the chief executive officer, the Board shall approve the 
     salaries of employees whose annual salaries would be in 
     excess of the annual rate payable for positions at level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code.''.
       (b) Current Board Members.--A member of the board of 
     directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority who was appointed 
     before the effective date of the amendment made by subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall continue to serve as a member until the date of 
     expiration of the member's current term; and
       (2) may not be reappointed.

     SEC. 2. CHANGE IN MANNER OF APPOINTMENT OF STAFF.

       Section 3 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 
     U.S.C. 831b) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first undesignated paragraph and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Appointment by the Chief Executive Officer.--The 
     chief executive officer shall appoint, with the advice and 
     consent of the Board, and without regard to the provisions of 
     the civil service laws applicable to officers and employees 
     of the United States, such managers, assistant managers, 
     officers, employees, attorneys, and agents as are necessary 
     for the transaction of the business of the Corporation.''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``All contracts'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Wage Rates.--All contracts''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 
     831 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``board of directors'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Board of Directors''; and
       (2) by striking ``board'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Board''.
       (b) Section 9 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 
     (16 U.S.C. 831h) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall audit'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall audit''; and
       (2) by striking ``The Corporation shall determine'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Administrative Accounts and Business Documents.--The 
     Corporation shall determine''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect, and 7 
     additional members of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall be appointed so as to commence their 
     terms on, the first date following the date of enactment of 
     this Act on which the term of a member of the Board of 
     Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority expires.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1352. A bill to expedite procedures for hazardous fuels reduction 
activities and restoration in wildland fire prone National Forests and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President: Today, I introduce, for myself and Mrs. 
Feinstein, the Community and Forest Protection Act. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) In 2002, approximately six and one half million acres 
     of forest lands in the U.S. burned with varying degrees of 
     severity, 21 people lost their lives, and over 3000 
     structures were destroyed. The Forest Service and Bureau of 
     Land Management spent more than $1 billion fighting these 
     fires.
       (2) 73 million acres of public lands are classified as 
     condition class 3 fire risks. This includes 23 million acres 
     that are in strategic areas designated by the U.S. Forest 
     Service for emergency treatment to withstand catastrophic 
     fire.
       (3) The forest management policy of fire suppression has 
     resulted in an accumulation of fuel loads, dead and dying 
     trees, and non-native species that create fuel ladders which 
     allow fires to reach the crowns of large old trees and cause 
     catastrophic fire.
       (4) The U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the 
     Interior should immediately undertake an emergency program to 
     reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
       (5) This emergency program should prioritize the protection 
     of homes and communities and the restoration of forest health 
     on lands at the highest risk of catastrophic fire. All fuel 
     reduction treatments should protect old growth stands and 
     large trees to ensure a rich and continued species diversity 
     in the nation's forests.

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Community 
     and Forest Protection Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1 Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2 Hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 3 Expedited process.
Sec. 4 Judicial review in the United States District Courts.
Sec. 5 Contracting.
Sec. 6 Biomass grants.
Sec. 7 Forest stands inventory and monitoring program.
Sec. 8 Emergency fuels reduction grants.
Sec. 9 Market incentives for home protection.
Sec. 10 Ongoing projects and existing authorities.
Sec. 11 Preference to communities that have ordinances on fire 
              prevention.
Sec. 12 Sunset.
Sec. 13 Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 14 Definitions.

     SEC. 2. HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior shall conduct immediately and to completion 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects consistent with the 
     Comprehensive Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for 
     Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 
     Environment on an aggregate area of 20 million acres of 
     federal land.
       (1) These projects shall be conducted on the priority lands 
     identified in subsection (d), using the expedited procedures 
     in section 3.
       (2) The Secretaries shall protect old growth stands and 
     large trees pursuant to subsection (h).
       (b) Selection of Projects.--The Secretaries of Agriculture 
     and the Interior shall

[[Page S8742]]

     jointly select hazardous fuels reduction projects identified 
     by the Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Strategy.
       (c) Consistency With Existing Forest Management Plans and 
     Environmental Laws.--Any project carried out pursuant to this 
     Act shall be consistent with the applicable forest plan, 
     resource management plan, or other applicable agency plans or 
     environmental laws except as specifically amended by this 
     Act.
       (d) Priority Lands.--In implementing projects under this 
     Act, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall 
     give highest priority to:
       (1) Wildland-urban interface: Condition class 3 or 
     condition class 2 federal lands or, where appropriate, non-
     federal lands;
       (2) Municipal watersheds: Condition class 3 federal lands 
     located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system 
     that a hazardous fuels reduction project must be carried out 
     to reduce the risk of harm to such system resulting from 
     wildfire;
       (3) Fire Regime I lands: Federal lands that are condition 
     class 3; and
       (4) Fire Regimes II and III lands: Condition class 3 
     federal lands identified by the Secretary as an area where 
     windthrow or blowdown, or the existence of disease or insect 
     infestation, pose a significant threat to forest health or 
     adjacent private lands.
       (e) Public Notice and Public Response.--
       (1) Quarterly notice.--The Secretary shall provide 
     quarterly notice of each hazardous fuels reduction project 
     which uses the streamlined processes established by this Act. 
     The quarterly notice shall be provided for all projects in 
     the Federal Register and on an agency website and in a local 
     paper of record for local projects. The Secretary may combine 
     this quarterly notice with other quarterly notices otherwise 
     issued regarding federal forest management.
       (2) Content.--For each hazardous fuels reduction project 
     for which the processes established by this Act are to be 
     used the notice required by paragraph (1) shall include at a 
     minimum:
       (A) identification of each project as a hazardous fuels 
     reduction project for which the processes established by this 
     Act are to be used;
       (B) a description of the project, including as much 
     information on its geographic location as practicable;
       (C) the approximate date on which scoping for the project 
     will begin; and
       (D) information regarding how interested members of the 
     public can take part in the development of the project, 
     including, but not limited to, project related public meeting 
     notification.
       (3) Public meeting.--Following publication of each 
     quarterly notice under paragraph (1), but before the 
     beginning of scoping under section 3(a), the Secretary shall 
     conduct a public meeting at an appropriate location in each 
     administrative unit of the federal lands regarding those 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects contained in the quarterly 
     notice that are proposed to be conducted in that 
     administrative unit. The Secretary shall provide advance 
     notice of the date and time of the meeting in the quarterly 
     notice or using the same means described in paragraph (1).
       (4) Public response to notice of Projects.--
       (A) In general.--A federally formed resource advisory 
     committee may petition, with supporting evidence, the 
     Secretary to better assess ground conditions of land to be 
     covered by projects, during scoping or public comment on 
     specific hazardous fuels reduction projects identified under 
     subsection (b).
       (B) Priority lands included in the projects.--For specific 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects the petitioner may seek to 
     correct the inclusion or exclusion of priority lands 
     identified in subsection (d). The petitioner may also seek 
     designation of large trees or old growth stands to be 
     protected under subsection (h).
       (C) Secretarial response.--The Secretary must respond to 
     the petition within 30 days by. public notice by the same 
     means described in paragraph (1). The Secretary shall provide 
     a public viewing of the area in question if requested in the 
     petition within 90 days of receipt. of the petition, with the 
     petitioner and any other interested parties.
       (D) Determination of petition.--The Secretary must accept 
     or deny the petition within 120 days of its receipt, based on 
     site-specific review of historic ecological conditions, 
     forest type, present fuel loads, and determination of whether 
     the area properly qualifies as priority lands under 
     subsection (d).
       (5) Final agency action.--The Secretary shall provide 
     notice by the same means described in paragraph (1) of any 
     final agency action regarding a hazardous fuels reduction 
     project for which the processes established by this Act are 
     used.
       (f) Priority Hazardous Fuels Reduction Funding.--The 
     Secretaries shall expend no less than 70 percent of funds 
     under this Act on projects within the wildland-urban 
     interface, provided that the Secretaries may adjust this 
     funding formula for a particular State at the request of its 
     governor. In no event shall the Secretaries expend less than 
     50 percent or greater than 75 percent of funds within the 
     wildland-urban interface for a particular State.
       (g) Monitoring.--The Secretaries shall establish a 
     multiparty monitoring process with representation from 
     resource industries, environmentalists, independent 
     scientists, community-based organizations, and other 
     interested parties in order for Congress to assess a 
     representative sampling of the hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects implemented pursuant to this Act.
       (h) Limitations.--In implementing hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects under this Act the Secretary:
       (1) shall not undertake any hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects in wilderness study areas or components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System;
       (2) shall not construct new roads in inventoried roadless 
     areas as part of any hazardous fuels reduction project;
       (3) shall fully maintain the structure, function, processes 
     and composition of structurally complex older forests (old 
     growth) according to each ecosystem type; and
       (4) outside old growth stands:
       (A) shall focus on small diameter trees and thin from below 
     to modify fire behavior as measured by rate of spread, height 
     to live crown, and flame length; and
       (B) shall maximize the retention of large trees to the 
     extent that they promote fire-resistant stands and species 
     diversity as appropriate for the forest type and site.

     SEC. 3. EXPEDITED PROCESS.

       (a) Scoping.--The Secretary shall conduct scoping for each 
     hazardous fuels reduction project implemented pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (b) Categorical Exclusions in the Wildland-Urban 
     Interface.--
       (1) In general.--The wildland-urban interface hazardous 
     fuels reduction projects authorized by this Act are 
     conclusively determined to be categorically excluded from 
     further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (``NEPA''), 42 U.S.C. 4332, and the Secretary need 
     not make any findings as to whether the projects individually 
     or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment.
       (2) Varied treatments.--The Secretary shall vary the 
     treatments and avoid clear cuts inside the wildland-urban 
     interface to ensure forest health. The Secretary shall also 
     protect old growth and large trees pursuant to subsection 
     2(h).
       (3) Extraordinary circumstances exception.--For all 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented pursuant to 
     this subsection, if there are extraordinary circumstances, 
     the Secretary shall follow agency procedures related to 
     categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances. For 
     the purposes of this subsection, a project's location within 
     a municipal watershed shall not be considered an 
     extraordinary circumstance.
       (4) Appeals.--No hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     implemented pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to 
     appeal requirements of the Appeals Reform Act (section 322 of 
     Public Law 102-381) or the Department of the Interior Office 
     of Hearings and Appeals.
       (c) Environmental Assessments Outside the Wildland-Urban 
     Interface.--
       (1) In general.--For hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     implemented pursuant to this Act on priority lands identified 
     in section 2(d), if a categorical exclusion does not apply, 
     the Secretary shall determine, consistent with NEPA, whether 
     an environmental assessment is sufficient and use the 
     procedures set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality 
     ``Guidance for Environmental Assessments of Forest Health 
     Projects,'' of December 9, 2002, or as amended.
       (2) Issuance of documentation and shortened appeals.--
     Notwithstanding the Appeals Reform Act, section 322 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102 381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 
     note), or regulations pertaining to the Department of the 
     Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals procedures, for 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented by 
     environmental assessments pursuant to subsection (c)(1):
       (A) The Secretary may issue the environmental documentation 
     and the decision document for the project simultaneously 
     without public comment. Such issuance shall begin the 
     administrative appeals process immediately.
       (B) Persons must file any administrative appeal of projects 
     under this subsection within 30 days after the date of 
     issuance of a decision;
       (C) The Secretary shall resolve any appeal not later than 
     30 days after the closing date for filing an appeal;
       (D) If the review officer determines that an appeal has 
     merit, in lieu of remanding the proposed agency action, the 
     review officer, in consultation with the parties, may sign a 
     new decision; and (E) The Secretary shall stay implementation 
     of the project for 15 days beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary resolves any administrative appeal that complies 
     with the requirements in subsection (d).
       (d) Standing to Appeal.--If a draft document prepared 
     pursuant to NEPA for a hazardous fuels reduction project was 
     available for public comment, or the project had scoping, the 
     Secretary may require that a person filing an administrative 
     appeal with respect to the project must have been involved in 
     the public comment process for the project by submitting 
     specific and substantive written comments with regard to the 
     project or must have participated in the scoping of the 
     project.
       (e) Salvage Monitoring Pilot Program.--
       (1) Salvage pilot.--The Secretary is authorized to use the 
     administrative appeals authorities under this subsection, 
     pursuant to paragraph (2), for salvage hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects in the area popularly known as the Biscuit 
     Fire and reference on

[[Page S8743]]

     the map entitled and dated ____ on file at the Forest Service 
     ____ office.
       (2) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall require that any 
     salvage hazardous fuels reduction project on the Biscuit Fire 
     be subject to ecological and economic monitoring of its 
     effects, including on-site evaluation and inspections. The 
     monitoring shall be conducted by a group with representation 
     from independent scientists, industry representatives, 
     environmentalists, community-based organizations, and other 
     interested parties. Group selection shall be through the 
     Western Governors Association Collaborative process. The 
     group shall report to the public under section 2(e)(1) on the 
     ecological and economic effects of individual salvage 
     hazardous fuels projects.

     SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) Venue.--A hazardous fuels reduction project conducted 
     under this Act shall be subject to judicial review only in 
     the United States district court for the district in which 
     the federal lands to be treated by the hazardous fuels 
     reduction project are located, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1391 
     or any other applicable venue statutes.
       (b) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress 
     intends and encourages any court in which is filed a lawsuit 
     or appeal of a lawsuit concerning an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project to expedite, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the proceedings in such lawsuit or appeal with 
     the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction, 
     and if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the 
     merits, as soon as possible from the date the complaint or 
     appeal is filed.
       (c) Duration of Injunction.--Any temporary injunctive 
     relief granted regarding a project undertaken pursuant to 
     this Act shall be limited to 60 days, with authority to renew 
     each temporary injunction without limitation. For each 
     injunctive renewal the parties shall present the court with 
     updates on the status of the project.
       (d) Standard of Review.--Nothing in this section shall 
     change the standards of judicial review for any action 
     concerning a project authorized under this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONTRACTING.

       (a) Best Value Contracting.--The Secretary shall use best 
     value contracting criteria in awarding at least fifty percent 
     of contracts and agreements for hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects pursuant to this Act. Best value contract criteria 
     will include, but not be limited to:
       (1) the ability of the contractor to meet the ecological 
     goals of the projects;
       (2) the use of equipment that will minimize or eliminate 
     impacts on soils; and (3) benefit to local economies in 
     performing the restorative treatments and ensuring that wood 
     by-products are processed locally.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Forest Service shall monitor the 
     business and employment impacts of hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects including the total dollar value of contracts and 
     agreements awarded to qualifying entities.
       (c) Public Lands Corps.--
       (1) Contracts and agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretaries are authorized to enter 
     into contracts or cooperative agreements with a Public Lands 
     Corps
       (i) to implement and complete projects prioritized in 
     section 2(b) and (d) of this Act; and
       (ii) to perform appropriate rehabilitation, enhancement, or 
     beautification projects with the Department of Natural 
     Resources, Department of Forestry or Department of 
     Agriculture of any State.
       (B) Indian lands.--Such projects may also be carried out on 
     Indian lands with the approval of the relevant Indian tribe.
       (C) Preference.--The Secretaries shall give preference to 
     those projects which take place on lands identified as 
     priorities in section 2(d) of this Act and can be planned and 
     initiated promptly.
       (D) Supportive services.--The Secretaries are authorized to 
     provide such services as the Secretaries deem necessary to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (E) Technical assistance.--The Secretaries shall work with 
     the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps to 
     provide technical assistance, oversight, monitoring, and 
     evaluation to the United States Departments of Agriculture 
     and the Interior, State Departments of Natural Resources and 
     Agriculture, and Public Lands Corps.
       (2) Nondisplacement.--The nondisplacement requirements of 
     Section 177 of the National and Community Service Trust Act 
     of 1990 shall be applicable to all activities carried out 
     under this Act by the Public Lands Corps.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     this subsection there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $12,500,000 annually for 5 years after the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Definitions.-- For the purposes of this section--
       (1) Contracts and agreements.--The term ``contracts and 
     agreements'' means service contracts, timber sale contracts, 
     construction contracts, supply contracts, emergency equipment 
     rental agreements, architectural and engineering contracts, 
     challenge cost-share agreements, cooperative agreements, and 
     participating agreements.
       (2) Qualifying entity.--The term ``qualifying entity'' 
     means--
       (A) a natural-resource related small or micro-enterprise;
       (B) a Youth Conservation Corps or Public Lands Corps crew 
     or related partnership with State, local and other non-
     federal conservation corps;
       (C) an entity that will hire and train local people to 
     complete the contract or agreement;
       (D) an entity that will re-train non-local traditional 
     forest workers to complete the contract or agreement; or
       (E) a local entity that meets the criteria to qualify for 
     the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program under 
     section 32 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
       (3) Public lands corps.--The term ``Public Lands Corps'' 
     means any organization established by a state or local 
     government, non-profit organization, or Indian tribe that:
       (A) has demonstrated the ability:
       (i) to provide labor intensive productive work to 
     individuals;
       (ii) to recruit and train economically disadvantaged or at-
     risk youth;
       (iii) to give participants a combination of work 
     experience, basic and life skills, education, training and 
     support services; and
       (iv) to provide participants with the opportunity to 
     develop citizenship values through service to their 
     communities and the United States; and
       (B) has also successfully completed, or is engaged in, a 
     peer-reviewed, standards based program assessment process.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 6. BIOMASS GRANTS.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Eligible operation.--The term ``eligible operation'' 
     means a facility, that is located within the boundaries of an 
     eligible community and uses biomass from federal or Tribal 
     lands as a raw material to produce electric energy, sensible 
     heat, transportation fuels, or substitutes for petroleum-
     based products.
       (2) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means pre-commercial 
     thinnings of trees and woody plants, or non-merchantable 
     material, from hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       (3) Green ton.--The term ``green ton'' means 2,000 pounds 
     of biomass that has not been mechanically or artificially 
     dried.
       (4) Eligible community.--The term ``eligible community'' 
     means any Indian Reservation, or any county, town, township, 
     municipality, or other similar unit of local government that 
     has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals and is 
     determined by the Secretary to be located in an area near 
     federal or Tribal lands which is at significant risk of 
     catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or 
     which suffers from disease or insect infestation.
       (5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (b) Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to any 
     individual, community, Indian tribe, small business or 
     corporation, or nonprofit that owns or operates an eligible 
     operation to offset capital expenses and costs incurred to 
     purchase biomass for use by such eligible operation with 
     priority given to operations using biomass from the highest 
     risk areas.
       (2) Limitation.--No grant provided under this subsection 
     shall be paid at a rate that exceeds $20 per green ton of 
     biomass delivered.
       (3) Records.--Each grant recipient shall keep such records 
     as the Secretary may require to fully and correctly disclose 
     the use of the grant funds and all transactions involved in 
     the purchase of biomass. Upon notice by the Secretary, the 
     grant recipient shall provide the Secretary reasonable access 
     to examine the inventory and records of any eligible 
     operation receiving grant funds.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $12,500,000 each to the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for each fiscal year for five years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Improved Biomass Utilization Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to persons 
     in eligible communities to offset the costs of developing or 
     researching proposals to improve the use of biomass or add 
     value to biomass utilization.
       (2) Selection.--Grant recipients shall be selected based on 
     the potential for the proposal to--
       (A) develop affordable thermal or electric energy resources 
     for the benefit of an eligible community;
       (B) provide opportunities for the creation or expansion of 
     small businesses within an eligible community;
       (C) create new job opportunities within an eligible 
     community, and
       (D) reduce the hazardous fuels from the highest risk areas.
       (3) Limitation.--No grant awarded under this subsection 
     shall exceed $500,000.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.-- For the purposes of 
     this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $12,500,000 each to the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for each fiscal year for the five 
     years after enactment of this Act.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of

[[Page S8744]]

     Agriculture shall jointly submit to the Congress a report 
     that describes the interim results of the programs authorized 
     under this section.

     SEC. 7. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall carry out, in conjunction 
     with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
     other relevant agencies and research facilities (including 
     the Forest Service Research Stations and academic 
     institutions), a comprehensive program to inventory and 
     assess forest stands on federal forest land and, with the 
     consent of the owner, private forest land. The objective of 
     this program shall be to evaluate current and future forest 
     health conditions and address ecological impacts of insect, 
     disease, invasive species, fire and weather-related episodic 
     events. Emphasis shall be placed upon coordinating, 
     reconciling, and field verification of existing data 
     (including remotely sensed and modeled data utilized to 
     characterize vegetation/cover types, density, fire regimes, 
     fire effects, and condition classes), and improving the 
     accuracy of such data to assist in management activities.
       (b) Location.--The facility for this program shall be 
     located at the Ochoco National Forest Headquarters in 
     Prineville, Oregon.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.-- For the purposes of 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $5,000,000 each fiscal year for the five years after 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. EMERGENCY FUELS REDUCTION GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish an Emergency Fuels Reduction Grant program to 
     provide State and local agencies with financial assistance 
     for hazardous fuels reduction projects addressing threats of 
     catastrophic fire that have been determined by the United 
     States Forest Service to pose a serious threat to human life.
       (b) Eligibility.--Fuels reduction projects eligible for 
     funding under the Emergency Fuels Reduction Grant program 
     shall:
       (1) be surrounded by or immediately adjacent to national 
     forest boundaries;
       (2) have been determined to be of paramount urgency by 
     virtue of declarations of emergency by both local officials 
     and the governor of the State in which they are located; and
       (3) remove fuel loading determined to pose a serious threat 
     to human life by the United States Forest Service.
       (c) Use of Grant Funds.--Funds authorized under this 
     section shall be limited to the following uses:
       (1) removal of trees, shrubs or other potential fuels 
     adjacent to primary evacuation routes;
       (2) removal of trees, shrubs or other potential fuels 
     adjacent to emergency response centers, emergency 
     communication facilities or sites designated as shelter-in-
     place facilities; and
       (3) evacuation drills and preparation.
       (d) Revolving Fund.--For work done on private property and 
     county lands, the grant recipients shall deposit into a 
     revolving fund any proceeds from sale of the timber or 
     biomass from the projects funded under this section. The 
     revolving fund shall be used to assist with subsequent grants 
     under this section.
       (e) Emergency Fuels Reduction Grants.--For the purposes of 
     funding the Emergency Fuels Reduction Grant program under 
     this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture $50,000,000 each fiscal year that 
     this Act is in effect. Subject to section 13, amounts 
     appropriated in one fiscal year and unobligated before the 
     end of that fiscal year shall remain available for use in 
     subsequent fiscal years.

     SEC. 9. MARKET INCENTIVES FOR HOME PROTECTION.

       It is the Sense of Congress that insurers should reduce 
     premiums for homeowners in condition class 2 and condition 
     class 3 areas within the wildland-urban interface who:
       (1) clear brush and other flammable material in the 
     vicinity of their homes;
       (2) use non-flammable building materials for roofs and 
     other critical structures; or
       (3) otherwise improve the defensibility of their homes 
     against catastrophic fire.

     SEC. 10. ONGOING PROJECTS AND EXISTING AUTHORITIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect projects begun prior to 
     enactment of this Act or affect authorities otherwise granted 
     to the Secretaries under existing law.

     SEC. 11. PREFERENCE TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ORDINANCES ON 
                   FIRE PREVENTION.

       (a) In General.--In determining the allocation of funding 
     for the Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program 
     (16 USC 2106c/PL-171 Sec. l0A(b)), the Secretary shall 
     prioritize funding to those communities which have taken 
     proactive steps through the enactment of ordinances and other 
     means, including those that have developed a comprehensive 
     fire protection plan encompassing all ownerships, to 
     encourage property owners to reduce fire risk on private 
     property.
       (b) Private Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall affect 
     existing authorities to use appropriations authorized by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions under this Act on non-federal 
     lands with the consent of the land owner.

     SEC. 12. SUNSET.

       The provisions of this Act shall expire five years after 
     the date of enactment, except that projects for which a 
     decision notice has been issued by that date may continue to 
     be implemented.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) National Forest System Lands.--For the purposes of 
     planning and conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     under this Act on National Forest System Lands, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     $1,943,100,000 during the five-fiscal year period beginning 
     October 1, 2003. Subject to section 12, amounts appropriated 
     in one fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that 
     fiscal year shall remain available for use in subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       (b) BLM Lands.--For the purpose of planning and conducting 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects under this Act on Federal 
     lands managed by the Secretary of the Interior, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
     Interior $1,888,000,000 during the five-fiscal year period 
     beginning October 1, 2003. Subject to section 12, amounts 
     appropriated in one fiscal year and unobligated before the 
     end of that fiscal year shall remain available for use in 
     subsequent fiscal years.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Land Types and Fire Regime Areas.--In this Act 
     definitions of land types and fire regimes originate from the 
     U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, as 
     follows--
       (1) Condition Class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'' 
     refers to lands on which--
       (A) fire frequencies have been moderately altered and have 
     departed from historic fire return frequencies (either 
     increased or decreased) by one or more return interval, which 
     results in moderate changes to fire size, frequency, 
     intensity, severity or landscape patterns;
       (B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components; and
       (C) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from 
     their historic range.
       (2) Condition Class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'' 
     refers to lands on which--
       (A) fire regimes have been significantly altered from 
     their. historic range, which results in dramatic changes to 
     fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape 
     patterns;
       (B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components; and
       (C) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered 
     from their historic range.
       (3) Fire Regime i.--The term ``fire regime I'' refers to 
     lands on which historically fire recurs in 0-35 year 
     intervals and burns with low severity.
       (4) Fire Regime ii.--The term ``fire regime IP' refers to 
     lands on which historically fire recurs in .0-35 year 
     intervals and replaces existing vegetation.
       (5) Fire Regime iii.--The term ``fire regime III'' refers 
     to lands on which historically fire recurs in 35-100 year 
     intervals and burns with mixed severity.
       (b) At-Risk Community.--The term ``at-risk community'' 
     means a geographic area designated by the Secretary as any 
     area--
       (1) defined as an interface community in Volume 66, page 
     753, of the January 4, 2001 Federal Register;
       (2) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale 
     wildland fire disturbance events; and
       (3) for which a significant threat to human life exists as 
     a result of wildland fire disturbance events.
       (c) Best Value Contracting.--The term ``best value 
     contracting'' means the contracting process described in 
     section 15.101 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     which allows the inclusion of non-cost factors in the federal 
     contract process.
       (d) Comprehensive Strategy.--The term ``Comprehensive 
     Strategy'' means the Comprehensive Strategy for a 
     Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 
     Communities and the Environment, dated May 2002, including by 
     reference the related Implementation Plan, which was 
     developed pursuant to the conference report to accompany the 
     Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
       (e) Federal Lands.--The term ``federal lands'' means 
     National Forest System lands and public forested lands 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior acting through 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (f) Geographic Feature.--The term ``geographic feature'' 
     means a ridge top, road, stream, or other landscape feature 
     which can serve naturally as a firebreak, staging ground for 
     firefighting, or boundary affecting fire behavior.
       (g) Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project.--The term 
     ``hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a project--
       (1) undertaken for the purpose of reducing the amount of 
     hazardous fuels resulting from alteration of a natural fire 
     regime as a result of fire suppression or other management 
     activities; and
       (2) accomplished through the use of prescribed burning or 
     mechanical treatment, or a combination thereof.
       (h) Inventoried Roadless Area.--The term ``inventoried 
     roadless area'' means one of the areas identified in the set 
     of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest 
     Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final Environmental 
     Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November, 2000.
       (i) Local Preference Contracting.--The term ``local 
     preference contracting'' means the federal contracting 
     process that gives preference to local businesses described 
     in section 333 of the Department of Interior and

[[Page S8745]]

     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (division F of 
     Public Law 108-7, 117 Stat. 277).
       (j) Municipal Water Supply System.--The term ``municipal 
     water supply system'' means reservoirs, canals, ditches, 
     flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface 
     facilities and systems constructed or installed for the 
     impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of 
     drinking water for a community.
       (k) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, or the Secretary's designee, with respect to 
     National Forest System lands; and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, or the Secretary's designees, with respect to 
     public lands administered by the Secretary through the Bureau 
     of Land Management.
       (1) Wildland-Urban Interface.--The term ``wildland-urban 
     interface'' means the area either within an at-risk community 
     or within the area.
       (1) extending out to a geographic feature, if there is such 
     a feature within approximately three-quarters of a mile of 
     the community boundary; or
       (2) if there is no such geographic feature, extending out 
     one-half mile from the community boundary.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise to introduce with Senator Wyden a bill to 
reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our country's magnificent 
national forests.
  No one who watched last week as Arizona's community of Summerhaven on 
Mount Lemmon burned can doubt the importance of this issue. My heart 
goes out to the residents of Summerhaven, and to the others who will be 
displaced by the fires yet to come this summer.
  Americans know that there is something wrong with our national 
forests. For too long we have suppressed fires, gradually letting brush 
and small trees multiply until many of our forests are now choked by a 
dense thicket.
  Today, there are 57 million acres of Federal lands at the highest 
risk of catastrophic forest fires. If we do not take action now, these 
forests could go up in smoke. This bill we are introducing today is 
balancing, and it will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our 
country's magnificent national forests.
  This legislation would speed up the environmental review process--
without sacrificing the most important environmental protections. It 
also would protect the communities which face the highest risk and 
safeguard old growth stands and large trees. And it would include 
sensible provisions on judicial review that will help projects go 
forward quickly without compromising our independent judiciary. These 
are provisions that makes sense, and I hope that my colleagues will 
support the bill.
  We have crafted our bill around three fundamental principles:
  We should focus limited Federal resources on protecting communities 
and on the forest lands truly most at risk;
  We should speed up the environmental review process, but without 
sacrificing the most important environmental protections; and
  We should protect old growth stands and large trees.
  Let me show how the bill achieves these three goals.
  First, the bill prioritizes our efforts. Many people believe that we 
should protect communities first. The bill does so. Seventy percent of 
the funding is directed to the wildland-urban interface near 
communities.
  Of course, conditions vary by State. The bill allows Governors to 
adjust the percentage of work that is to be done within the wildland--
urban interface for their State, up to a maximum of 75 percent, or down 
to a minimum of 50 percent.
  By way of contrast, H.R. 1904, which passed the House, includes no 
focus on protecting communities. All the money can be spent far from 
communities under H.R. 1904, even if the Governor of a State wishes 
otherwise.
  Senator Wyden and I believe that in addition to protecting 
communities, there are some forest lands that should be thinned to 
ensure that catastrophic fires do not devastate the forest and 
eliminate habitat for the species that have there.
  In the last century, Americans have rigorously suppressed fires, 
stamping them out whenever they start. In certain forests like 
ponderosa pine, these fires would naturally have cleared out the brush 
and small trees every 10 or 20 years or so.
  In the absence of these fires, brush has grown into ``doghair 
thickets'' with dangerous levels of fuel loadings. When fires burn now 
in these forests, they will be so hot that they won't just clear out 
the brush but will kill the large trees and often scorch the soil.
  These are the forests where we need to focus our efforts. We thus 
target thinning projects to forests that are both Fire Regime I and 
Condition Class 3. Fire Regime I forests are those that used to have 
low-intensity, brush-clearing fires; and Condition Class 3 forests are 
the most altered from their natural condition. The combination of Fire 
Regime I and Condition Class 3 are the highest priority lands for 
treatment.
  We also direct projects to municipal watersheds and diseased or 
windblown forests that are in Condition Class 3. If we don't protect 
the municipal watersheds, catastrophic fires could strip off the tree 
cover that prevents soils from eroding into creeks and lakes. 
Municipalities' water quality could suffer.
  In contrast to our bill, H.R. 1904 fails to prioritize brush-clearing 
projects for the areas that need it the most. Instead, H.R. 1904 
provides expedited processes for lands that are only moderately altered 
by fire suppression--Condition Class 2 lands in addition to Condition 
Class 3.
  In many of the forests where H.R. 1904 would direct brush-clearing 
work, there naturally would have been severe fires that burned all the 
trees in the stand. After a thinning project, fires in these forests 
will still behave the same way, scorching and killing most of the 
trees. Thus, much of the thinning called for in H.R. 1904 would have 
little effect on the fire behavior or forest health.
  Senator Wyden and I have worked very hard to develop a bill that 
speeds up the review process so important work can get done without 
sacrificing environmental protections.
  Almost everyone agrees that we need to work quickly to protect the 
areas immediately around communities. There is little controversy or 
debate over these projects.
  The Forest Service has proposed an analytical short-cut for these 
projects, which requires very little environmental analysis and no 
formal pubic comment process or administrative appeal.
  There is some uncertainty, however, over the Forest Service's 
proposed approach. People can claim that laws Congress has previously 
passed will require some of these projects to be held up by more 
environmental analysis or administrative appeals.
  Our bill eliminates this uncertainty. When the Forest Service works 
in the immediate vicinity of a community, the bill would make 
absolutely clear that there need to be no environmental analysis or 
administrative appeals. The only exception is where there might be 
extraordinary circumstances, such as a major threat to endangered 
species. We also prohibit the Forest Service from conducting clearcuts 
around communities, requiring them to focus on clearing out the brush.
  By way of comparison, the House-passed bill does not provide any 
assistance to thinning projects in the immediate vicinity of 
communities, even though everyone agrees on the need for these 
projects.
  Senator Wyden and I have also sped up the process for projects 
outside the immediate vicinity of communities. These projects are more 
controversial, so we want to make sure that the public has some 
opportunity for input.
  In the past, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior 
have been able to conduct the majority of brush-clearing mechanical 
treatment following a National Environmental Policy Act process known 
as environmental assessments. Our bill simplified these environmental 
assessments in several ways.

  The bill provides one round of public comment--the administrative 
appeal process--rather than two.
  The bill shortens the time frame for administrative appeals from 90 
to 60 days.
  Finally, the appeal deciding offer can make necessary changes rather 
than having to send the project back to the original decisionmaker for 
further time-consuming review.
  Together, these changes will likely speed up the process by a few 
months or more. We do all this without eliminating public comment or 
gutting core parts of the environmental analysis.
  In contrast, the House-passed bill would eliminate the requirement 
that the Forest Service consider alternatives to the proposed project 
as part of its environmental analysis. In other

[[Page S8746]]

words, the Forest Service doesn't have to study other, less damaging 
ways of undertaking the project--it can just do the project the way it 
wants.
  Many people think that public debate over alternatives is the core of 
the National Environmental Policy Act. Our bill does not eliminate this 
important environmental protection.
  Another important part of our bill is its protection of magnificent 
old growth stands. The remaining groves of these trees provide a 
connection to nature untrammeled by human activity, a connection that 
many of us cherish.
  Our bill would require full protection of these old growth stands. In 
addition, outside old growth stands, the bill focuses on small-diameter 
trees and protects large trees that promote fire-resistant stands and 
species diversity.
  By way of contrast, H.R. 1904 provides no protection for these 
magnificent resources.
  Let me now talk about judicial review. No one wants court cases to go 
on too long. In addition, people should not be able to tie up projects 
by gaming the system and picking and choosing the friendliest courts to 
hear their lawsuits.
  Our bill addresses these problems. The bill encourages courts, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to resolve lawsuits over brush-clearing 
projects quickly. These are important projects for the safety of our 
communities and our forests, and it is appropriate to give them some 
priority.
  In addition, we require that potential litigants file suit in the 
same judicial district where a fuels reduction project takes place, No 
one can game the system by looking for a friendly judge somewhere else.
  Finally, we limit temporary injunctions that are typically issued at 
the outset of a case to 60 days. They can be renewed if necessary--but 
the challengers to a projects must submit updates explaining why the 
injunctions should be extended. This provision prevents projects from 
being held up any longer than is strictly necessary.
  These changes will expedite the process--but they still respect our 
court system's essential autonomy. As a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, I spend much of my time trying to make sure our court system 
is as fair as possible.
  Americans count on a judiciary independent of the executive branch to 
preserve their liberties and to right any wrongs that their government 
commits. I think it is very important that we do not interfere with the 
independence of our judiciary.

  The House-passed bill would require the courts to give weight to 
certain findings by the Forest Service and the Department of the 
Interior. Even if projects had been found to violate the environmental 
laws, courts would be told to give weight to the agencies' findings and 
allow many of the projects to go ahead anyway.
  This is a dangerous provision for a bill to include, and I cannot 
support it. I believe our bill includes more sensible provisions on 
judicial review that will help projects go forward quickly without 
compromising the independence of our judiciary.
  Our bill includes several provisions to address forest health 
problems on private and State lands.
  We authorize $50 million annually in emergency grants to States and 
localities where lives are at risk. The last few years have seen vast 
insect epidemics killing millions of trees in Southern California, 
Arizona, and elsewhere.
  In places like Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear and Idyllwild in Southern 
California, communities are surrounded by dead and dying trees that are 
perfect kindling for a catastrophic fire. There is a real threat to 
people's lives that we must address.
  There is now no good funding source for clearing evacuation routes 
and clearing around schools and other emergency shelters that are on 
State and private lands. The emergency grants in the bill would 
authorize funds for these essential purposes.
  The bill also includes two measures to encourage homeowners to clear 
brush around their houses and install non-flammable roofs. A study of 
Southern California fires by Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen has 
shown that these measures could reduce a blaze's threat to homes by as 
much as 85 to 95 percent.
  Our bill would encourage these home-saving practices in two ways:
  The bill would prioritize grants to those communities that encourage 
brush-clearing and use of non-flammable roofs or develop comprehensive 
fire plans.
  The bill would record the Sense of Congress that insurers should 
offer lower premiums to homeowners who take steps to protect their 
homes.
  Our bill would also include grants to encourage the use of woody 
material, or biomass, for energy production. Biomass-to-energy plants 
serve multiple beneficial purposes: one, they are a clean and renewable 
source of energy; and two, they make brush-clearing projects more cost-
effective, so we can protect more with the finite Federal dollars 
available.
  Finally, our bill would also include contracting provisions to 
benefit rural communities. The Forest Service and the Department of the 
Interior would be required to use ``best value contracting'' for brush-
clearing projects under the Act.
  This contracting approach requires the agencies to consider other 
factors besides the price of the bid in awarding contractors. Bidders 
would be rewarded for such factors as their commitment to hire local 
workers, and their past record of environmental stewardship.
  I would like to close by saying that this is truly a bipartisan 
issue. All of us, Democrat and Republican, have an interest in clearing 
out dangerous accumulations of brush in our national forests. All of us 
have an interest as well in protecting the magnificent old growth 
stands and species habitat that Americans cherish, and in upholding our 
environmental laws.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to pass a bill as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1353. A bill to establish new special immigrant categories; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, 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. 1353

       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 ``Widows and Orphans Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. NEW SPECIAL IMMIGRANT CATEGORY.

       (a) Certain Children and Women at Risk of Harm.--Section 
     101(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(27)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (L), by inserting a semicolon at the 
     end;
       (2) in subparagraph (M), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(N) subject to subsection (j), an immigrant who is not 
     present in the United States--
       ``(i) who is--

       ``(I) referred to a consular, immigration, or other 
     designated official by a United States Government agency, an 
     international organization, or recognized nongovernmental 
     entity designated by the Secretary of State for purposes of 
     such referrals; and
       ``(II) determined by such official to be a minor under 10 
     years of age (as determined under subsection (j)(5))--

       ``(aa) for whom no parent or legal guardian is able to 
     provide adequate care;
       ``(bb) who faces a credible fear of harm related to his or 
     her age;
       ``(cc) who lacks adequate protection from such harm; and
       ``(dd) for whom it has been determined to be in his or her 
     best interests to be admitted to the United States; or
       ``(ii) who is--

       ``(I) referred to a consular or immigration official by a 
     United States Government agency, an international 
     organization or recognized nongovernmental entity designated 
     by the Secretary of State for purposes of such referrals; and
       ``(II) determined by such official to be a female who has--

       ``(aa) a credible fear of harm related to her sex; and
       ``(bb) a lack of adequate protection from such harm.''.
       (b) Statutory Construction.--Section 101 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) No natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any 
     alien provided special immigrant status under subsection 
     (a)(27)(N)(i) shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, 
     be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.
       ``(2)(A) No alien who qualifies for a special immigrant 
     visa under subsection

[[Page S8747]]

     (a)(27)(N)(ii) may apply for derivative status or petition 
     for any spouse who is represented by the alien as missing, 
     deceased, or the source of harm at the time of the alien's 
     application and admission. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may waive this requirement for an alien who demonstrates that 
     the alien's representations regarding the spouse were bona 
     fide.
       ``(B) An alien who qualifies for a special immigrant visa 
     under subsection (a)(27)(N) may apply for derivative status 
     or petition for any sibling under the age of 10 years or 
     children under the age of 10 years of any such alien, if 
     accompanying or following to join the alien. For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, a determination of age shall be made using 
     the age of the alien on the date the petition is filed with 
     the Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(3) An alien who qualifies for a special immigrant visa 
     under subsection (a)(27)(N) shall be treated in the same 
     manner as a refugee solely for purposes of section 412.
       ``(4) The provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), and (7)(A) of 
     section 212(a) shall not be applicable to any alien seeking 
     admission to the United States under subsection (a)(27)(N), 
     and the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive any other 
     provision of such section (other than paragraph 2(C) or 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E) of paragraph (3) with 
     respect to such an alien for humanitarian purposes, to assure 
     family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest. 
     Any such waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     be in writing and shall be granted only on an individual 
     basis following an investigation. The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall provide for the annual reporting to Congress 
     of the number of waivers granted under this paragraph in the 
     previous fiscal year and a summary of the reasons for 
     granting such waivers.
       ``(5) For purposes of subsection (a)(27)(N)(i)(II), a 
     determination of age shall be made using the age of the alien 
     on the date on which the alien was referred to the consular, 
     immigration, or other designated official.
       ``(6) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall waive any 
     application fee for a special immigrant visa for an alien 
     described in section 101(a)(27)(N).''.
       (c) Allocation of Special Immigrant Visas.--Section 
     203(b)(4) of the Immigration Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)(4)) is amended by striking ``(A) or (B) thereof'' and 
     inserting ``(A), (B), or (N) thereof''.
       (d) Expedited Process.--Not later than 45 days from the 
     date of referral to a consular, immigration, or other 
     designated official as described in section 101(a)(27)(N) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection 
     (a), special immigrant status shall be adjudicated and, if 
     granted, the alien shall be paroled to the United States 
     pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(d)(5)) and allowed to apply for adjustment of status to 
     permanent residence under section 245 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255) within 1 year of the alien's arrival in the United 
     States.
       (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall report to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives on the progress 
     of the program, including--
       (1) data related to the implementation of this section;
       (2) data regarding the number of placements of females and 
     children at risk of harm as referred to in section 
     101(a)(27)(N) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     added by subsection (a); and
       (3) any other appropriate information that the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines to be appropriate.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section and the amendments made by this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1354. A bill to resolve certain conveyances and provide for 
alternative land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill that 
passed the Senate with bipartisan support in the 107th Congress. This 
legislation addresses an equity issue for one of Alaska's rural village 
corporations.
  Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaskan Village Corporation organized 
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by the Native 
Village of Saxman, near Ketchikan, AK. As with other ANCSA village 
corporations in Southeast Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 
23,040 acres under Section 16. However, unlike other village 
corporations, Cape Fox was further restricted from selecting lands 
within 6 miles of the boundary of the home rule city of Ketchikan. All 
other ANCSA corporations were restricted from selecting within 2 miles 
of such a home rule of city.
  The 6-mile restriction went beyond protecting Ketchikan's watershed 
and damaged Cape Fox by preventing the corporation from selecting 
valuable timber lands, industrial sites, and other commercial property, 
not only in its core township, but in surrounding lands far removed 
from Ketchikan and its watershed. AS a result of the 6-mile 
restriction, only the mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core 
township, which is nonproductive and of no economic value, was 
available for selection by the corporation. Cape Fox's land selections 
were further limited by the fact that the Annette Island Indian 
Reservation is within its selection area, and those lands were 
unavailable for ANCSA selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village 
corporation affected by this restriction.
  Clearly, Cape Fox was placed on unequal economic footing relative to 
other village corporations in Southeast Alaska. Despite its best 
efforts during the years since ANCSA was signed into law, Cape Fox has 
been unable to overcome the disadvantage the law built into its land 
selection opportunities by this inequitable treatment.
  To address this inequity, I have introduced the Cape Fox Land 
Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2003. This bill will address the Cape Fox 
problem by providing three interrelated remedies:
  (1) The obligation of Cape Fox to select and seek conveyance of the 
approximately 160 acres of unusable land in the mountainous northeast 
corner of Cape Fox's core township will be annulled.
  (2) Cape Fox will be allowed to select and the Secretary of the 
Interior will be directed to convey 99 acres of timber land adjacent to 
Cape Fox's current holdings on Revilla Island.
  (3) Cape Fox and the Secretary of Agriculture will be authorized to 
enter into an equal value exchange of lands in Southeast Alaska that 
will be of mutual benefit to the Corporation and the U.S. Forest 
Service. Lands conveyed to Cape Fox in this exchange will not be 
timberlands, but will be associated with a mining property containing 
existing Federal mining claims, some of which are patented. Lands 
anticipated to be returned to Forest Service ownership will be of 
wildlife habitat, recreation and watershed values and will consolidate 
Forest Service holdings in the George Inlet area of Revilla Island.
  The land exchange provisions of this bill will help rectify the long-
standing inequities associated with restrictions placed on Cape Fox in 
ANCSA. It will help allow this Native village corporation to make the 
transition from its major dependence on timber harvest to a more 
diversified portfolio of income-producing lands.
  The bill also provides for the resolution of a long-standing land 
ownership problem with the Tongass National Forest. The predominant 
private landowner in the region, Sealaska Corporation, holds the 
subsurface estate on several thousand acres of National Forest System 
lands. This split estate poses a management problem which the Forest 
Service has long sought to resolve. Efforts to address this issue go 
back more than a decade. Provisions in the Cape Fox Land Entitlement 
Act of 2003 will allow the agency to consolidate its surface and 
subsurface estate and greatly enhance its management effectiveness and 
efficiency in the Tongass National Forest. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1354

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement 
     Adjustment Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) is an Alaska Native 
     Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) for 
     the Native Village of Saxman.
       (2) As with other ANCSA village corporations in Southeast 
     Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 23,040 acres under 
     section 16 of ANCSA.
       (3) Except for Cape Fox, all other Southeast Alaska ANCSA 
     village corporations were restricted from selecting within 
     two miles of a home rule city.

[[Page S8748]]

       (4) To protect the watersheds in the vicinity of Ketchikan, 
     Cape Fox was restricted from selecting lands within six miles 
     from the boundary of the home rule City of Ketchikan under 
     section 22(1) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1621(1)).
       (5) The six mile restriction damaged Cape Fox by precluding 
     the corporation from selecting valuable timber lands, 
     industrial sites, and other commercial property, not only in 
     its core township but in surrounding lands far removed from 
     Ketchikan and its watershed.
       (6) As a result of the 6 mile restriction, only the remote 
     mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core township, 
     which is nonproductive and of no known economic value, was 
     available for selection by the corporation. Selection of this 
     parcel was, however, mandated by section 16(b) of ANCSA (43 
     U.S.C. 1615(b)).
       (7) Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the 
     fact that the Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its 
     selection area, and those lands were unavailable for ANCSA 
     selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village corporation 
     affected by this restriction.
       (8) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of 
     land under ANCSA requires adjustment of Sealaska 
     Corporation's (Sealaska) selections and conveyances to avoid 
     creation of additional split estate between National Forest 
     System surface lands and Sealaska subsurface lands.
       (9) Sealaska is the Alaska native regional corporation for 
     Southeast Alaska, organized under the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       (10) There is an additional need to resolve existing areas 
     of Sealaska/Tongass split estate, in which Sealaska holds 
     title or conveyance rights to several thousand acres of 
     subsurface lands that encumber management of Tongass National 
     Forest surface lands.
       (11) The Tongass National Forest lands identified in this 
     Act for selection by and conveyance to Cape Fox and Sealaska, 
     subject to valid existing rights, provide a means to resolve 
     some of the Cape Fox and Sealaska ANCSA land entitlement 
     issues without significantly affecting Tongass National 
     Forest resources, uses or values.
       (12) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of 
     land under ANCSA through the provisions of this Act, and the 
     related adjustment of Sealaska's selections and conveyances 
     hereunder, are in accordance with the purposes of ANCSA and 
     otherwise in the public interest.

     SEC. 3. WAIVER OF CORE TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN 
                   LANDS.

       Notwithstanding the provisions of section 16(b) of ANCSA 
     (43 U.S.C. 1615(b)), Cape Fox shall not be required to select 
     or receive conveyance of approximately 160 acres of Federal 
     unconveyed lands within Section 1, T. 75 S., R. 91 E., C.R.M.

     SEC. 4. SELECTION OUTSIDE EXTERIOR SELECTION BOUNDARY.

       (a) Selection and Conveyance of Surface Estate.--In 
     addition to lands made available for selection under ANCSA, 
     within 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     Cape Fox may select, and, upon receiving written notice of 
     such selection, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey 
     approximately 99 acres of the surface estate of Tongass 
     National Forest lands outside Cape Fox's current exterior 
     selection boundary, specifically that parcel described as 
     follows:
       (1) T. 73 S., R. 90 E., C.R.M.
       (2) Section 33: SW portion of SE\1/4\: 38 acres.
       (3) Section 33: NW portion of SE\1/4\: 13 acres.
       (4) Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\: 40 acres.
       (5) Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\: 8 acres.
       (b) Conveyance of Subsurface Estate.--Upon conveyance to 
     Cape Fox of the surface estate to the lands identified in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to 
     Sealaska the subsurface estate to the lands.
       (c) Timing.--The Secretary of the Interior shall complete 
     the interim conveyances to Cape Fox and Sealaska under this 
     section within 180 days after the Secretary of the Interior 
     receives notice of the Cape Fox selection under subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 5. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN CAPE FOX AND THE TONGASS 
                   NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall offer, and 
     if accepted by Cape Fox, shall exchange the Federal lands 
     described in subsection (b) for lands and interests therein 
     identified by Cape Fox under subsection (c) and, to the 
     extent necessary, lands and interests therein identified 
     under subsection (d).
       (b) Lands To Be Exchanged to Cape Fox.--The lands to be 
     offered for exchange by the Secretary of Agriculture are 
     Tongass National Forest lands comprising approximately 
     2,663.9 acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M. and T. 35 S., R. 
     62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon a map entitled ``Proposed 
     Kensington Project Land Exchange'', dated March 18, 2002, and 
     available for inspection in the Forest Service Region 10 
     regional office in Juneau, Alaska.
       (c) Lands To Be Exchanged to the United States.--Cape Fox 
     shall be entitled, within 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, to identify in writing to the Secretaries of 
     Agriculture and the Interior the lands and interests in lands 
     that Cape Fox proposes to exchange for the Federal lands 
     described in subsection (b). The lands and interests in lands 
     shall be identified from lands previously conveyed to Cape 
     Fox comprising approximately 2,900 acres and designated as 
     parcels A-1 to A-3, B-1 to B-3, and C upon a map entitled 
     ``Cape Fox Corporation ANCSA Land Exchange Proposal'', dated 
     March 15, 2002, and available for inspection in the Forest 
     Service Region 10 regional office in Juneau, Alaska. Lands 
     identified for exchange within each parcel shall be 
     contiguous to adjacent National Forest System lands and in 
     reasonably compact tracts. The lands identified for exchange 
     shall include a public trail easement designated as D on said 
     map, unless the Secretary of Agriculture agrees otherwise. 
     The value of the easement shall be included in determining 
     the total value of lands exchanged to the United States.
       (d) Valuation of Exchange Lands.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall determine whether the lands identified by 
     Cape Fox under subsection (c) are equal in value to the lands 
     described in subsection (b). If the lands identified under 
     subsection (c) are determined to have insufficient value to 
     equal the value of the lands described in subsection (b), 
     Cape Fox and the Secretary shall mutually identify additional 
     Cape Fox lands for exchange sufficient to equalize the value 
     of lands conveyed to Cape Fox. Such land shall be contiguous 
     to adjacent National Forest System lands and in reasonably 
     compact tracts.
       (e) Conditions.--The offer and conveyance of Federal lands 
     to Cape Fox in the exchange shall, notwithstanding section 
     14(f) of ANCSA, be of the surface and subsurface estate, but 
     subject to valid existing rights and all other provisions of 
     section 14(g) of ANCSA.
       (f) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt, 
     within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to 
     enter into an agreement with Cape Fox to consummate the 
     exchange consistent with this Act. The lands identified in 
     the exchange agreement shall be exchanged by conveyance at 
     the earliest possible date after the exchange agreement is 
     signed. Subject only to conveyance from Cape Fox to the 
     United States of all its rights, title and interests in the 
     Cape Fox lands included in the exchange consistent with this 
     title, the Secretary of the Interior shall complete the 
     interim conveyance to Cape Fox of the Federal lands included 
     in the exchange within 180 days after the execution of the 
     exchange agreement by Cape Fox and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 6. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN SEALASKA AND THE TONGASS 
                   NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) General.--Upon conveyance of the Cape Fox lands 
     included in the exchange under section 5 and conveyance and 
     relinquishment by Sealaska in accordance with this title of 
     the lands and interests in lands described in subsection (c), 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Sealaska the 
     Federal lands identified for exchange under subsection (b).
       (b) Lands To Be Exchanged to Sealaska.--The lands to be 
     exchanged to Sealaska are to be selected by Sealaska from 
     Tongass National Forest lands comprising approximately 9,329 
     acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M., T. 35 S., R. 62 E., 
     C.R.M., and T. 34 S., Range 62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon 
     a map entitled ``Proposed Sealaska Corporation Land Exchange 
     Kensington Lands Selection Area'', dated April 2002 and 
     available for inspection in the Forest Service Region 10 
     Regional Office in Juneau, Alaska. Within 60 days after 
     receiving notice of the identification by Cape Fox of the 
     exchange lands under section 5(c), Sealaska shall be entitled 
     to identify in writing to the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     the Interior the lands that Sealaska selects to receive in 
     exchange for the Sealaska lands described in subsection (c). 
     Lands selected by Sealaska shall be in no more than two 
     contiguous and reasonably compact tracts that adjoin the 
     lands described for exchange to Cape Fox in section 5(b). The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall determine whether these 
     selected lands are equal in value to the lands described in 
     subsection (c) and may adjust the amount of selected lands in 
     order to reach agreement with Sealaska regarding equal value. 
     The exchange conveyance to Sealaska shall be of the surface 
     and subsurface estate in the lands selected and agreed to by 
     the Secretary but subject to valid existing rights and all 
     other provisions of section 14(g) of ANCSA.
       (c) Lands To Be Exchanged to the United States.--The lands 
     and interests therein to be exchanged by Sealaska are the 
     subsurface estate underlying the Cape Fox exchange lands 
     described in section 5(c), an additional approximately 2,506 
     acres of the subsurface estate underlying Tongass National 
     Forest surface estate, described in Interim Conveyance No. 
     1673, and rights to be additional approximately 2,698 acres 
     of subsurface estate of Tongass National Forest lands 
     remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska from Group 1, 2 and 3 
     lands as set forth in the Sealaska Corporation/United States 
     Forest Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement of November 
     26, 1991, at Schedule B, as modified on January 20, 1995.
       (d) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt, 
     within 90 days after receipt of the selection of lands by 
     Sealaska under subsection (b), to enter into an agreement 
     with Sealaska to consummate the exchange consistent with this 
     Act. The lands identified in the exchange agreement shall be 
     exchanged by conveyance at the earliest possible date after 
     the exchange agreement is signed. Subject only to the Cape 
     Fox and Sealaska conveyances and relinquishments described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall complete 
     the interim conveyance to Sealaska of the Federal lands 
     selected for exchange within 180 days after execution of the

[[Page S8749]]

     agreement by Sealaska and the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (e) Modification of Agreement.--The executed exchange 
     agreement under this section shall be considered a further 
     modification of the Sealaska Corporation/United States Forest 
     Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement, as ratified in 
     section 17 of Public Law 102-415 (October 14, 1992).

     SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Equal Value Requirement.--The exchanges described in 
     this Act shall be of equal value. Cape Fox and Sealaska shall 
     have the opportunity to present to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture estimates of value of exchange lands with 
     supporting information.
       (b) Title.--Cape Fox and Sealaska shall convey and provide 
     evidence of title satisfactory to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for their respective lands to be exchanged to the 
     United States under this Act, subject only to exceptions, 
     reservations and encumbrances in the interim conveyance or 
     patent from the United States or otherwise acceptable to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.
       (c) Hazardous Substances.--Cape Fox, Sealaska, and the 
     United States each shall not be subject to liability for the 
     presence of any hazardous substance in land or interests in 
     land solely as a result of any conveyance or transfer of the 
     land or interests under this Act.
       (d) Effect on ANCSA Selections.--Any conveyance of Federal 
     surface or subsurface lands to Cape Fox or Sealaska under 
     this Act shall be considered, for all purposes, land conveyed 
     pursuant to ANCSA. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     change the total acreage of land entitlement of Cape Fox or 
     Sealaska under ANCSA. Cape Fox and Sealaska shall remain 
     charged for any lands they exchange under this Act and any 
     lands conveyed pursuant to section 4, but shall not be 
     charged for any lands received under section 5 or section 6. 
     The exchanges described in this Act shall be considered, for 
     all purposes, actions which lead to the issuance of 
     conveyances to Native Corporations pursuant to ANCSA. Lands 
     or interests therein transferred to the United States under 
     this Act shall become and be administered as part of the 
     Tongass National Forest.
       (e) Effect on Statehood Selections.--Lands conveyed to or 
     selected by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood 
     Act (Public Law 85-508; 72 Stat. 339; 48 U.S.C. note prec. 
     21) shall not be eligible for selection or conveyance under 
     this Act without the consent of the State of Alaska.
       (f) Maps.--The maps referred to in this Act shall be 
     maintained on file in the Forest Service Region 10 Regional 
     Office in Juneau, Alaska. The acreages cited in this Act are 
     approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited 
     acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps 
     shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the 
     United States to convey State or private land.
       (g) Easements.--Notwithstanding section 17(b) of ANCSA, 
     Federal lands conveyed to Cape Fox or Sealaska pursuant to 
     this Act shall be subject only to the reservation of public 
     easements mutually agreed to and set forth in the exchange 
     agreements executed under this Act. The easements shall 
     include easements necessary for access across the lands 
     conveyed under this Act for use of national forest or other 
     public lands.
       (h) Old Growth Reserves.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall add an equal number of acres to old growth reserves on 
     the Tongass National Forest as are transferred out of Federal 
     ownership as a result of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Department of Agriculture.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as may 
     be necessary for value estimation and related costs of 
     exchanging lands specified in this Act, and for road 
     rehabilitation, habitat and timber stand improvement, 
     including thinning and pruning, on lands acquired by the 
     United States under this Act.
       (b) Department of the Interior.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as 
     may be necessary for land surveys and conveyances pursuant to 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Grassley Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, and 
        Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1358. A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, 
to clarify the disclosure of information protected from prohibited 
personnel practices, require a statement in non-disclosure policies, 
forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform 
with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the 
Special Council, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal 
Employee Protection of Disclosures Act. I offered legislation under 
this title earlier this month. I am modifying that measure, S. 1229, by 
introducing a new bill today which is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, 
Levin, Leahy, and Durbin. This bill, as with S. 1229, amends the 
Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. These amendments are necessary to 
safeguard Federal employees from retaliation and protect American 
taxpayers from government waste, fraud, and abuse. Our bill follows S. 
995 and S. 3070, the latter of which was favorably reported by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee in the 107th Congress. The bill we 
introduce today is the result of a bipartisan compromise to protect our 
federal whistleblowers.
  Our bill would codify the repeated and unequivocal statements of 
congressional intent that Federal employees are to be protected when 
making ``any disclosure'' evidencing violations of law, gross 
mismanagement, or a gross waste of funds. The bill would also clarify 
the test that must be met to prove that a Federal employee reasonably 
believed that his or her disclosure was evidence of wrongdoing. The 
clear language of the WPA says that an employee is protected for 
disclosing information he or she reasonably believes evidences a 
violation. However, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 
sole jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, ruled in 1999 that the 
reasonableness review must begin with the presumption that public 
officers perform their duties in good faith and that this presumption 
stands unless there is ``irrefragable proof'' to the contrary. As 
irrefragable means impossible to refute, our bill replaces this 
excessively high burden with the more reasonable standard of 
substantial evidence.
  The measure would also provide independent litigating authority to 
the Office of Special Counsel, OSC. Under current law, OSC has no 
authority to request the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, to 
reconsider its decision or to seek review of a MSPB decision by the 
Federal Circuit. The limitation undermines both OSC's ability to 
protect whistleblowers and the integrity of the WPA. As such, our bill 
would provide OSC authority to appear in any civil action brought in 
connection with the WPA and obtain review of any MSPB order where OSC 
determines MSPB erred and the case will impact the enforcement of the 
WPA.
  Our bill would codify an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has 
passed annually since 1988 as part of the appropriations process. The 
yearly appropriations language bars agencies from implementing or 
enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement that does not 
contain specified language preserving open government statutes. In 
addition, the bill would make it a prohibited personnel practice to 
enforce a non-disclosure agreement that does not comply with open 
government statutes.
  Enactment of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act will 
strengthen the rights and protections afforded to federal 
whistleblowers and encourage the disclosure of information vital to an 
effective government. Following the events of September 11, we realized 
that whistleblowing is even more important when our national security 
is at stake. In many instances, the security of our Nation depends upon 
those who step forward to blow the whistle on significant lapses in our 
efforts to protect the United States against potential terrorist 
attacks. Congress should act quickly to assure whistleblowers that 
disclosing illegal activities and mismanagement within their agencies 
will not be met with retaliation. I urge my colleagues to join with me 
in protecting our federal whistleblowers.
  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. 1358

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

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION 
                   BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Employee Protection of Disclosures Act''.
       (b) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--Section 
     2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior 
     disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, 
     including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an 
     employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably 
     believes is evidence of''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation'';

[[Page S8750]]

       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior 
     disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, 
     including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an 
     employee's duties, to the Special Counsel, or to the 
     Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated 
     by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of 
     information that the employee or applicant reasonably 
     believes is evidence of''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation (other than a violation of this 
     section)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a disclosure that--
       ``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information 
     required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the 
     interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is 
     direct and specific evidence of--

       ``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
       ``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety; or
       ``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of 
     material fact; and

       ``(ii) is made to--

       ``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary 
     responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or 
     element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed 
     information relates and who is authorized to receive 
     information of the type disclosed;
       ``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to 
     receive information of the type disclosed; or
       ``(III) an employee of Congress who has the appropriate 
     security clearance and is authorized to receive information 
     of the type disclosed.''.

       (c) Covered Disclosures.--Section 2302(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter following paragraph (12), by striking 
     ``This subsection'' and inserting the following:
       ``This subsection''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``In this subsection, the term `disclosure' means a formal 
     or informal communication or transmission.''.
       (d) Rebuttable Presumption.--Section 2302(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after the matter 
     following paragraph (12) (as amended by subsection (c) of 
     this section) the following:
       ``For purposes of paragraph (8), any presumption relating 
     to the performance of a duty by an employee who has authority 
     to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any 
     personnel action may be rebutted by substantial evidence.''.
       (e) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements; Security 
     Clearances; and Retaliatory Investigations.--
       (1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; 
     and
       (B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xiv) and 
     inserting after clause (x) the following:
       ``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement;
       ``(xii) a suspension, revocation, or other determination 
     relating to a security clearance;
       ``(xiii) an investigation of an employee or applicant for 
     employment because of any activity protected under this 
     section; and''.
       (2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form, 
     or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not 
     contain the following statement:
       `` `These provisions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code (governing disclosure to Congress by 
     members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, 
     United States Code (governing disclosures of illegality, 
     waste, fraud, abuse, or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosures that could compromise national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). 
     The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, 
     sanctions, and liabilities created by such Executive order 
     and such statutory provisions are incorporated into this 
     agreement and are controlling.'; or
       ``(14) conduct, or cause to be conducted, an investigation 
     of an employee or applicant for employment because of any 
     activity protected under this section.''.
       (3) Board and court review of actions relating to security 
     clearances.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 7702 the following:

     ``Sec. 7702a. Actions relating to security clearances

       ``(a) In any appeal relating to the suspension, revocation, 
     or other determination relating to a security clearance, the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board or any reviewing court--
       ``(1) shall determine whether section 2302 was violated;
       ``(2) may not order the President to restore a security 
     clearance; and
       ``(3) subject to paragraph (2), may issue declaratory 
     relief and any other appropriate relief.
       ``(b)(1) If, in any final judgment, the Board or court 
     declares that any suspension, revocation, or other 
     determination with regards to a security clearance was made 
     in violation of section 2302, the affected agency shall 
     conduct a review of that suspension, revocation, or other 
     determination, giving great weight to the Board or court 
     judgment.
       ``(2) Not later than 30 days after any Board or court 
     judgment declaring that a security clearance suspension, 
     revocation, or other determination was made in violation of 
     section 2302, the affected agency shall issue an unclassified 
     report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction (with 
     a classified annex if necessary), detailing the circumstances 
     of the agency's security clearance suspension, revocation, or 
     other determination. A report under this paragraph shall 
     include any proposed agency action with regards to the 
     security clearance.
       ``(c) An allegation that a security clearance was revoked 
     or suspended in retaliation for a protected disclosure shall 
     receive expedited review by the Office of Special Counsel, 
     the Merit Systems Protection Board, and any reviewing 
     court.''.
       (B) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7702 
     the following:

``7702a. Actions relating to security clearances.''.

       (f) Exclusion of Agencies by the President.--Section 
     2302(a)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii)(I) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the 
     National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Security 
     Agency; and
       ``(II) as determined by the President, any Executive agency 
     or unit thereof the principal function of which is the 
     conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence 
     activities, if the determination (as that determination 
     relates to a personnel action) is made before that personnel 
     action; or''.
       (g) Attorney Fees.--Section 1204(m)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``agency involved'' and 
     inserting ``agency where the prevailing party is employed or 
     has applied for employment''.
       (h) Disciplinary Action.--Section 1215 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended in subsection (a), by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3)(A) A final order of the Board may impose--
       ``(i) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction 
     in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not 
     to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand;
       ``(ii) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $1,000; or
       ``(iii) any combination of disciplinary actions described 
     under clause (i) and an assessment described under clause 
     (ii).
       ``(B) In any case in which the Board finds that an employee 
     has committed a prohibited personnel practice under section 
     2302(b) (8) or (9), the Board shall impose disciplinary 
     action if the Board finds that the activity protected under 
     section 2302(b) (8) or (9) was a significant motivating 
     factor, even if other factors also motivated the decision, 
     for the employee's decision to take, fail to take, or 
     threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action, unless 
     that employee demonstrates, by preponderance of evidence, 
     that the employee would have taken, failed to take, or 
     threatened to take or fail to take the same personnel action, 
     in the absence of such protected activity.''.
       (i) Disclosures to Congress.--Section 2302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Each agency shall establish a process that provides 
     confidential advice to employees on making a lawful 
     disclosure to Congress of information that is specifically 
     required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the 
     interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs.''.
       (j) Authority of Special Counsel Relating to Civil 
     Actions.--
       (1) Representation of special counsel.--Section 1212 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(h) Except as provided in section 518 of title 28, 
     relating to litigation before the Supreme Court, attorneys 
     designated by the Special Counsel may appear for the Special 
     Counsel and represent the Special Counsel in any civil action 
     brought in connection with section 2302(b)(8) or subchapter 
     III of chapter 73, or as otherwise authorized by law.''.
       (2) Judicial review of merit systems protection board 
     decisions.--Section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S8751]]

       ``(e)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), this 
     paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Special 
     Counsel. The Special Counsel may obtain review of any final 
     order or decision of the Board by filing a petition for 
     judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Federal Circuit if the Special Counsel determines, in the 
     discretion of the Special Counsel, that the Board erred in 
     deciding a case arising under section 2302(b)(8) or 
     subchapter III of chapter 73 and that the Board's decision 
     will have a substantial impact on the enforcement of section 
     2302(b)(8) or subchapter III of chapter 73. If the Special 
     Counsel was not a party or did not intervene in a matter 
     before the Board, the Special Counsel may not petition for 
     review of a Board decision under this section unless the 
     Special Counsel first petitions the Board for reconsideration 
     of its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to 
     the named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the 
     proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear 
     in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. The granting 
     of the petition for judicial review shall be at the 
     discretion of the Court of Appeals.
       ``(2) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective 
     date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, 
     this paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the 
     Special Counsel. The Special Counsel may obtain review of any 
     final order or decision of the Board by filing a petition for 
     judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent 
     jurisdiction as provided under subsection (b)(2) if the 
     Special Counsel determines, in the discretion of the Special 
     Counsel, that the Board erred in deciding a case arising 
     under section 2302(b)(8) or subchapter III of chapter 73 and 
     that the Board's decision will have a substantial impact on 
     the enforcement of section 2302(b)(8) or subchapter III of 
     chapter 73. If the Special Counsel was not a party or did not 
     intervene in a matter before the Board, the Special Counsel 
     may not petition for review of a Board decision under this 
     section unless the Special Counsel first petitions the Board 
     for reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is 
     denied. In addition to the named respondent, the Board and 
     all other parties to the proceedings before the Board shall 
     have the right to appear in the proceedings before the court 
     of appeals. The granting of the petition for judicial review 
     shall be at the discretion of the court of appeals.''.
       (k) Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7703(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 
     paragraph (2) of this subsection, a petition to review a 
     final order or final decision of the Board shall be filed in 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for 
     review must be filed within 60 days after the date the 
     petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of 
     the Board.
       ``(B) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective 
     date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, a 
     petition to review a final order or final decision of the 
     Board shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent 
     jurisdiction as provided under subsection (b)(2). 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for 
     review must be filed within 60 days after the date the 
     petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of 
     the Board.''.
       (2) Review obtained by office of personnel management.--
     Section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), this 
     paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of any final 
     order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days 
     after the date the Director received notice of the final 
     order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial 
     review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit if the Director determines, in his discretion, that 
     the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or 
     regulation affecting personnel management and that the 
     Board's decision will have a substantial impact on a civil 
     service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the 
     Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the 
     Director may not petition for review of a Board decision 
     under this section unless the Director first petitions the 
     Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such 
     petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the 
     Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the 
     Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before 
     the Court of Appeals. The granting of the petition for 
     judicial review shall be at the discretion of the Court of 
     Appeals.
       ``(2) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective 
     date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, 
     this paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of 
     any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 
     days after the date the Director received notice of the final 
     order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial 
     review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction as 
     provided under subsection (b)(2) if the Director determines, 
     in his discretion, that the Board erred in interpreting a 
     civil service law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel 
     management and that the Board's decision will have a 
     substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, 
     or policy directive. If the Director did not intervene in a 
     matter before the Board, the Director may not petition for 
     review of a Board decision under this section unless the 
     Director first petitions the Board for a reconsideration of 
     its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to the 
     named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the 
     proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear 
     in the proceeding before the court of appeals. The granting 
     of the petition for judicial review shall be at the 
     discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
       (l) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Requirement.--Each agreement in Standard Forms 312 and 
     4414 of the Government and any other nondisclosure policy, 
     form, or agreement of the Government shall contain the 
     following statement: ``These restrictions are consistent with 
     and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the 
     employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by 
     Executive Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United 
     States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 
     of title 10, United States Code (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures of 
     illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety 
     threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 
     (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could 
     expose confidential Government agents); and the statutes 
     which protect against disclosure that may compromise the 
     national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 
     952 of title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by such Executive order and such 
     statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and 
     are controlling.''
       (B) Enforceability.--Any nondisclosure policy, form, or 
     agreement described under subparagraph (A) that does not 
     contain the statement required under subparagraph (A) may not 
     be implemented or enforced to the extent such policy, form, 
     or agreement is inconsistent with that statement.
       (2) Persons other than government employees.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nondisclosure policy, form, 
     or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected 
     with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related 
     activity, other than an employee or officer of the United 
     States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the 
     particular activity for which such document is to be used. 
     Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the 
     person will not disclose any classified information received 
     in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized 
     to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure 
     forms shall also make it clear that such forms do not bar 
     disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an 
     executive agency or the Department of Justice that are 
     essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
       (m) Clarification of Whistleblower Rights for Critical 
     Infrastructure Information.--Section 214(c) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of this 
     section a permissible use of independently obtained 
     information includes the disclosure of such information under 
     section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (n) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka, 
Grassley, Leahy, and Durbin today in introducing the Federal Employees 
Protection of Disclosures Act. Our bill strengthens the law protecting 
employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in federal 
programs.
  Whistleblowers play a crucial role in ensuring that Congress and the 
public are aware of serious cases of waste, fraud, and mismanagement in 
government. Whistleblowing is never more important than when our 
national security is at stake. Since the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, courageous individuals have stepped forward to blow the 
whistle on significant lapses in our efforts to protect the United 
States against potential future attacks. Most notably, FBI Agent Coleen 
Rowley alerted Congress to serious institutional problems at the FBI 
and their impact on the agency's ability to effectively investigate and 
prevent terrorism.
  In another example, two Border Patrol agents from my State of 
Michigan, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, risked their careers when they 
blew the whistle on Border Patrol and INS policies that were 
compromising security on

[[Page S8752]]

the Northern Border. Their disclosure led to my holding a hearing at 
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in November 2001, that 
exposed serious deficiencies in the way Border Patrol and INS were 
dealing with aliens who were arrested while trying to enter the country 
illegally. Since the hearing, some of the most troublesome policies 
have been changed, improving the security situation and validating the 
two agents' concerns. Despite the fact that their concerns proved to be 
dead on, shortly after they blew the whistle, disciplinary action was 
proposed against the two agents. Fortunately in this case, 
whistleblower protections worked. The Office of Special Counsel 
conducted an investigation and the decision to discipline the agents 
was reversed. However, that disciplinary an action was proposed in the 
first place is a troubling reminder of how important it is for us to 
both strengthen protections for whistleblowers and empower the Office 
of Special Counsel to discipline managers who seek to muzzle employees.
  Agent Rowley, Mark Hall and Bob Lindermann are simply the latest in a 
long line of Federal employees who have taken great personal risks in 
blowing the whistle on government waste, fraud, and mismanagement. 
Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a 
Federal employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a 
Federal program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or 
mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the 
sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it 
is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want Federal 
employees to identify problems so we can fix them, and if they fear 
reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to protect the 
whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the taxpayer.
  I sponsored the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which 
strengthened and clarified whistleblower rights, as well as the bill 
passed by Congress to strengthen the law further in 1994. 
Unfortunately, however, repeated holdings by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, 
with the result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed. 
The case of LaChance versus White represents perhaps the most notable 
example of the Federal Circuit's misinterpretation of the whistleblower 
law.
  In LaChance, decided on May 14, 1999, the court imposed an unfounded 
and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee whistleblowers 
in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was an education 
specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new educational 
system that purported to mandate quality standards for schools 
contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new system 
as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously 
reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making 
these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, relieving 
him of his duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an 
independent management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force 
canceled the program White had criticized. White appealed the 
reassignment in 1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since.
  The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding 
that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection 
Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision 
and remanded the case back to the administrative judge, holding that 
since White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced 
gross mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On 
remand, the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated 
the Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return 
White to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the 
administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review 
of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit subsequently reversed the 
MSPB's decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to 
support a violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal 
Circuit held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the 
subject at issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that 
his belief was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the 
``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board 
must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the 
disclosures revealed misbehavior'' by the Air Force. The court went on 
to say: ``In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and 
implementation via the QES standards might well show them to be 
entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, this review 
would start out with a presumption that public officers perform their 
duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law 
and governing regulations. * * * And this presumption stands unless 
there is `irrefragable proof to the contrary'.''
  It was appropriate for the Federal Circuit to remand the case to the 
MSPB to have it reconsider whether it was reasonable for White to 
believe that what the Air Force did in this case involved gross 
mismanagement. However, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly 
erroneous and excessive standard for him to demonstrate his 
``reasonable belief''--requiring him to provide ``irrefragable'' proof 
that the Air Force had engaged in gross mismanagement.
  Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, incontrovertible, 
incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal employee meet a 
standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross mismanagement? It is 
virtually impossible standard of proof to meet. Moreover, there is 
nothing in the law or legislative history that even suggests such a 
standard applies to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the 
law is not for a federal employee to act as an investigator and compile 
``irrefragable'' proof that the Federal Government, in fact, committed 
fraud, waste or abuse. Rather, under the clear language of the statute, 
the employee needs only to have ``a reasonable belief'' that there is 
fraud, waste or abuse occurring in order to make a protected 
disclosure.
  LaChance is only one example of the Federal Circuit misinterpreting 
the law. Our bill corrects LaChance and as well as several other 
Federal Circuit holdings. In addition, the bill strengthens the Office 
of Special Counsel and creates additional protections for federal 
employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle.
  One of the most important issues addressed in the bill is to clarify 
again that the law is intended to protect a broad range of 
whistleblower disclosures. The legislative history supporting the 1994 
Whistleblower Protection Act amendments emphasized: ``[I]t also is not 
possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) 
that protection for `any' whistleblowing disclosure truly means `any'. 
A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, 
may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written 
and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction 
to time, place, motive or content.''
  Despite this clear Congressional intent that was clearly articulated 
in 1994, the Federal Circuit has acted to push a number of 
whistleblower disclosures outside the protections of the whistleblower 
law. For example, in Horton versus the Department of the Navy, the 
Federal Circuit ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to co-workers, 
or to the wrong-doer, or to a court ruled that a whistleblower's 
disclosures to official in the agency chain of command or those made in 
the course of normal job duties were not protected. In Huffman versus 
Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Horton 
and Willis. And in Meuwissen versus Department of Interior, the Federal 
Circuit held that a whistleblower's disclosures of previously known 
information do not qualify as ``disclosures'' under the WPA. All of 
these rulings violate clear Congressional intent to afford broad 
protection to whistleblower disclosures.
  In order to make it clear that any lawful disclosure that an employee 
or job applicant reasonably believes is evidence of waste, fraud, 
abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, the bill codifies 
previous statements of Congressional intent. Using the 1994 legislative 
history, it amends the whistleblower statute to

[[Page S8753]]

cover any disclosure of information without restriction to time, place, 
form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an 
employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary 
course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant 
reasonably believes is credible evidence of any violation of any law, 
rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in the whistleblower 
law. I want to emphasize here that, other than the explicitly listed 
exceptions identified in the statute, we intend for there to be no 
exceptions, inferred or otherwise, as to what is a protected 
disclosure. And the prohibition on inferred exceptions is intended to 
apply to all protected speech categories in section 2302(b)(8) of the 
law. The intent here, again, is to make it clear that when the WPA 
speaks of protecting disclosures by Federal employees ``any'' means 
``any.''
  The bill also addresses the clearly erroneous standard established by 
the Federal Circuit's LaChance decision I mentioned earlier. Rather 
than needing ``irrefragable proof'' to overcome the presumption that a 
public officer performed his or her duties correctly, fairly, in good 
faith, and in accordance with the law and regulations, the bill makes 
it clear that the whistleblower can rebut this presumption with 
``substantial evidence.'' This burden of proof is a far more reasonable 
and appropriate standard for whistleblowing cases.
  The Federal Circuit's repeated misinterpretations of the 
whistleblower law are unacceptable and demand Congressional action. In 
response to the court's inexplicable and inappropriate rulings, our 
bill would suspend for five years the Federal Circuit's exclusive 
jurisdiction over whistleblower appeals. It would instead allow a 
whistleblower to file a petition to review a final order or final 
decision of the MSPB in the Federal Circuit or in any other United 
States appellate court of competent jurisdiction and defined under 5 
U.S.C. 7703(b)(2). In most cases, using another court would mean going 
to the federal circuit where the contested personnel action took place. 
This five year period would allow Congress to evaluate whether other 
appellate courts would issue whistleblower decisions which are 
consistent with the Federal Circuit's interpretation of WPA protections 
and guide Congressional efforts to clarify the law if necessary.
  In addition to addressing jurisdictional issues and troublesome 
Federal Circuit precedents, our bill would also make important 
additions to the list of protected disclosures. First, it would subject 
certain disclosures of classified information to whistleblower 
protections. However, in order for a disclosure of classified 
information to be protected, the employee would have to possess a 
reasonable belief that the disclosure was direct and specific evidence 
of a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross 
waste of funds, an abuse of authority, a substantial and specified 
danger to public health or safety, or a false statement to Congress on 
an issue of material fact. A whistleblower must also limit the 
disclosure to a member of Congress or staff of the executive or 
legislative branch holding the appropriate security clearance and 
authorized to receive the information disclosed. Federal agencies 
covered by the WPA would be required to establish a process to provide 
confidential advice to employees on how to lawfully make a protected 
disclosure of classified information to Congress.

  Current law permits Federal employees to file a case at the MSPB when 
they feel that a manager has taken a personnel action against them in 
retaliation for blowing the whistle. The legislation would add three 
new personnel actions to the list of adverse actions that cannot be 
taken against whistleblowers for engaging in protected activity. These 
actions would include enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form or 
agreement against a whistleblower for making a protected disclosure; 
the suspension, revocation, or other determination relating to a 
whistleblower's security clearance; and an investigation of an employee 
or applicant for employment if taken due to their participation in 
whistleblowing activity.
  It is important to note that, if it is demonstrated that a security 
clearance was suspended or revoked in retaliation for whistleblowing, 
the legislation limits the relief that the MSPB and reviewing court can 
order. The bill specifies that the MSPB or reviewing court may issue 
declaratory and other appropriate relief but may not direct a security 
clearance to be restored. Appropriate relief may include back pay, an 
order to reassign the employee, attorney fees, or any other relief the 
Board or court is authorized to provide for other prohibited personnel 
practices. In addition, if the Board finds an action on a security 
clearance to have been illegal, it may bar the agency from directly or 
indirectly taking any other personnel action based on that illegal 
security clearance action. Our legislation would also require the 
agency to review and provide a report to Congress detailing the 
circumstances of the agency's security clearance decision, and 
authorizes expedited MSPB review of whistleblower cases where a 
security clearance was revoked or suspended. The latter is important 
because a person whose clearance has been suspended or revoked and 
whose job responsibilities require clearance may be unable to work 
while their case is being considered.
  Our bill would also add two prohibited personnel practices of the 
whistleblower law. First, it would codify the ``anti-gag'' provision 
that has been in force since 1988, by virture of its inclusion in 
appropriations bills. Second, it would prohibit a manager from 
initiating an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment 
because they engage in a protected activity, including whistleblowing.
  Another issue addressed in the bill involves certain employees who 
are excluded from the WPA. Among these are employees who hold 
``confidential policy-making positions.'' In 1994, Congress amended the 
WPA to keep agencies from designating employees confidential 
policymakers after the employees filed whistleblower complaints. The 
WPA also allows the President to exclude from WPA jurisdiction any 
agency whose principal function is the conduct of foreign intelligence 
or counterintelligence activities. Our legislation maintains this 
authority but makes it clear that a decision to exclude an agency from 
WPA protections must also be made prior to a personnel action being 
taken against a whistleblower from that agency. This provision is 
necessary to ensure that agencies cannot argue that employees are 
exempt from whistleblower protections after an employee files a claim 
that they were retaliated against.
  Another key section of the bill would strengthen the Office of 
Special Counsel. OSC is the independent federal agency responsible for 
investigating and prosecuting federal employee complaints of 
whistleblower retaliation. Current law, however, limits OSC's ability 
to effectively enforce and defend whistleblower laws. For example, the 
law provides the OSC with no authority to request the Merit Systems 
Protection Board to reconsider one of its decisions or to seek 
appellate review of an MSPB decision. Even when another party petitions 
for a review of a MSPB decision, OSC is typically denied the right to 
participate in the proceedings.
  Our bill would provide explicit authority for the Office of Special 
Counsel to appear in any civil action brought in connection with the 
whistleblower law. In addition, it would authorize OSC to obtain 
circuit court review of any MSPB order in a whistleblowing case if the 
OSC determines the Board erred and the case would have a substantial 
impact on the enforcement of the whisltleblower statute. In a letter to 
me addressing these provisions, special Counsel Elaine Kaplan said, ``I 
believe that these changes are necessary, not only to ensure OSC's 
effectiveness, but to address continuing concerns about the whittling 
away of the WPA's protections by narrow judicial interpretations of the 
law.'' I ask unanimous consent that the OSC letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               U.S. Office of Special Counsel,

                               Washington, DC, September 11, 2002.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for giving me the opportunity 
     to comment on the proposed Title VI of H.R. 5005, concerning

[[Page S8754]]

     the protection of federal employee whistleblowers.
       As the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), 
     the independent federal agency that is responsible for 
     investigating and prosecuting federal employees' complaints 
     of whistleblower retaliation, I share your recognition that 
     is crucial to ensure that the laws protecting whistleblowers 
     are strong and effective. Federal employees are often in the 
     best position to observe and identify official misconduct or 
     malfeasance as well as dangers to the public health and 
     safety, and the national security.
       Now, perhaps more than ever before, our national interest 
     demands that federal workers feel safe to come forward to 
     bring appropriate attention to these conditions so that they 
     may be corrected. Further, and again more than ever, the 
     public now needs assurance that the workforce which is 
     carrying out crucial operations is alert, and that its 
     leaders welcome and encourage their constructive 
     participation in making the government a highly efficient and 
     effective steward of the public interest.
       To these ends, Title VI contains a number of provisions 
     that will strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 
     and close loopholes in the Act's coverage. The amendment 
     would reverse the effects of several judicial decisions that 
     have imposed unduly narrow and restrictive tests for 
     determining whether employees qualify for the protection of 
     the WPA. These decisions, among other things, have held that 
     employees are not protected against retaliation when they 
     make their disclosures in the line of duty or when they 
     confront subject officials with their suspicions of 
     wrongdoing. They have also made it more difficult for 
     whistleblowers to secure the Act's protection by interposing 
     what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has called 
     an ``irrefragable'' presumption that government officials 
     perform their duties lawfully and in good faith.
       In addition to reversing these rulings, Title VI would 
     grant the Special Counsel independent litigating authority 
     and the right to request judicial review of decisions of the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in cases that will have 
     a substantial impact upon the enforcement of the WPA. I 
     firmly believe that these changes are necessary, not only to 
     ensure OSC's effectiveness, but to address continuing 
     concerns about the whittling away of the WPA's protections 
     by narrow judicial interpretations of the law. The changes 
     would ensure that OSC, the government agency charged with 
     protecting whistleblowers, will have a meaningful 
     opportunity to participate in the shaping of the law.
       Further, Title VI would strengthen OSC's capacity to use 
     its disciplinary action authority to deter agency 
     supervisors, managers, and other officials from engaging in 
     retaliation, and to punish those who do so. The amendment 
     does this in two ways. First, it clarifies the burden of 
     proof in disciplinary action cases that OSC brings by 
     employing the test first set forth by the Supreme Court in 
     Mt. Healthy School District v. Board of Education. Under this 
     test, in order to secure discipline of an agency official 
     accused of engaging in whistleblower retaliation, OSC would 
     have to show that protected whistleblowing was a 
     ``significant, motivating factor'' in the decision to take or 
     threaten to take a personnel action. If OSC made such a 
     showing, the MSPB would order appropriate discipline unless 
     the official showed, by preponderant evidence, that he or she 
     would have taken or threatened to take the same action even 
     had there been no protected activity.
       This change is necessary in order to ensure that the burden 
     of proof in these cases is not so onerous as to make it 
     virtually impossible to secure discipline against 
     retaliators. Under current law, OSC bears the unprecedented 
     burden of demonstrating that protected activity was the but-
     for cause of an adverse personnel action against a 
     whistleblower. The amendment would correct the imbalance by 
     imposing the well-established Mt. Healthy test in these 
     cases.
       In addition, the bill would relieve OSC of attorney fee 
     liability in disciplinary action cases in which it ultimately 
     does not prevail. The amendment would shift liability for 
     fees to the manager's employing agency, where an award of 
     fees would be in the interest of justice. The employing 
     agency would indemnify the manager for these costs which 
     would have been incurred by him in the course of performing 
     his official duties.
       Under current law, if OSC ultimately does not prevail in a 
     case it brings against a manager whom our investigation shows 
     has engaged in retaliation, then we must pay attorney fees, 
     even if our prosecution decision was an entirely reasonable 
     one. For a small agency like OSC, with a limited budget, the 
     specter of having to pay large attorney fee awards simply 
     because we do not ultimately prevail in a case, is a 
     significant obstacle to our ability to use this important 
     authority to hold managers accountable. It is, moreover, an 
     unprecedented burden; virtually all fee shifting provisions 
     which could result in an award of fees against a government 
     agency, depend upon a showing that the government agency has 
     acted unreasonably or in bad faith.
       In addition to these provisions, the bill would also 
     provide that for a period of five years, beginning on 
     February 1, 2003, there would be multi-circuit review of 
     decisions of the MSPB, just as there is now multi-circuit 
     review of decisions of the MSPB's sister agency, the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority. This experiment will 
     give Congress the opportunity to judge whether providing 
     broader perspectives of all of the nation's courts of 
     appeals will enhance the development of the law under the 
     WPA.
       There are several other provisions of the amendments that 
     would strengthen the Act's coverage and remedies. The 
     amendments, for example, would extend coverage of the WPA to 
     circumstances in which an agency initiated an investigation 
     of an employee or applicant in reprisal for whistleblowing or 
     where an agency implemented an illegal non-disclosure form or 
     policy. The amendments also would authorize an award of 
     compensatory damages in federal employee whistleblower cases. 
     Such awards are authorized for federal employees under the 
     civil rights acts, and for environmental and nuclear 
     whistleblowers, among others, under other federal statutes. 
     Given the important public policies underlying the WPA, it 
     seems appropriate that the same sort of make whole relief 
     should be available to federal employee whistleblowers.
       Finally, Title VI contains a provision that would provide 
     relief to employees who allege that their security clearances 
     were denied or revoked because of protected whistleblowing, 
     without interfering with the longstanding authority of the 
     President to make security clearance determinations. The 
     amendment would allow employees to file OSC complaints 
     alleging they suffered a retaliatory adverse security 
     clearance determination. OSC would be given the authority to 
     investigate such complaints and the MSPB would have the 
     authority to issue declaratory and appropriate relief other 
     than ordering the restoration of the clearance. Further, 
     where the Board found retaliation, the employing agency would 
     be required to conduct its own investigation of the 
     revocation and report back to Congress.
       This amendment provides a balance resolution of the tension 
     between protecting national security whistleblowers against 
     retaliation and maintaining the President's traditional 
     prerogative to decide who will have access to classified 
     information. Especially in light of the current heightened 
     concerns about issues of national security, this change in 
     the law is clearly warranted.
       Thank you again for providing me with an opportunity to 
     comment on these amendments, and for your continuing interest 
     in the work of the Office of Special Counsel.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Elaine Kaplan.

  Mr. LEVIN. OSC currently has the authority to pursue disciplinary 
action against managers who retaliate against whistleblowers. However, 
Federal Circuit decisions, like LaChance, have undermined the agency's 
ability to successfully pursue such cases. The Special Counsel has said 
that ``change is necessary in order to ensure that the burden of proof 
in these cases is not so onerous as to make it virtually impossible to 
secure disciplinary action against retaliators.'' In addition to it 
being difficult to win, if the OSC loses a disciplinary case, it has to 
pay the legal fees of those against whom OSC initiates disciplinary 
action. In its letter, OSC said that ``the specter of having to pay 
large attorney fee awards . . . is a significant obstacle to our 
ability to use this important authority to hold managers accountable.'' 
Our bill addresses these problems by establishing a reasonable burden 
of proof for disciplinary actions and requiring the employing agency, 
not the OSC, to reimburse the prevailing party for attorney fees in a 
disciplinary proceeding.
  Finally, the bill addresses a new issue that has arisen in connection 
with the recent enactment of the Homeland Security Act or HSA. To 
evaluate the vulnerability to terrorist attack of certain critical 
infrastructure such as chemical plants, computer networks and other key 
facilities, the HSA asks private companies that own these facilities to 
submit unclassified information about them to the government. In doing 
so, the law also created some ambiguity on the question of whether 
Federal employee whistleblowers would be protected by the WPA if they 
should disclose information that has been independently obtained by the 
whistleblower about such facilities but which may also have been 
disclosed to the government under the critical infrastructure 
information program.
  While I believe it was Congress's intent to extend whistleblower 
protections to Federal employees who disclose such independently 
obtained information, the law's ambiguities are troublesome in the 
context of the tendency of the Federal Circuit to narrowly construe the 
scope of protections afforded by the WPA. Our bill would thus clarify 
that whistleblower protections do extend to Federal employees who 
disclose independently obtained information that may also have been 
disclosed to the government as part of the

[[Page S8755]]

critical infrastructure information program
  We need to encourage Federal employees to blow the whistle on waste, 
fraud and abuse in Federal Government agencies and programs. These 
people take great risks and often face enormous obstacles in doing what 
they believe is right. The Congress and the country owe a particular 
debt of gratitude to those whistleblowers who put their careers on the 
line to protect national security. Since September 11, 2001, we have 
seen a number of examples of how crucial people like Coleen Rowley, 
Mark Hall and Bob Lindermann are to keeping our country safe. I request 
unanimous consent that a letter from Agent Rowley be printed in the 
Record. In the letter she says that when she blew the whistle, she was 
lucky enough to garner the support of many of her colleagues and 
members of Congress. However, her letter warns that for every Coleen 
Rowley, ``there are many more who do not benefit from the relative 
safety of public notoriety.'' It is to protect those responsible, 
courageous many that we offer this legislation. We need more like them.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section 
explanation of the bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                September 2, 2002.
       Dear Senators: I have proudly served in federal law 
     enforcement for over 21 years. Prior to my personal 
     involvement in a specific matter, I did not fully appreciate 
     the strong disincentives that sometimes keep government 
     employees from exposing waste, fraud, abuse, or other 
     failures they witness on the job. Nor did I appreciate the 
     strong incentives that do exist for agencies to avoid 
     institutional embarrassment.
       The decision to step forward with information that exposed 
     my agency to scrutiny was one of the most difficult of my 
     career. I did not come to it quickly or lightly. I first 
     attempted to warn my superiors through regular channels. Only 
     after those warnings failed to bring about the necessary 
     response and congressional inquiry was initiated, did I go 
     outside the agency with my concerns. I had no intention or 
     desire to be in the public spotlight, so I did not go to the 
     news media. I provided the information to Members of Congress 
     with oversight responsibility. I felt compelled to do so 
     because my responsibility is to the American people, not to a 
     government agency.
       Unfortunately, the cloak of secrecy which is necessary for 
     the effective operation of government agencies involved in 
     national security and criminal investigations fosters an 
     environment where the incentives to avoid embarrassment and 
     the disincentives to step forward combine. When that happens, 
     the public loses. We need laws that strike a better balance, 
     that are able to protect effective government operation 
     without sacrificing accountability to the public. I was lucky 
     enough to garner a good deal of support from my colleagues in 
     the Minneapolis office and Members of Congress. But for every 
     one like me, there are many more who do not benefit from the 
     relative safety of public notoriety. They need credible, 
     functioning rights and remedies to retain the freedom to 
     warn.
       I also need to state that I write this letter in my 
     personal capacity, and that it reflects my personal views 
     only, not those of the government agency for which I work.
       Thank you for your consideration,
                                                    Coleen Rowley.

  There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Section-by-Section Analysis of the Federal Employee Protection of 
                            Disclosures Act

       The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act would 
     strengthen protections for Federal employees who blow the 
     whistle on waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government.
       Protected Whistleblower Disclosures--To correct court 
     decisions improperly limiting the disclosures protected by 
     the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, section (b) of the 
     bill would clarify Congressional intent that the law covers 
     ``any'' whistleblowing disclosure, whether that disclosure is 
     made as part of an employee's job duties, concerns policy or 
     individual misconduct, is oral or written, or is made to any 
     audience inside or outside an agency, and without restriction 
     to time, place, motive or context. This section would also 
     protect certain disclosures of classified information to 
     Congress when the disclosure is to a Member or legislative 
     staff holding an appropriate security clearance and 
     authorized to receive the type of information disclosed.
       Informal Disclosures.--Section (c) would clarify the 
     definition of ``disclosure'' to include a formal or informal 
     communication or transmission.
       Irrefragable Proof.--In LaChance v. White, the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed an erroneous 
     standard for determining when an employee makes a protected 
     disclosure under the WPA. Under the clear language of the 
     statute, an employee need only have a reasonable belief that 
     he or she is providing evidence of fraud, waste or abuse to 
     make a protected disclosure. But the court ruled that an 
     employee had to have ``irrefragable proof''--meaning 
     undeniable and incontestable proof--to overcome the 
     presumption that a public officer is performing their duties 
     in accordance with law. Section (d) would replace this 
     unreasonable standard of proof by providing that a 
     whistleblower can rebut the presumption with ``substantial 
     evidence.''
       Prohibited Personnel Actions.--Section (e)(1) would add 
     three actions to the list of prohibited personnel actions 
     that may not be taken against whistleblowers for protected 
     disclosures: enforcement of a nondisclosure policy, form or 
     agreement; suspension, revocation, or other determination 
     relating to an employee's security clearance; and 
     investigation of an employee or applicant for employment due 
     to protected whistleblowing activities.
       Nondisclosure Actions Against Whistleblowers.--Section 
     (e)(2) would bar agencies from implementing or enforcing 
     against whistleblowers any nondisclosure policy, form or 
     agreement that fails to contain specified language preserving 
     the right of federal employees to disclose certain protected 
     information. It would also prohibit a manager from initiating 
     an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment 
     because they engaged in protected activity.
       Retaliations Involving Security Clearances.--Section (e)(3) 
     would make it a prohibited personnel practice for a manager 
     to suspend, revoke or take other action with respect to an 
     employee's security clearance in retaliation for 
     whistleblowing. This section would also authorize the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board, MSPB, to conduct an expedited 
     review of such matters and issue declaratory and other 
     appropriate relief, but would not empower MSPB to restore a 
     security clearance. If MSPB or a reviewing court were to find 
     that a security clearance decision was retaliatory, the 
     agency involved would be required to review its security 
     clearance decision and issue a report to Congress explaining 
     it.
       Exclusions From WPA.--Current law allows the President to 
     exclude certain employees and agencies from the WPA if they 
     perform certain intelligence related or policy making 
     functions. In 1994, Congress amended the WPA to stop agencies 
     from removing employees from WPA coverage after the employees 
     filed whistleblower complaints. Section (f) would also 
     require that removal of an agency from the WPA be made prior 
     to a personnel action being taken against a whistleblower at 
     that agency.
       Attorney Fees.--The Office of Special Counsel, OSC, has 
     authority to pursue disciplinary action against managers who 
     retaliate against whistleblowers. Currently, if OSC loses a 
     disciplinary case, it must pay the legal fees of those 
     against whom it initiated the action. Because the amounts 
     involved could significantly deplete OSC's limited resources, 
     section (g) would require the employing agency, rather than 
     OSC, to reimburse the manager's attorney fees.
       Burden of Proof in Disciplinary Actions.--Currently, when 
     OSC pursues disciplinary action against managers who 
     retaliate against whistleblowers, OSC must demonstrate that 
     an adverse personnel action would not have occurred ``but 
     for'' the whistleblower's protected activity. Section (i) 
     would establish a more reasonable burden of proof by 
     requiring OSC to demonstrate that the whistleblower's 
     protected disclosure was a ``significant motivating factor'' 
     in the decision by the manager to take the adverse action, 
     even if other factors also motivated the decision. This 
     standard would be equivalent of the Mt. Healthy standard.
       Disclosures to Congress.--Section (j) would require 
     agencies to establish a process to provide confidential 
     advice to employees on how to lawfully make a protected 
     disclosure of classified information to Congress.
       Authority of Special Counsel.--Under current law, OSC has 
     no authority to request MSPB to reconsider a decision or seek 
     appellate review of a MSPB decision. This limitation 
     undermines OSC's ability to protect whistleblowers and 
     integrity of the WPA. Section k would authorize OSC to appear 
     in any civil action brought in connection with the WPA and 
     request appellate review of any MSPB order where OSC 
     determines MSPB erred and the case would have a substantial 
     impact on WPA enforcement.
       Judicial Review.--In 1982, Congress replaced normal 
     Administrative Procedures Act appellate review of MSPB 
     decisions with exclusive jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the 1989 WPA and its 
     1994 amendments strengthened and clarified whistleblower 
     protections, Federal Circuit holdings have repeatedly 
     misinterpreted key provisions of the law. Subject to a five 
     year sunset , section (l) would suspend the Federal Circuit's 
     exclusive jurisdiction over whistleblower appeals and allow 
     petitions for review to be filed either in the Federal 
     Circuit or any other federal circuit court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Nondisclosure Restrictions on Whistleblowers.--Section (m) 
     would require all federal nondisclosure policies, forms and 
     agreements to contain specified language preserving the right 
     of federal employees to disclose certain protected 
     information. This section would codify the so-called anti-gag 
     provision that has been included in federal appropriations 
     bills since 1988.
       Critical Infrastructure Information.--Section (n) would 
     clarify that section 214(c) of

[[Page S8756]]

     the Homeland Security Act, HSA, maintains existing WPA rights 
     for independently obtained information that may also qualify 
     as critical infrastructure information under the HSA.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1359. A bill to allow credit unions to provide international money 
transfer services and to require disclosures in connection with 
international money transfers from all money transmitting service 
providers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the International 
Remittances Services Enhancement and Protection Act of 2003.
  Remittances are the funds that immigrants send to their families 
abroad to help those relatives meet their basic needs. In the Latino 
community, 47 percent of all Latinos born outside the United States 
regularly send money to their country of origin. But since 43 percent 
to 58 percent of those who send remittances abroad regularly do not 
have a bank account, much of their hard earned money is lost in fees 
paid to check cashing agencies and wire transfer companies. They rely 
on check cashing services to cash their paychecks at hefty fees and 
then pay another fee to send some portion of that money through a wire 
service to their relatives in Latin America and elsewhere at varying 
exchange rates.
  This legislation will increase competition and transparency in the 
remittances market. It will provide immigrants with access to more 
choices for sending remittances by allowing credit unions to provide 
wire transfer and check cashing services to nonmembers. It will also 
provide immigrants with access to information in more than one language 
from all money transmitters about the fees and exchange rates that they 
pay. That information will make it easier for consumers to compare the 
value of the services they can receive from different service 
providers.
  The larger goal is to provide immigrants with more control over their 
finances. I believe this bill with encourage financial institutions to 
develop better services for immigrants and build stronger relationships 
with immigrant communities.
  According to the Multilateral Investment Fund, immigrants living in 
the United States sent $23 billion to Latin America in 2001. More than 
$3 billion of that total was consumed in fees paid to money transfer 
agencies. If current growth rates in remittance transfers are 
maintained, cumulative remittances to Latin America could reach $300 
billion for the 10-year period ending in 2010. We need to work to 
ensure that competition in the market and modern technology come 
together to lower the portion of those monies lost in fees and instead 
are used for productive purposes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 1360. A bill to amend section 7105 of title 38, United States 
Code, to clarify the requirements for notices of disagreement for 
appellate review of Department of Veterans Affairs activities; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will remove a significant and arbitrary barrier to 
appellate review of veterans' benefits claims. In 1988, when Congress 
created judicial review for veterans' claims it intended to provide 
``an opportunity for those aggrieved by VA decisions to have such 
decisions reviewed by a court'' and found such review ``necessary in 
order to provide such claimants with fundamental justice.''
  A veteran or survivor of a veteran seeking VA benefits must file a 
claim for such benefits, generally at a VA Regional Office. If the VA 
denies the claim for benefits, the claimant must file a ``Notice of 
Disagreement,'' or NOD, as defined in section 7105 of title 38 of the 
United States Code. This NOD initiates appellate review by the agency 
and begins a series of events where VA communicates the basis of the 
denial to the claimant and allows various levels of review of this 
denial at the regional office. If the claimant still disagrees with the 
VA decision, the claimant may file a ``Substantive Appeal'' that vests 
jurisdiction of the claim with the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the 
appellate arm of VA.
  Section 7105 defines what is required of a valid NOD. It must be 
filed within 1 year from the notice of the initial denial, in writing, 
and filed with the regional office that issued the decision over which 
there is disagreement. The NOD may be filed by the claimant or the 
claimant's guardian or representative.
  VA has promulgated regulations to implement section 7105. In Section 
20.201 or title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary 
defined a NOD to not require special wording. The regulation does 
require that the NOD ``must be in terms which can be reasonably 
construed as disagreement with the determination and a desire for 
appellate review.'' The second component of that sentence--``a desire 
for appellate review''--is not required under the statute.
  In 1997, Raymond Gallegos, a veteran, again filed an application for 
service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder that had been 
previously denied. The VA regional office granted his claim. However, 
Mr. Gallegos believed the effective date assigned to his claim was 
wrong and filed what was then thought to be a NOD. He appealed this 
issue to the Board, which reasoned that the letter expressing his 
disagreement was not a valid NOD because it did not express his desire 
for appellate review. Mr. Gallegos appealed the Board's determination 
to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the CAVC.
  In 2000, the CAVC determined in Gallegos v. Gober that the VA 
regulation was invalid because it required more of the claimant than 
Congress required in statute. Last year, in Gallegos v. Principi, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the 
CAVC and upheld the VA regulation, finding that the agency 
interpretation was entitled to deference because Congressional intent 
was not clear in limiting the requirements of a NOD to those in section 
7105.
  Congress never intended to require that level of formality from 
veterans, in this uniquely pro-claimant system. Therefore, I offer 
legislation that would specify that if a claimant's filing meets the 
criteria defined in section 7105 of title 38 of the United States Code, 
the document will be deemed a Notice of Disagreements with all the 
rights and procedures that accompany that determination. It will also 
ensure that claimants whose NODs were found to be defective since the 
court decision will have the opportunity to have their NOD reevaluated 
under this new provision.
  This is very significant because there are two key consequences of 
not having a valid, timely NOD. First, if a claimant fails to file a 
timely, valid NOD, the VA denial becomes final. The claimant will need 
to submit ``new and material evidence'' that VA erred in order to 
reopen the case. If successful, the claimant will only be able to 
receive benefits dating to the beginning of the newly reopened claim, 
potentially losing years of retroactive benefits. This may affect a 
veteran's ability to receive VA health care, a dependent's ability to 
use educational benefits, and all the other benefits that flow from a 
finding of service-connection.
  Second, if a claimant has not been deemed to file a NOD, there can be 
no appeal of the VA decision. A NOD is required to initiate an appeal. 
It is a prerequisite to review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals and 
ultimately judicial review at the CAVC. This contravenes Congress's 
intent to remove arbitrary barriers to judicial review as it did in 
Public Law 107-103.
  We face the tragic fact that in 2002, America lost 646,264 veterans. 
The many aging veterans who still await justice cannot afford this 
debate. I ask my colleagues to support this critical measure and 
restore this fundamental justice to our veterans.
  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. 1360

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT FOR 
                   APPELLATE REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Clarification.--Section 7105(b) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:

[[Page S8757]]

       ``(3) A document that meets the requirements of the second 
     sentence of paragraph (1) and the first sentence of paragraph 
     (2) shall be recognized as a notice of disagreement for 
     purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--(1) Except as specifically provided 
     otherwise, paragraph (3) of section 7105(b) of title 38, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section), shall apply to any document--
       (A) filed under section 7105 of such title on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (B) filed under section 7105 of such title before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and not rejected by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs as a notice of disagreement 
     pursuant to section 20.201 of title 38, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as of that date.
       (2) In the case of a document described in paragraph (3) of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the 
     claimant or the Secretary's own motion, order the document 
     treated as a notice of disagreement under section 7105 of 
     such title as if the document had not been rejected by the 
     Secretary as a notice of disagreement pursuant to section 
     20.201 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) A document described in this paragraph is a document 
     that--
       (A) was filed as a notice of disagreement under section 
     7105 of such title during the period beginning on March 15, 
     2002, and ending on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) was rejected by the Secretary as a notice of 
     disagreement pursuant to section 20.201 of title 38, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (4) A document may not be treated as a notice of 
     disagreement under paragraph (2) unless a request for such 
     treatment is filed by the claimant, or a motion is made by 
     the Secretary, not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH:
  S. 1361. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that foreign base company shipping income shall include only income 
from aircraft and income from certain vessels transporting petroleum 
and related products; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation which would deal with a real problem facing our Nation, the 
decline of our U.S.-owned shipping fleet. A U.S. owned shipping fleet 
is essential as a matter of national and economic security. My bill 
would help make U.S. based shipping companies more competitive in the 
global market.
  This is important to our country and to my state. Oregon plays a key 
role as a facilitator of international commerce. The Port of Portland 
is one of the most active ports in the world. It is a key link for 
trade between the United States and the Pacific Rim. In addition to its 
key role enabling global commerce, Portland is home to U.S. owned 
shipping companies, shipyards, and numerous support businesses.
  As a result of tax-law changes enacted in 1975 and 1986, U.S. 
shipping companies must pay tax on income earned by subsidiaries 
overseas immediately rather than when such income is later brought back 
to the United States. This treatment represents a sharp departure from 
the generally applicable income tax principle of ``deferral'' and 
places U.S.-based owners of international fleets at a distinct tax 
disadvantage compared to their foreign-based competitors.
  Controlled foreign corporations engaged in ocean transport are one of 
the only active businesses that are not eligible for general rule of 
deferral. My bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow U.S. 
companies that own foreign-flagged ships to treat income earned by 
their controlled foreign corporations in the same manner as all other 
U.S. companies. In short, it would allow American shipping companies to 
defer the payment of tax on income that they derive from shipping 
activities outside the United States until that income is repatriated 
to the United States.
  Most foreign-based carriers pay no home-country taxes on income they 
earn abroad from international shipping. As a result of this 
competitive imbalance, U.S. companies now hold precious little share of 
the world shipping marketplace. Indeed, U.S. ownership of international 
shipping trades dropped precipitously in the aftermath of the 1975 and 
1986 tax-law changes. Before 1975, the U.S.-owned share of the world's 
open-registry shipping fleet stood at 26 percent. By 1986, the U.S. 
share had dropped to 14 percent. By 1996, the U.S. share had dropped to 
5 percent.
  Other security concerns also are raised by the decline in U.S. 
ownership of the international shipping trade. The U.S. military, in 
times of emergency, relies on the ability to requisition U.S.-owned 
foreign-flagged tankers, bulk carriers, and other vessels to carry oil, 
gasoline, and other materials in defense of U.S. interests overseas. 
These vessels comprise the Effective United States Control, EUSC, 
fleet. The sharp decline in the EUSC fleet since the 1975 and 1986 tax-
law changes, and the resulting adverse strategic consequences, have 
been confirmed in a recent MIT study conducted for the Navy Department. 
The study recommended that in the short term, the most practical and 
cost-effective means of reversing this trend would be to ``revise 
legislation to reflect tax deferment of income for some or all EUSC 
vessels.''
  U.S. security also depends in no small part on our ability to 
maintain adequate domestic oil supplies in times of emergency. The 
United States consumes approximately 19.6 million barrels of oil per 
day, of which roughly 55 percent, mostly crude, is imported into the 
United States. It is estimated that 95 percent of all oil imported into 
the United States by sea is now imported on foreign-owned tankers. This 
means that one half of every gallon of oil consumed in the United 
States is carried on foreign-owned vessels. This growing dependence on 
foreign parties--who may not be sympathetic to U.S. interests--to 
deliver our oil in times of global crisis is cause for potential alarm. 
In recent years, two of the largest American shipping companies have 
been purchased by foreign companies, thereby making their shipping 
operations more competitive than the remaining American companies.
  The time has come for us to make changes in the tax law that will 
allow our domestic companies to compete fairly in the global 
marketplace. I urge my colleagues to join me to enact this needed 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1361

       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 ``RAFT (Restore Access to 
     Foreign Trade) Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MOST VESSEL SHIPPING INCOME FROM 
                   FOREIGN BASE COMPANY INCOME.

       (a) Foreign Base Company Shipping Income To Include Only 
     Income From Aircraft and Petroleum Vessels.--Subsection (f) 
     of section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to foreign base company income) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``petroleum'' before ``vessel'' each place 
     it appears, and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `petroleum vessel' 
     means any vessel engaged in the carriage of petroleum or 
     related products or byproducts if the controlled group (as 
     defined in section 267(f)(1) without regard to section 
     1563(b)(2)(C)) of which the taxpayer is a member is engaged 
     principally in the trade or business of exploring for, or 
     extracting, refining or marketing of, petroleum or related 
     products or byproducts.''.
       (b) Retention of Separate Foreign Tax Credit Basket for All 
     Shipping Income.--Subparagraph (D) of section 904(d)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``(as defined in section 954(f))'' and inserting ``, as 
     defined in section 954(f), if references in such section to 
     petroleum vessels included references to all vessels''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations 
     beginning after December 31, 2002, and to taxable years of 
     United States shareholders (within the meaning of section 
     951(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) within which or 
     with which such taxable years of such foreign corporations 
     end.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1362. A bill to authorize the Port Passenger Accelerated Service 
System (Port PASS) as a permanent program for land border inspection 
under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that 
will strengthen national security, promote commerce, and provide 
assistance to our dedicated agents at the border.
  Thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents cross the border every 
day as commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border 
infrastructure has not kept pace with the increasing

[[Page S8758]]

traffic volume, and travelers frequently encounter delays and 
congestion at the border.
  The tragic events of September 11 further intensified these 
challenges along the border. Increased security measures severely over-
extended inspection resources and resulted in longer waiting times for 
crossing the border.
  The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection, 
SENTRI, program was created to help alleviate the congestion at the 
border.
  SENTRI is a dedicated commuter lane program. It allows pre-screened 
travelers to move quickly through the inspection process at the United 
States-Mexican border. After participants pass a background check, they 
can move more quickly through a dedicated lane.
  SENTRI accepts only travelers who pass both an extensive background 
check to verify their eligibility and a thorough inspection of their 
vehicle.
  Delays at crossing the border were often an hour or more prior to 
SENTRI But, with the program, the delays for participants are 5 to 15 
minutes. Travelers in other lanes also benefit because the prescreened 
SENTRI crossers move swiftly through the border, reducing the number of 
motorists using general commuter lanes.
  Expediting inspections through SENTRI is actually helping to improve 
border security, as Customs and Border Patrol agents can focus more 
attention on nonscreened drivers and passengers.
  Unfortunately, SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. SENTRI 
needs a greater investment of resources to keep up with the current and 
future demand. Enrollment increased by more than 100 percent after 
September 11. Currently, prospective applicants must wait approximately 
8 months to participate in the program.
  For innovative programs, such as SENTRI, to work, we must provide 
them with the tools and resources they need to succeed. This is why I 
am introducing the Secure and Fast Entry at the Border Act or SAFE 
Border Act.
  The SAFE Border Act recognizes the contribution of SENTRI to border 
security and the agents who administer the program. My bill would 
extend the length of a SENTRI pass from 1 to 2 years--enabling border 
agents to process more new applicants and reduce the current enrollment 
wait. The SAFE Border Act also recommends the appointment of dedicated 
SENTRI staff to expedite application processing, and encourages the 
creation of a dedicated commuter lane for prescreened, low-risk 
pedestrian crossers.
  In addition, to ensure security at our borders, my legislation bans a 
person convicted of a felony or under active criminal investigation 
from participating in the program.
  Our agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every 
day. I believe we owe them the appropriate resources and support they 
need to carry out their duties.
  Our Nation's economic and overall security is heavily linked to 
smooth and secure border crossings. The SAFE Border Act provides a way 
for trusted travelers to cross the border securely and quickly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 1363. A bill to prohibit the study or implementation of any plan 
to privatize, divest, or transfer any part of the mission, function, or 
responsibility of the National Park Service; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as thousands of families look forward to 
summer vacations at our beautiful national parks, we must address an 
issue that could one day ruin their experience: privatization of the 
National Park Service.
  The Park Service has worked hard to preserve Nevada's unique 
landscapes at the Great Basin National Park, Death Valley, and Lake 
Mead National Recreation Area. Instead of applauding the Park Service 
for a job well done, the Administration wants to study 1,800 jobs in 
the Park Service for privatization.
  Many of these Park Service jobs have direct contact with visitors to 
our parks. They not only collect fees and maintain parks but also give 
directions, fight wildfires when necessary, and provide emergency 
medical assistance to injured park visitors. They are not required to 
do these things; they are driven by a love for the parks and a 
commitment to public service that contractors lack.
  Privatizing the Park Service would jeopardize our national parks. 
Members of the Park Service have a career-long interest in maintaining 
the parks and perform their jobs because they are dedicated to serving 
the public. They often go beyond the call of duty to fix a problem in 
the middle of the night or change a tire for an unlucky park visitor. 
Can we be sure that a contractor would do the same? No.
  In addition, the Park Service receives tens of thousands of hours of 
volunteer work every year. At the Lake Mead National Recreation Area 
alone, volunteers provided 92,000 hours of work, the equivalent of 44 
full-time employees. Will a contractor find volunteers to provide it 
with 92,000 hours of assistance. Not likely.
  Privatization will waste taxpayer money. Privatization studies cost 
about $3,000 per position studied, and privatization does not save 
money.
  Nevadans visiting the national parks this summer want members of the 
Park Service, not profit-minded corporations, enriching their 
experience by directing them to the famous sites and best kept secrets 
of our parks.
  I oppose privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans, 
endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.
  This bill will keep our dedicated Park Service members running our 
national parks. It stops costly privatization studies and redirects the 
funds to address the maintenance backlog that President Bush promised 
to eliminate.
  I am committed to protecting our parks, and I am proud to introduce 
this bill that will ensure that the Park Service can preserve them for 
generations to come.
  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. 1363

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

     SECTION 1. PARK PROFESSIONALS PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Park 
     Professionals Protection Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Park System is recognized throughout the 
     world as a model for the conservation and enjoyment of 
     natural, scenic, recreational, cultural, and historic 
     resources.
       (2) The National Park System would never have achieved such 
     status, nor could the system maintain such status, without 
     the professionalism, dedication, and passion of the men and 
     women of the National Park Service.
       (3) Current plans to privatize thousands of jobs within the 
     National Park Service ignore the unique contributions made by 
     the men and women of the National Park Service and threaten 
     to undermine the entire National Park System.
       (4) Scarce park operations and maintenance resources are 
     being diverted to pay private consultants to study the 
     current privatization scheme. According to the National Park 
     Service, these studies cost approximately $3000 for each 
     position proposed to be privatized.
       (5) Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars diverted to 
     these studies, not a single report has been published 
     documenting any cost savings to be generated by the 
     privatization of park operations.
       (6) The current privatization scheme raises serious 
     questions regarding the ability of temporary workers, 
     provided by the lowest bidder, to adequately fulfill the 
     responsibilities of professional National Park Service 
     employees in the areas of conservation, interpretation, 
     emergency fire and rescue, and homeland security.
       (7) The current privatization scheme appears to affect 
     minority employees disproportionately, threatening to 
     significantly reduce the number of minority employees within 
     the National Park Service.
       (8) Pendency of the current privatization scheme is having 
     detrimental impacts on the morale of current employees and is 
     discouraging high quality candidates from applying for 
     positions within the National Park Service.
       (c) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary is prohibited from studying or 
     implementing any plan to privatize, divest, or transfer any 
     part of what is, as of the date of the enactment of this 
     section, the mission, function, or responsibility of the 
     National Park Service.
       (d) Reallocation of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall withhold any funds 
     currently dedicated to the activities prohibited under 
     subsection (c) and shall reallocate those funds to the 
     operations and maintenance accounts within the National Park 
     Service.

[[Page S8759]]

       (e) No Effect on Certain Plans.--Nothing in this section 
     shall affect the authority, as of the date of the enactment 
     of this section, of a National Park Service Superintendent to 
     develop and implement concessions management plans and 
     commercial services plans covering, in whole or in part, the 
     area managed by that Superintendent.
       (f) Secretary Defined.--The term ``Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of the Interior and any person employed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior in any capacity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1364. A bill to amend the Alaska National Lands Conservation Act 
to authorize the payment of expenses after the death of certain Federal 
employees in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on the morning following the annual 
candlelight vigil to honor fallen law enforcement officers, I came to 
the floor to speak about three brave Alaskans whose names were 
inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial at 
Judiciary Square this year. One of these brave Alaskans was a National 
Park Service ranger who lost his life when the aircraft he was piloting 
crashed in a remote part of Alaska. Today, I am introducing legislation 
which I hope will help the surviving family members of this ranger in 
their recovery from this tragic loss and provide authority for the 
Federal Government to help the surviving family members of other 
similarly situated Federal employees should a similar tragedy occur in 
the future.
  This ranger I am speaking about was assigned to the Katmai National 
Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska and lived in the 
community of Naknek. Naknek is not connected to the rest of North 
America by road. It is what we in Alaska call a ``bush'' community. But 
it was home to the ranger and became the adopted home of his widow who 
did not grow up in the area. The ranger about whom I am speaking was 
hired under a special hiring authority in the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which authorizes the Federal land 
managers to extend a hiring preference to those with special knowledge 
about a Conservation System Unit. He was regarded as a ``local hire.''
  Under the Federal Travel Regulation, when a federal employee dies 
outside of the Continental United States, the Federal Government will 
reimburse the members of his or her household for the cost of 
relocating to their permanent residence. Alaska is regarded as 
``outside of the Continental United States'' under this regulation.
  Thus, if the National Park Service ranger who died in the line of 
duty came from the Lower 48 before being assigned to the Katmai 
National Park and Preserve then the Federal Government, as I read the 
regulation, could reimburse the surviving family members for the cost 
of relocating to Anchorage. This cost can be fairly substantial since 
one cannot hire a moving van to ship the personal effects from South 
Naknek to Anchorage. There are no roads which connect the bush village 
of South Naknek to Anchorage. The personal effects need to be 
transported by air.
  However, if the deceased employee is a local hire employee, the 
Federal Travel Regulation does not authorize the Federal Government to 
reimburse the surviving family members for their relocation cost 
because the deceased employee's hometown is deemed to be the local hire 
location. This works an inequity where, as in the present case, the 
deceased employee's surviving spouse does not have ties to the duty 
station community, but rather to another community in Alaska. In this 
instance, the surviving spouse desires to relocate to Anchorage, which 
is Alaska's largest city, and continue to raise her three children 
there.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is intended to cure this 
inequity. It would amend ANILCA, the same legislation which contains 
the local hire authority, to provide that if a local hire employee dies 
in the line of duty, the Federal Government will reimburse the 
surviving immediate family for the cost of transporting the remains to 
a location in Alaska of their choosing and will also relocate the 
immediate family members to a community in the State of Alaska which is 
selected by the surviving head of household. I think that this is the 
least we can do for the survivors of local hire employees who go to 
work everyday in the harsh climate and conditions of bush Alaska but 
sadly sometimes do not return home.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1364

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

     SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AFTER THE DEATH OF CERTAIN 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF ALASKA.

       Section 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Payment of Expenses After Death of an Employee.--
       ``(1) Definition of immediate family member.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``immediate family member'' means a 
     person related to a deceased employee that was a member of 
     the household of the deceased employee at the time of death.
       ``(2) Payments.--If an employee appointed under the program 
     established by subsection (a) dies in the performance of any 
     assigned duties on or after October 1, 2002, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(A) pay reasonable expenses for the preparation and 
     transportation of the remains of the deceased employee to a 
     location in the State of Alaska which is selected by the 
     surviving head of household of the deceased employee;
       ``(B) pay reasonable expenses for transporting immediate 
     family members and the baggage and household goods of the 
     deceased employee and immediate family members to a community 
     in the State of Alaska which is selected by the surviving 
     head of household of the deceased employee.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1365. A bill to provide increased foreign assistance for Cambodia 
under certain circumstances, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues 
Senators Kyl and Leahy, I offer the ``Cambodia Democracy and 
Accountability Act of 2003''. This Act is particularly timely, given 
that national elections are scheduled in that country on July 27th.
  Cambodia is on its third round of parliamentary elections since the 
1991 Paris Peace Accords, with previous elections having been funded by 
the United Nations in 1993 and by the Cambodian governments in 1998. 
Despite the billions of dollars spent on elections in that country--
over $2 billion by the U.N. alone--there has yet to be a credible poll 
that accurately reflects the will of the Cambodian people.
  My colleagues will remember that the U.N.-sponsored elections 
resulted in a large voter turnout--but also an unworkable power sharing 
deal brokered between the winning royalist FUNCINPEC party and the hard 
line Cambodian People's Party, CPP, that quickly dissolved into open 
hostilities, including a bloody grenade attack against a peaceful, pro-
democracy rally and a CPP sponsored coup d'etat in 1997.
  The debilitating hangover from this coup--destroyed party offices, 
dead activists, and a palpable climate of fear and repression--
undermined prospects for free and fair elections in 1998 even before 
the first ballots were cast.
  Fatigued and frustrated, the international community found it 
expedient to endorse the flawed elections, even as students and 
Buddhist monks erected a ``democracy square'' in Phnom Penh to protest 
the polls. A CPP crackdown left many of these peaceful protestors 
killed, beaten or harassed.
  It is time that Prime Minister Hun Sen--as the self-proclaimed 
strongman of Cambodia--is held accountable for the murder of political 
activists, Buddhist monks, civilians, and students. There is no rule of 
law, if the leaders of the government are not subject to it.
  A second ``coalition'' government between royalists and hard liners 
was cobbled together in the aftermath of the 1998 elections. This time, 
there was no pretext of power sharing, and for the past 5 years CPP has 
been firmly and completely in control of the country.
  Nevertheless, in the months and weeks before the upcoming July 
elections, the political marriage between FUNCINPEC and CPP is fraying. 
In an

[[Page S8760]]

effort to harass and intimidate his opponents, in late January Prime 
Minister Hun Sen whipped up nationalistic sentiment against Thailand, 
let loose the so-called Pagoda Boys, government-paid thugs, and 
destroyed $50 million worth of Thai public and private interests in 
Phnom Penh.
  Despite frantic pleas for assistance, the Thai ambassador and other 
diplomatic personnel escaped injury by scaling the embassy's walls and 
scurrying to safety. In the aftermath of the riots, Hun Sen arrested 
and intimidated students, independent broadcasters, and political 
activists. A senior opposition figure sought--and was granted-- refuge 
in the U.S. Embassy.
  In February, former royalist parliamentarian Om Radsady was gunned 
down in a mafia-style murder in Phnom Penh. Well liked and respected by 
his colleagues from all Cambodian political parties, Radsady's 
assassination sent a not so subtle message that no one is immune from 
the black hand of CPP.
  It is time Hun Sen is held accountable for his complicity in actions 
that grossly violate international and domestic laws, and the human 
rights and dignity of the people of Cambodia.
  The fundamental question facing the Cambodian people today is whether 
the July 27th elections will be a meaningful exercise in democracy, or 
another lost opportunity to chart a new course for that beleaguered 
country.
  Last week, Prime Minister Hun Sen assured Secretary of State Colin 
Powell that Cambodia would hold free and fair elections. Secretary 
Powell should not be duped by these hollow promises. A preponderance of 
evidence suggests that CPP is actively trying to steal the elections 
before July 27th: political activists continue to be murdered and 
intimidated, creating a chilling tone of fear and repression; the CPP 
continues to directly influence and manipulate the election machinery, 
with members of the National Election Commission, NEC, nominated in a 
closed manner by the co-Ministers of Interior and the NEC already 
failing to investigate allegations of election improprieties; and, 
opposition political parties continue to lack access to media, with 
several broadcast outlets in Cambodia unwilling to sell air time to 
CPP's challengers.
  Let me take a moment to describe what the Cambodian Democracy and 
Accountability Act does--and does not--do.
  The Act provides additional foreign assistance to Cambodia--an 
increase by half (or $21.5 million) over the fiscal year 2004 budget 
request of $43 million--if new leadership has been elected in free and 
fair elections, and if Hun Sen is no longer Prime Minister. It has been 
apparent to me that Hun Sen has long been part of Cambodia's problems--
and not part of the solution.
  The Act does not preclude the Cambodian people from voting for the 
political party of their choice. Ballot secrecy must be ensured--as 
well as transparency in the process of vote counting and tabulation--in 
order that the will of the Cambodian people is accurately expressed. It 
is my fear that CPP pre-election chicanery may already have violated 
the integrity of the election process.
  If I wanted to interfere with the elections I would have offered 
legislation that restricts all assistance to Cambodia unless a specific 
political party or parties was elected. This Act does not do this. It 
does not cut any assistance--not a single penny--to Cambodia included 
in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. It simply provides that if the 
major obstacle to democracy and development in the country--namely 
Prime Minister Hun Sen--is out of power, additional foreign aid will be 
forthcoming.

  It is important to recall that Hun Sen's coup resulted in severe 
restrictions on assistance to Cambodia--that continue to this day. If 
given an opportunity through free and fair elections, the Cambodian 
people will make the right choices that will ensure a dawn for 
development in that country.
  Why will they make the right choice? Over the many decades he has 
been in power, Hun Sen has ruled Cambodia through violence, fear and 
repression. Under his watch, the country has become a haven for sexual 
predators and pedophiles, the criminal underworld, and international 
terrorists. Hun Sen has repeatedly abused the most basic of freedoms 
protected by the Cambodian Constitution, attacked his political 
opposition, and perpetuated a climate of impunity that stifles the 
advancement of freedom and free markets.
  And he has never--not once--been held accountable for his actions.
  In addition to increasing foreign assistance under certain 
conditions, the Act restricts assistance to a Khmer Rouge tribunal 
unless the President determines that, among other things, the tribunal 
is supported by democratic Cambodian political parties and is not under 
the control or influence of the CPP. It also requires the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations to resume its investigation of the March 30, 
1997 grenade attack against opposition leader Sam Rainsy that killed 
and injured scores of Cambodians.
  I should remind my colleagues that American democracy worker Ron 
Abney was injured in this act of terrorism, reportedly carried out by 
the CPP. Ron--and all the victims of this attack--are still waiting for 
justice.
  Secretary Powell wrote in a June 24 op-ed that Zimbabwean dictator 
Robert Mugabe's ``time has come and gone.'' As democracy is similarly 
under siege in both Zimbabwe and Cambodia, dictator Hun Sen's time has 
also come and gone.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1366. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make 
grants to State and tribal governments to assist State and tribal 
efforts to manage and control the spread of chronic wasting disease in 
deer and elk herds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, 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. 1366

       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 ``Chronic Wasting Disease 
     Financial Assistance Act of 2003''.

      SEC. 2. DEFINITION AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Chronic Wasting Disease Defined.--In this Act, the term 
     ``chronic wasting disease'' means the animal disease 
     afflicting deer and elk that--
       (1) is a transmissible disease of the nervous system 
     resulting in distinctive lesions in the brain; and
       (2) belongs to the group of diseases known as transmissible 
     spongiform encephalopathies, which group includes scrapie, 
     bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and Cruetzfeldt-Jakob 
     disease.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The States retain undisputed primacy and policy-making 
     authority with regard to wildlife management, and nothing in 
     this Act interferes with or otherwise affects the primacy of 
     the States in managing wildlife generally, or managing, 
     surveying, and monitoring the incidence of chronic wasting 
     disease in animal populations.
       (2) Chronic wasting disease is a fundamental threat to the 
     health and vibrancy of deer and elk populations, and the 
     increased occurrence of chronic wasting disease in the United 
     States necessitates government action to manage and eradicate 
     this lethal disease.
       (3) As the States and tribal government move to manage 
     existing incidence of chronic wasting disease and insulate 
     non-infected wild cervid populations from the disease, it is 
     appropriate for the Federal Government to support their 
     efforts with financial assistance.

     SEC. 3. STATE CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY 
                   BUILDING GRANTS.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make grants to State wildlife management agencies to assist 
     States in developing and implementing long term management 
     strategies to address chronic wasting disease in wild 
     cervids.
       (b) Eligibility.--A wildlife management agency of a State 
     whose comprehensive wildlife conservation plan include 
     chronic wasting disease management activities is eligible for 
     a grant under this section.
       (c) Funding Priorities.--In determining the amount of grant 
     funds to be provided to eligible applicants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall prioritize applicants based on 
     the following criteria:
       (1) States in which chronic wasting disease has been 
     detected and States located adjacent or in proximity to 
     States in which chronic wasting disease has been detected.
       (2) States that have expended State funds for chronic 
     wasting disease management, monitoring, surveillance, and 
     research, with additional priority given to those States

[[Page S8761]]

     that have shown the greatest financial commitment to 
     managing, monitoring, surveying, and researching chronic 
     wasting disease.
       (3) States with comprehensive and integrated policies and 
     programs focused on chronic wasting disease management 
     between involved State wildlife and agricultural agencies and 
     tribal governments, with additional priority given to States 
     that have integrated the programs and policies of all 
     involved agencies related to chronic wasting disease 
     management.
       (4) States that are seeking to develop a rapid response 
     capacity to address outbreaks of chronic wasting disease, 
     whether occurring in States in which chronic wasting disease 
     is already found or States with first infections, for the 
     purpose of containing the disease in any new area of 
     infection.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $7,500,000 to carry out this section.

      SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR STATES WITH CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE 
                   OUTBREAKS.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make grants to State wildlife management agencies to assist 
     States in responding to chronic wasting disease outbreaks in 
     wild cervids.
       (b) Eligibility.--A wildlife management agency of a State 
     whose comprehensive wildlife conservation plan include 
     chronic wasting disease management activities is eligible for 
     a grant under this section.
       (c) Funding Priorities.--In determining the amount of grant 
     funds to be provided to eligible applicants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall prioritize applicants based on 
     the following criteria:
       (1) State expenditures on chronic wasting disease 
     management, monitoring, surveillance, and research in 
     response to management of an on-going outbreak.
       (2) The number of chronic wasting disease cases detected in 
     the State.
       (3) The wild cervid population of the State.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. TRIBAL CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE MANAGEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make grants to tribal wildlife management agencies to assist 
     Indian tribes in developing and implementing long term 
     management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in 
     wild cervids.
       (b) Eligibility.--A wildlife management agency of an Indian 
     tribe whose comprehensive wildlife conservation plan include 
     chronic wasting disease management activities is eligible for 
     a grant under this section.
       (c) Funding Priorities.--In determining the amount of grant 
     funds to be provided to eligible applicants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall prioritize applicants based on 
     the following criteria:
       (1) Tribal governments managing lands on which cervids with 
     chronic wasting disease have been detected, or managing lands 
     located adjacent or in proximity to lands on which cervids 
     with chronic wasting disease have been detected.
       (2) Tribal governments that have expended tribal funds for 
     chronic wasting disease management, monitoring, surveillance, 
     and research, with additional priority given to tribal 
     governments that have shown the greatest financial commitment 
     to managing, monitoring, and surveying chronic wasting 
     disease.
       (3) Tribal governments with cooperative arrangements with 
     Federal and State wildlife and agricultural agencies and 
     State governments, with additional priority given to tribal 
     governments that are working with other involved agencies on 
     issues of chronic wasting disease management.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out this Act 
     acting through the Director, United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service. Funds appropriated to carry out this Act shall be 
     administered through the Federal Assistance Program in the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Not more than three 
     percent of such funds may be expended for administrative 
     expenses of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     carry out this Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a cosponsor of the Chronic Wasting 
Disease Financial Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is similar 
to legislation, S. 1036, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 
2003, that we introduced earlier this year.
  The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 19, 2003 on the 
issue of chronic wasting disease, or CWD. At that hearing, state agency 
representatives argued strongly that Congress should create a new grant 
program to provide assistance to states for the management of CWD. They 
also expressed an interest in having those funds distributed using an 
existing distribution mechanism. This legislation responds directly to 
these comments. In total, the bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to provide $20.5 million in Federal grants to State and tribal 
governments for CWD management in wild deer and elk, $10.5 million more 
in resources than were included in the bill Senator Allard and I 
introduced earlier this year.
  The bill creates three new Federal CWD grant programs. The first 
program is a new nationwide CWD capacity grant, authorized at a total 
of $7.5 million. This program would provide grants to States so that 
they can fund CWD management programs. Preference would be given to 
States with comprehensive and integrated chronic wasting disease 
management programs involving all relevant state agencies.
  The second grant program would provide additional $10 million in 
grant assistance to states like Colorado and Wisconsin that already 
have detected chronic wasting disease in their wild deer and elk. These 
States need additional help. Wisconsin has undertaken significant 
measures to combat CWD at significant expense, and this program 
acknowledges that outbreaks are expensive to manage and require Federal 
financial assistance.
  Finally, the bill would create a third $3 million grant program to 
provide CWD management grants directly to tribal governments. To be 
eligible for these programs, States and tribes are given the ability 
under the bill to use an existing mechanism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Federal Assistance Act procedures to expedite the receipt of 
grant funds.
  This bill is needed because State wildlife departments and tribal 
governments do not have the financial resources to adequately confront 
the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to 
prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of 
management funding is urgently needed. Federal funding will help States 
and tribes to protect and safeguard our valued wild deer and elk from 
this disease.
  I look forward to working with the Senate to secure passage of this 
measure. This is a good bill, and it deserves the Senate's support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 1367. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Act 
to establish programs to promote increased consumption of milk in 
schools and to improve the nutrition and health of children; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation that could provide great benefits for 
the health of our young people while simultaneously strengthening the 
future viability of dairy producers throughout the United States.
  My bill, the Child Nutrition Improvement Act of 2003, would provide 
incentives for schools to encourage the consumption of milk as part of 
the school lunch program and supply needed flexibility for schools to 
offer a wide variety of milk products and flavors.
  There is no doubt that the eating habits we develop when we are young 
affect our habits and nutritional choices for the rest of our lives. 
The school lunch program has provided a key tool in promoting healthy 
eating habits among young people, which have both health and 
educational benefits.
  Milk has been a critical component of the school lunch program 
because it is the principal source of calcium and a leading source of 
several other important nutrients in our diet. That was true when the 
federal program began in 1946 and it is still true today.
  With 9 out of 10 teenage girls and 7 out of 10 teenage boys currently 
not getting enough calcium, milk's important is perhaps greater today 
than ever before. Serving milk with the school lunch is a critical step 
in addressing the calcium crisis. Federal child health experts who are 
on the frontlines fighting the calcium crisis recognize milk's central 
role in addressing the problem. Study after study, emphasize the need 
for growing children and teens to consume more milk for healthy bones, 
and the American Academy of Pediatrics has urged its members to 
recommend their patients get enough milk, cheese, yogurt and other 
calcium rich foods to help build bone mass.
  As a result of these recommendations, we have seen a push for more 
milk in more places in school, like vending machines and school stores. 
There's a real concern about nutritious choices for school children, 
and many

[[Page S8762]]

local school districts and state legislatures are pushing to add more 
healthful beverage choices like milk.
  A large school vending test in 2001 demonstrated that kids will 
eagerly buy milk from vending machines in schools when it is offered. 
The test was heralded by school nutritionists and helped stimulate 
nationwide interest in getting milk vending machines into more schools.
  A pilot test conducted in 146 schools with 100,000 students showed 
dramatic increases in milk consumption--15 percent in elementary 
schools and 22 percent in secondary schools--when simple improvements 
were made in the way milk was packaged and presented to students. The 
milk was served colder and kids loved the addition of a third flavor, 
it was usually strawberry. No only did kids drink more milk, more kids 
ate in the cafeteria. That meant they not only got milk, they also got 
improved nutrition through greater intake of vegetables, fruits and 
other nutritionally important foods.
  Milk has an unsurpassed nutrient package for young children and 
teens. Milk has nine essential vitamins and minerals, including 
calcium, vitamins A, D and B12, protein, potassium, riboflavin, niacin 
and phosphorus. These nutrients are critical to good health and the 
prevention of chronic disease. In addition, it is the primary way that 
growing children get the calcium they need. In fact, according to the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture about 75 percent of the calcium in our 
food supply comes from milk and foods made with milk. By about age 20, 
the average young person has acquired about 98 percent of his or her 
skeletal mass. Building strong bones during childhood and adolescence 
is one of the best defenses against developing osteoporosis later in 
life.
  In addition to the bone-building benefits of milk, research indicates 
that a diet rich in low-fat milk may help reduce the risk of high blood 
pressure and heart disease and help prevent breast cancer, colon cancer 
and even help in the fight against obesity.
  Milk's role in a nutritious diet has long been noted by the nutrition 
and science community, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
the American Dietetic Association, the National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and many other reputable health 
organizations.
  As I have already mentioned, government statistics indicate that we 
have a calcium crisis among our children and youth. Nearly 90 percent 
of teenage girls and almost 70 percent of teenage boys fail to get 
enough calcium in their diets. During the teen years nearly half of all 
bone is formed and about 15 percent of your adult height is added. As a 
national health priority, for proper growth and development, we need to 
be doing all we can to encourage our children and youth to drink milk, 
and that is the goal of the legislation I am introducing today.
  I ask my colleagues for your support of this important piece of 
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. 1367

       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 ``Child Nutrition Improvement 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CONSUMPTION OF MILK IN SCHOOLS.

       (a) Fluid Milk.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9(a) of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Fluid milk.--
       ``(A) In general.--Lunches served by schools participating 
     in the school lunch program under this Act--
       ``(i) shall offer students fluid milk; and
       ``(ii) shall offer students a variety of flavored and 
     unflavored milk, as determined by the school.
       ``(B) Fluid milk products.--A school or institution that 
     participates in the school lunch program under this Act--
       ``(i) may offer a la carte fluid milk products to be sold 
     in addition to and, at the option of the school, adjacent to 
     fluid milk offered as part of a reimbursable meal; and
       ``(ii) shall not directly or indirectly restrict the sale 
     or marketing of fluid milk products by the school (or by a 
     person approved by the school) at any time or any place--

       ``(I) on the school premises; or
       ``(II) at any school-sponsored event.''.

       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     applies to an agreement or contract entered into on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Increased Consumption of Milk in Schools.--Section 12 
     of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1760) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Increased Consumption of Milk in Schools.--
       ``(1) In general.--To encourage healthier nutritional 
     environments in schools and institutions receiving funds 
     under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1771 et seq.) (other than section 17 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1786)), the Secretary shall establish a program under which 
     any such school or institution may (in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)) receive an increase in the reimbursement rate 
     for free and reduced price meals otherwise payable under this 
     Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, if the school or 
     institution implements a plan for improving the nutritional 
     value of meals consumed in the school or institution by 
     increasing the consumption of fluid milk in the school, as 
     approved by the Secretary in accordance with criteria 
     established by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of the program established 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall establish criteria 
     for the approval of plans of schools and institutions for 
     increasing consumption of fluid milk.
       ``(B) Criteria.--An approved plan may--
       ``(i) establish targeted goals for increasing fluid milk 
     consumption throughout the school or institution or at school 
     or institution activities;
       ``(ii) improve the accessibility, presentation, 
     positioning, or promotion of fluid milk throughout the school 
     or institution or at school or institution activities;
       ``(iii) improve the ability of a school or institution to 
     tailor the plan to the customs and demographic 
     characteristics of--

       ``(I) the population of the school or institution; and
       ``(II) the area in which the school or institution is 
     located; and

       ``(iv) provide--

       ``(I) packaging, flavor variety, merchandising, 
     refrigeration, and handling requirements that promote the 
     consumption of fluid milk; and
       ``(II) increased standard serving sizes for fluid milk 
     consumed in middle and high schools.

       ``(C) Administration.--In establishing criteria for plans 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) take into account relevant research; and
       ``(ii) consult with school food service professionals, 
     nutrition professionals, food processors, agricultural 
     producers, and other groups, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Reimbursement rates and incentives.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of administering the 
     program established under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     annually provide reimbursement rates and incentives for free 
     and reduced price meals otherwise payable under this Act and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 of not less than 2 cents and 
     not more than 10 cents per meal, to reflect the additional 
     costs incurred by schools and institutions in increasing the 
     consumption of fluid milk under the program.
       ``(B) Criteria.--The Secretary may vary the increase in 
     reimbursement rates and incentives for free and reduced price 
     meals based on the degree to which the school or institution 
     adopts the criteria established by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVED NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL OF 
                   CHILDREN.

       Section 12 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) (as amended by section 2(b)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Level of 
     Children.--
       ``(1) Definition of healthy school environment program.--In 
     this subsection, the term `healthy school environment 
     program' means a program that--
       ``(A) is designed to improve the environment of a school 
     with respect to the nutrition and physical activity level of 
     children enrolled in the school; and
       ``(B) includes steps to improve and make available healthy 
     food choices (including fruits, vegetables, and dairy 
     products).
       ``(2) Program.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     provide grants to schools that implement healthy school 
     environment programs.
       ``(3) Administration.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with--
       ``(A) nonprofit organizations;
       ``(B) educational and scientific institutions;
       ``(C) Federal, State, and local agencies; and
       ``(D) other entities that contribute funds or in-kind 
     services for the program.
       ``(4) Acceptance of funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary may accept funds from an 
     entity referred to in paragraph (3) solely for use in 
     carrying out the program under this subsection.''.
     
                               ____________________