[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9416-S9427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1404. A bill to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in
introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003.
This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the
United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of
embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the
organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American
people, and the international sports community.
While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote
the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires
all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade
has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant
problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By
failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals
that they pledged to preserve.
The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three
hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an
effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by
the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce
Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task
force, both of which were released last month.
The bill would make significant improvements to the governance
structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of
directors from
[[Page S9417]]
124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders.
Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of the USOC, the
board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, and it would
appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its policies and run its
day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will become a more efficient
and effective organization, as well as one with a more logical and
transparent structure.
In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and
national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require
increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection
for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would
streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC
revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of
supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC
will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective
governing body.
We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who
attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement
that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to
improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing
their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American
people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We
must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual
USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of
the organization.
The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's
ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the
credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide
realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues
to support its expeditious enactment.
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. 1404
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 ``United States Olympic
Committee Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) There is a widespread loss of confidence in the United
States Olympic Committee.
(2) Restoring confidence in the United States Olympic
Committee is critical to achieving the original intent of the
Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act.
(3) Confusion exists concerning the primary purposes and
priorities of the United States Olympic Committee.
(4) The current governance structure of the United States
Olympic Committee is dysfunctional.
(5) The ongoing national corporate governance debate and
recent reforms have important implications for the United
States Olympic Committee.
(6) There exists no clear line of authority between the
United States Olympic Committee volunteers and the United
States Olympic Committee paid staff.
(7) There is a widespread perception that the United States
Olympic Committee lacks financial transparency.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF TED STEVENS OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR SPORTS
ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act (36 U.S.C. 220501 et seq.).
SEC. 4. GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE.
(a) In General.--The Act (36 U.S.C. 220501) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER III. GOVERNANCE
``Sec. 220541. Board of directors
``(a) In General.--The board of directors is the governing
body of the corporation and shall establish the policies and
priorities of the corporation. The board of directors shall
have the full authority to manage the affairs of the
corporation.
``(b) Structure of the Board.--
``(1) In general.--The board of directors shall consist of
9 elected members and the ex officio members described in
paragraph (3).
``(2) Elected members.--The elected directors, elected as
provided in subsection (g), are--
``(A) 5 independent directors, as defined in the
constitution and bylaws of the corporation;
``(B) 2 directors elected from among those nominated by the
Athletes' Advisory Council, who at the time of nomination
meet the specifications of section 220504(b)(2)(B) of this
title; and
``(C) 2 directors elected from among those nominated by the
National Governing Bodies' Council.
``(3) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members are--
``(A) the speaker of the assembly; and
``(B) the International Olympic Committee member or members
from the United States who are required to be ex officio
members of the executive organ of the corporation under the
terms of the Olympic Charter.
``(c) Terms of Office.--
``(1) Elected directors.--The term of office of an elected
director shall be 4 years. An individual elected to replace a
director who does not serve a full 4-year term shall be
elected initially to serve only the balance of the expired
term of the member that director replaces. No director shall
be eligible for reelection, except a director whose total
period of service, if elected, would not exceed 6 years. The
chair of the board shall be eligible to serve an additional 2
years as required to complete his or her term as chair.
``(2) Staggered terms.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), of
the directors first elected to the board after the date of
enactment of the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act--
``(A) 2 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(A)
shall be elected for terms of 2 years;
``(B) 3 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(A)
shall be elected for terms of 4 years;
``(C) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(B)
shall be elected for a term of 2 years;
``(D) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(B)
shall be elected for a term of 4 years;
``(E) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be elected for a term of a term of 2 years; and
``(F) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be elected for a term of a term of 4 years.
``(3) Ex officio members.--The speaker of the assembly
shall serve as a non-voting ex officio member of the board
while holding the position of speaker of the assembly. An
International Olympic Committee member shall serve as an ex
officio member of the board for so long as the member is a
member of that Committee.
``(d) Voting.--
``(1) Elected members.--Each elected director shall have 1
vote on all matters on which the board votes, consistent with
the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.
``(2) Ex officio members.--Each voting ex officio member
shall have 1 vote on matters on which the ex officio members
vote, consistent with the constitution and bylaws of the
corporation, and the votes of the ex officio members shall be
weighted such that, in the aggregate, the votes of all voting
ex officio members are equal to the vote of one elected
director.
``(3) Tie votes.--In the event of a tie vote of the board,
the vote of the chair of the board shall serve to break the
tie.
``(4) Quorum.--The board may not take action in the absence
of a quorum, which shall be 7 members, of whom at least 3
shall be members described in subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(e) Chair of the Board.--The board shall elect 1 of the
members described in subsection (b)(2) to serve as chair of
the board first elected after the date of enactment of the
United States Olympic Committee Reform Act. The chair of the
board shall preside at all meetings of the board and have
such other duties as may be provided in the constitution and
bylaws of the corporation. No individual may hold the
position of chair of the board for more than 4 years.
``(f) Committees.--
``(1) In general.--The board of directors shall establish
the following 4 standing committees:
``(A) The Audit Committee.
``(B) The Compensation Committee.
``(C) The Ethics Committee.
``(D) The Nominating and Governance Committee.
``(2) Committee membership.--The Compensation Committee
shall consist of 3 board members selected by the board. The
Audit Committee, Ethics Committee, and Nominating and
Governance Committee shall each consist of--
``(A) 3 board members described in subsection (b)(2)(A),
selected by the board;
``(B) 1 board member described in subsection (b)(2)(B),
selected by the board; and
``(C) 1 board member described in subsection (b)(2)(C),
selected by the board.
``(3) Additional committees.--The board may establish such
additional committees, subcommittees, and task forces as may
be necessary or appropriate and for which sufficient funds
exist.
``(g) Nomination and Election.--
``(1) In general.--The nominating and governance committee
shall recommend candidates to the board of directors to fill
vacancies on the board as provided in the constitution and
bylaws of the corporation. For each vacancy that is to be
filled by a nominee of the Athletes' Advisory Council or the
National Governing Bodies' Council, the Athletes' Advisory
Council or the National Governing Bodies' Council shall
recommend 3 individuals to the nominating and governance
committee, which shall nominate 1 of
[[Page S9418]]
the recommended individuals to the board of directors.
``(2) Recusal of members eligible for re-election.--Any
member of the nominating and governance committee who is
eligible for re-election by virtue of serving for an initial
term of less than 2 years shall be recused from participation
in the nominating and recommendation process.
``(3) Board to elect members.--Except as provided in
section 4(c)(2) of the United States Olympic Committee Reform
Act, the board of directors shall elect directors from the
candidates proposed by the nominating and governance
committee.
``Sec. 220542. Assembly
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Forum function.--The assembly shall be a forum for
all stakeholders of the corporation. The assembly shall have
an advisory function only, except as otherwise expressly
provided in this chapter.
``(2) Voting on matters relating to the olympic games.--The
assembly shall have the right to vote on, and shall have
ultimate authority to decide, matters relating to the Olympic
Games. The board of directors shall determine whether a
matter is a question relating to the Olympic Games on which
the assembly is entitled to vote. The determination of the
board shall be final and binding.
``(3) Meetings.--The assembly shall convene annually in a
meeting open to the public. The board of directors may
convene special meetings of the assembly.
``(4) Annual budget.--The board of directors shall
establish an annual budget for the assembly, as provided in
the constitution and bylaws of the corporation. In
establishing the budget, the board of directors shall take
into account the interest of the corporation in minimizing
the costs associated with the assembly.
``(b) Structure of the Assembly.--
``(1) In general.--The assembly shall consist of--
``(A) representatives of the constituencies of the
corporation specified in section 220504 of this title (other
than former United States Olympic Committee members);
``(B) the International Olympic Committee's members for the
United States; and
``(C) not more than 3 individuals who have represented the
United States in an Olympic Games not within the preceding 10
years, selected through a process to be determined by the
board of directors in accordance with the constitution and
bylaws of the corporation.
``(2) Amateur athlete representation.--Amateur athletes
shall constitute not less than 20 percent of the membership
in the assembly.
``(c) Voting.--
``(1) Representatives of the national governing bodies.--
Representatives of the national governing bodies shall
constitute not less than 51 percent of the voting power held
in the assembly.
``(2) Amateur athletes.--Amateur athletes shall constitute
not less than 20 percent of the voting power held in the
assembly.
``(d) Speaker of the Assembly.--The speaker of the assembly
shall be a member of the assembly (who, as a member, is
entitled to vote) who is elected by the members of the
assembly for a 4-year term. An individual may not serve as
speaker for more than 4 years. The speaker shall preside at
all meetings of the assembly and serve as a non-voting ex
officio member of the board of directors as provided in
section 220541. The speaker shall have no other duties or
powers (other than the right to vote), except as may be
expressly assigned by the board of directors.
``Sec. 220543. Chief executive officer
``(a) In General.--The corporation shall have a chief
executive officer who shall not be a member of the board of
directors. The chief executive officer shall be selected by,
and shall report to, the board of directors, as provided in
the constitution and bylaws of the corporation. The chief
executive officer shall be responsible, with board approval,
for filling other key senior management positions as provided
in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.
``(b) Duties.--The chief executive officer shall, either
directly or by delegation--
``(1) manage all staff functions and the day-to-day affairs
and business operations of the corporation, including but not
limited to relations with international organizations; and
``(2) implement the mission and policies of the
corporation, as determined by the Board.
``Sec. 220544. Whistleblower procedures and protections
``The corporation, through the board of directors, shall
establish procedures for--
``(1) the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints
received by the corporation regarding accounting, auditing or
ethical matters; and
``(2) the protection against retaliation by any officer,
employee, director or member of the corporation against any
person who submits such complaints.''.
(b) Transition.--The individuals serving as members of the
board of directors of the United States Olympic Committee on
the date of enactment of this Act shall continue to serve as
the board of directors until a board of directors has been
elected under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
(c) Initial Nominating and Governance Committee.--
(1) In general.--Until the initial board of directors has
been elected and taken office, the nominating and governance
committee required by section 220541(f) of title 36, United
States Code, shall consist of--
(A) 1 individual selected by the Athlete's Advisory Council
from among its members;
(B) 1 individual selected by the National Governing Bodies'
Council from among its members;
(C) 1 individual selected by the public-sector directors of
the United States Olympic Committee from among such directors
serving on the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) 1 individual selected by the Independent Commission on
Reform of the established by the United States Olympic
Committee in March, 2003, from among its members, who shall
chair the committee; and
(E) 1 individual selected by the Governance and Ethics Task
Force established by the United States Olympic Committee in
February, 2003, from among its members.
(2) Election of New Board of Directors.--The nominating and
governance committee established by paragraph (1) shall--
(A) elect an initial board or directors who shall serve for
the terms provided in section 220541(c)(2) of title 36,
United States Code; and
(B) elect 1 of the members described in section
220541(b)(2)(A) of that title to serve as chair until the
terms of the members elected under subparagraph (A) have
expired.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Representation requirements.--Section 220504(b) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``representation of--'' and inserting
``representation on its board of directors and in its
assembly of--''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(B) ensure that--
``(i) the membership and voting power of such amateur
athletes is not less than 20 percent of the membership and
voting power of each committee, subcommittee, working group,
or other subordinate decision-making group, of the
corporation; and
``(ii) the voting power held by members of the board of
directors who were nominated by the Athlete's Advisory
Council is not less than 20 percent of the total voting power
held in the board of directors;''.
(2) Constitution and bylaws.--Section 220505(a) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``bylaws.'' and inserting ``bylaws
consistent with this chapter, as determined by the board of
directors. The board of directors shall adopt and amend the
constitution and bylaws of the corporation, consistent with
this chapter.'';
(B) by inserting ``the board of directors proposes and
approves by majority vote such an amendment and'' after
``only if''; and
(C) by striking ``publication,'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``publication and on its website,''.
(3) Ombudsman to report to board of directors.--Section
220509(b) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``the board of directors and'' in
paragraph (1)(C) after ``report to'';
(B) by striking ``corporation's executive director'' in
paragraph (2)(A)(i) and inserting ``board of directors'';
(C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2)(A)
and inserting the following:
``(ii) The board of directors shall hire or not hire such
person after fully considering the advice and counsel of the
Athlete's Advisory Council.'';
(D) by striking ``corporation'' the first place it appears
in paragraph (2)(B) and inserting ``board of directors'';
(E) by striking ``to the corporation's executive committee
by either the corporation's executive director'' in paragraph
(2)(B)(ii) and inserting ``by 1 or more members of the board
of directors''; and
(F) by striking ``corporation's executive committee'' in
paragraph (2)(B)(iii) and inserting ``board of directors''.
(4) Eligibility requirements.--Section 220522(a)(4)(B) is
amended by striking ``corporation's executive committee'' and
inserting ``board of directors''.
(5) Chapter analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter
2205 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER III. GOVERNANCE
``220541. Board of directors
``220542. Assembly
``220543. Chief executive officer
``220544. Whistleblower procedures and protections''.
SEC. 5. REPORTS.
Section 220511 is amended--
(1) by striking so much of subsection (a) as precedes
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(a) Biennial Report.--On or before the first day of June
of every other year, the corporation shall transmit
simultaneously to the President and to each House of Congress
a detailed report of its operations for the preceding 2
years, including--
``(1) annual financial statements--
``(A) audited in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles by an independent certified public
accountant; and
``(B) certified by the chief executive officer and the
chief financial officer of the corporation as to their
accuracy and completeness;'';
(2) by striking ``4-year period;'' in subsection (a)(2) and
inserting ``2-year period;''; and
(3) by inserting ``free of charge on its website (or via a
similar medium that is widely available to the public), and
otherwise'' in subsection (b) after ``persons''.
[[Page S9419]]
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 1405. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 514 17th Street Moines, Illinois, as the ``David
Bybee Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation to name the U.S. Post Office at 514 17th Street in Moline,
IL after my friend, David Bybee, who suffered a fatal heart attack last
year.
Dave was a hard working and dedicated public servant who served as a
National Business Agent for the Chicago Region of the National
Association of Letter Carriers for twenty-five years. In 1967, Mr.
Bybee became a letter carrier for the Postal Service and after just two
years was elected President of Letter Carriers Local 318. Bybee then
became the Regional Administrative Assistant for three years and also
worked as Secretary to the Illinois State Association of Letter
Carriers from 1971 to 1977. Three years later, Bybee was elected the
National Business Agent to the National Association of Letter Carriers
for the 17,000 members of the Chicago Region. Mr. Bybee held that
position and also served as Vice President of the Illinois AFL-CIO
until his death on May 31, 2002.
In recognition of his lifetime work on behalf of the letter carriers
of Illinois, the local union he first served as President was named the
David M. Bybee Branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers in
1992.
Mr. Bybee did not let his busy work schedule interfere with his
family life. He was devoted to his wife, Judy, and their two sons, John
and Michael. Dave Bybee also found time to serve his community as fire
chief of Carbon Cliff, a school board member, and kept active in the
Moline Elks Club.
Post offices are often designated in honor of individuals who have
made valuable contributions to their community, State, and country. I
can think of no more fitting way to permanently and publicly recognize
David Bybee's dedication than to name the Moline, IL post office in his
honor. It would be a most appropriate way to commemorate his exemplary
service to the Moline community and to postal workers across Illinois
and the Nation.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 1406. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act to permit the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to register a Canadian pesticide; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill
to remedy a long-standing inequity in pesticide pricing between
agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar use chemicals sold in
the United States. This pesticide price disparity has caused an undue
cost burden on our American farmers putting them at a distinct
disadvantage when competing in the world grain market.
Currently, American and Canadian farmers use the same chemicals on
their fields; but they are marketed under different labels and sold at
much lower cost north of the border. This bill simply eliminates that
inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to
access these lower-priced--but substantively identical--pesticides.
This legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, upon the request of anyone who can comply with the pesticide
registration requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to register a Canadian pesticide for use in the
United States. This registration would take effect if, after analysis
by the EPA, the pesticides are of similar use and composition in both
countries. The bill also has provisions to allow EPA to delegate
portions of the registration process to individual states with EPA
having the final authority over the process. This is to conserve the
resources of the EPA and at the same time utilize the expertise of
State agriculture departments around the country.
The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict
scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use.
This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is
a top priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a top priority for all
of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.
I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden
inequities of trade. Trade must be fair, and the pricing inequities of
Canadian and United States similar use pesticides have been a glaring
weakness of the free trade initiative. For far too long, American
farmers have watched their neighbors to the north apply pesticides that
are used in both countries, used on the same crops, and yet Canadian
producers get a price cut.
Our farmers are also concerned that similar use pesticides are being
utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other
agricultural commodities which are subsequently imported and consumed
in the United States. They rightfully believe it to be unfair to import
commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not
available to U.S. producers. If commodities grown with the use of these
Canadian pesticides are deemed safe enough for import and consumption
in the United States, why would we make American producers pay 117
percent to 193 percent more in chemical costs to produce the same
crops? The current scenario doesn't make sense.
This bill is not an ending, but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers
and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot
continue to accept trade practices that on the one hand hamstring
Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We
cannot allow our competitors to sell us commodities treated with lower
priced chemicals that are used both in Canada and the United States,
tell our consumers that the chemicals used on those commodities are
perfectly safe, and yet not give our producers access to those same
chemicals at a lower price. This is a classic example of free trade
gone bad.
We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a
step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field.
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. 1406
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CANADIAN PESTICIDES.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Registration of Canadian Pesticides.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Canadian pesticide.--The term `Canadian pesticide'
means a pesticide that--
``(i) is registered for use as a pesticide in Canada;
``(ii) is identical or substantially similar in its
composition to a comparable domestic pesticide registered
under this section; and
``(iii) is registered in Canada by the registrant of the
comparable domestic pesticide or by an affiliated entity of
the registrant.
``(B) Comparable domestic pesticide.--The term `comparable
domestic pesticide' means a pesticide--
``(i) that is registered under this section;
``(ii) the registration of which is not under suspension;
``(iii) that is not subject to--
``(I) a notice of intent to cancel or suspend under any
provision of this Act;
``(II) a notice for voluntary cancellation under section
6(f); or
``(III) an enforcement action under any provision of this
Act;
``(iv) that is used as the basis for comparison for the
determinations required under paragraph (4);
``(v) that is registered for use on each site of
application for which registration is sought under this
subsection;
``(vi) for which no use is the subject of a pending interim
administrative review under subsection (c)(8);
``(vii) that is not subject to any limitation on production
or sale agreed to by the Administrator and the registrant or
imposed by the Administrator for risk mitigation purposes;
and
``(viii) that is not classified as a restricted use
pesticide under subsection (d).
``(2) Authority to register canadian pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may register a
Canadian pesticide if the registration--
``(i) complies with this subsection;
``(ii) is consistent with this Act; and
[[Page S9420]]
``(iii) has not previously been disapproved by the
Administrator.
``(B) Production of another pesticide.--A pesticide
registered under this subsection shall not be used to produce
a pesticide registered under this section or section 24(c).
``(C) Registrant.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may register a
Canadian pesticide under this subsection on the application
of any person.
``(ii) Application.--If the Administrator registers a
Canadian pesticide under this subsection on application of
any person, the applicant shall be considered to be the
registrant of the Canadian pesticide for all purposes of this
Act.
``(D) Administrator.--Not later than 60 days after a person
submits a complete application for the registration of a
Canadian pesticide under this subsection, the Administrator
shall--
``(i) approve the application; or
``(ii)(I) disapprove the application; and
``(II) provide the applicant with a statement of the
reasons for the disapproval.
``(E) Delegation.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the
Administrator may delegate a function of the Administrator
under this subsection.
``(ii) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve or
disapprove any final action taken under this subsection as
the result of a function delegated to a State.
``(3) Applicant requirements.--A person seeking
registration of a Canadian pesticide under this subsection
shall--
``(A) demonstrate to the Administrator that the Canadian
pesticide is identical or substantially similar in its
composition to a comparable domestic pesticide; and
``(B) submit to the Administrator a copy of--
``(i) the label approved by the Pesticide Management
Regulatory Agency for the Canadian pesticide; and
``(ii) the label approved by the Administrator for the
comparable domestic pesticide.
``(4) Criteria for registration.--The Administrator may
register a Canadian pesticide under this subsection if the
Administrator--
``(A) obtains the confidential statement of formula for the
Canadian pesticide;
``(B) determines that the Canadian pesticide is identical
or substantially similar in composition to a comparable
domestic pesticide;
``(C) for each food or feed use authorized by the
registration--
``(i) determines that there exists an adequate tolerance or
exemption under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) that permits the residues of the
pesticide on the food or feed; and
``(ii) identifies the tolerances or exemptions in the
notification submitted under subparagraph (E);
``(D) obtains a label approved by the Administrator that--
``(i) includes all statements, other than the establishment
number, from the approved labeling of the comparable domestic
pesticide that are relevant to the uses registered by the
Administrator; and
``(ii) excludes all labeling statements relating to uses
that are not registered by the Administrator; and
``(E) not later than 10 business days after the issuance of
the registration, publish in the Federal Register a written
notification of the action of the Administrator that
includes--
``(i) a description of the determination made under this
paragraph; and
``(ii) a statement of the effective date of the
registration;
``(5) Labeling of canadian pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--Each container containing a Canadian
pesticide registered by the Administrator shall bear the
label that is approved by the Administrator under this
subsection.
``(B) Display of label.--The label shall be securely
attached to the container and shall be the only label visible
on the container.
``(C) Original canadian label.--The original Canadian label
on the container shall be preserved underneath the label
approved by the Administrator.
``(D) Preparation and use of labels.--After a Canadian
pesticide is registered under this subsection, the registrant
shall--
``(i) prepare labels approved by the Administrator for the
Canadian pesticide; and
``(ii) conduct or supervise all labeling of the Canadian
pesticide with the approved labeling.
``(E) Registered establishments.--Labeling of a Canadian
pesticide under this subsection shall be conducted at an
establishment registered by the registrant under section 7.
``(6) Revocation.--
``(A) In general.--After the registration of a Canadian
pesticide, if the Administrator finds that the Canadian
pesticide is not identical or substantially similar in
composition to a comparable domestic pesticide, the
Administrator may issue an emergency order revoking the
registration of the Canadian pesticide.
``(B) Terms of order.--The order--
``(i) shall be effective immediately;
``(ii) may prohibit the sale, distribution, and use of the
Canadian pesticide in a State; and
``(iii) may require the registrant of the Canadian
pesticide to purchase and dispose of any unopened product
subject to the order.
``(C) Request for hearing.--Not later than 10 days after
issuance of the order, the registrant of the Canadian
pesticide subject to the order may request a hearing on the
order.
``(D) Final order.--If a hearing is not requested in
accordance with subparagraph (C), the order shall become
final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(E) Judicial review.--If a hearing is requested on the
order, judicial review may be sought only at the conclusion
of the hearing on the order and following the issuance by the
Administrator of a final revocation order.
``(F) Procedure.--A final revocation order issued following
a hearing shall be reviewable in accordance with section 16.
``(7) Limits on liability.--No action for monetary damages
may be heard in any Federal or State court against--
``(A) the Administrator acting as a registering agency
under the authority of and consistent with this subsection
for injury or damage resulting from the use of a product
registered by the Administrator under this subsection; or
``(B) a registrant for damages resulting from adulteration
or compositional alteration of a Canadian pesticide
registered under this subsection if the registrant did not
have and could not reasonably have obtained knowledge of the
adulteration or compositional alteration.
``(8) Provision of information by registrants of comparable
domestic pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--On request by the Administrator the
registrant of a comparable domestic pesticide shall provide
to the Administrator that is seeking to register a Canadian
pesticide under this subsection information that is necessary
for the Administrator to make the determinations required by
paragraph (4).
``(B) Penalty for noncompliance.--
``(i) In general.--If the registrant of a comparable
domestic pesticide fails to provide to the Administrator, not
later than 15 days after receipt of a written request by the
Administrator, information possessed by or reasonably
accessible to the registrant that is necessary to make the
determinations required by paragraph (4), the Administrator
may assess a penalty against the registrant of the comparable
pesticide.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of the penalty shall be equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--
``(I) the difference between the per-acre cost of the
application of the comparable domestic pesticide and the
application of the Canadian pesticide, as determined by the
Administrator; and
``(II) the number of acres in the United States devoted to
the commodity for which the registration is sought.
``(C) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty under
this paragraph shall be assessed unless the registrant is
given notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with
section 14(a)(3).
``(D) Issues at hearing.--The only issues for resolution at
the hearing shall be--
``(i) whether the registrant of the comparable domestic
pesticide failed to timely provide to the Administrator the
information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the
registrant that was necessary to make the determinations
required by paragraph (4); and
``(ii) the amount of the penalty.
``(9) Penalty for disclosure.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall not make public
information obtained under paragraph (8) that is privileged
and confidential and contains or relates to trade secrets or
commercial or financial information.
``(B) Disclosure.--Any employee of the Environmental
Protection Agency who willfully discloses information
described in subparagraph (A) shall be subject to penalties
described in section 10(f).
``(10) Data compensation.--The Administrator and a person
registering a Canadian pesticide under this subsection shall
not be liable for compensation for data supporting the
registration if the registration of the Canadian pesticide in
Canada and the registration of the comparable domestic
pesticide are held by the same registrant or by affiliated
entities.
``(11) Formulation changes.--
``(A) In general.--The registrant of a comparable domestic
pesticide shall notify the Administrator of any change in the
formulation of a comparable domestic pesticide or a Canadian
pesticide registered by the registrant or an affiliated
entity not later than 30 days before any sale or distribution
of the pesticide containing the new formulation.
``(B) Statement of formula.--The registrant of the
comparable domestic pesticide shall submit, with the notice
required under subparagraph (A), a confidential statement of
the formula for the new formulation if the registrant has
possession of or reasonable access to the information.
``(C) Suspension of registration for noncompliance.--
``(i) In general.--If the registrant fails to provide
notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as
required by this paragraph, the Administrator may issue a
notice of intent to suspend the registration of the
comparable domestic pesticide for a period of not less than 1
year.
``(ii) Effective date.--The suspension shall become final
not later than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the
date of the issuance by the Administrator of the notice of
intent to suspend the registration, unless during the period
the registrant requests a hearing.
[[Page S9421]]
``(iii) Hearing procedure.--If a hearing is requested, the
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with section 6(d).
``(iv) Issues.--The only issues for resolution at the
hearing shall be whether the registrant has failed to provide
notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as
required by this paragraph.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. prec. 121) is
amended by adding at the end of the items relating to section
3 the following:
``(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer products.
``(g) Registration review.
``(h) Registration requirements for antimicrobial pesticides.
``(1) Evaluation of process.
``(2) Review time period reduction goal.
``(3) Implementation.
``(4) Annual report.
``(i) Registration of Canadian pesticides.
``(1) Definitions.
``(2) Authority to register Canadian pesticides.
``(3) Applicant requirements.
``(4) Criteria for registration.
``(5) Labeling of Canadian pesticides.
``(6) Revocation.
``(7) Limits on liability.
``(8) Provision of information by registrants of comparable
domestic pesticides.
``(9) Penalty for disclosure.
``(10) Data compensation.
``(11) Formulation changes.''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section take effect 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr.
Miller):
S. 1408. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore
the deduction for the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who
accompanies the taxpayer on business travel; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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. 1408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF
SPOUSE, ETC. ACCOMPANYING TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS
TRAVEL.
(a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 274 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
limitations on travel expenses) is amended by striking
paragraph (3).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1409. A bill to provide funding for infrastructure investment to
restore the United States economy and to enhance the security of
transportation and environmental facilities throughout the United
States; to the Committee on Finance
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rebuild
America Act of 2003,'' a bill to improve our national transportation
and water infrastructure and to stimulate economic growth.
This bill promises to do what the latest tax cut will not: provide an
immediate economic stimulus without increasing the Federal budget
deficit. Whereas the President's economic advisors have said that the
latest tax cut will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004, at a
cost of $350 billion, this bill will create as many as 2 million jobs
at a tenth the cost.
These jobs could be created in as little as three months, as the bill
is specifically designed to fund transportation and water
infrastructure projects which are ready to go within 90 days.
Not only would those jobs bring some of the 9 million Americans who
are unemployed and seeking jobs back into the workforce, it would
generate long-term economic benefits from the increased productivity of
our transportation infrastructure.
This bill will do more to stimulate the economy at less cost than the
tax cut because it is directed squarely at our most urgent needs.
Unlike the recent tax cut, which largely benefits high income taxpayers
who are likely to save any windfall they receive, infrastructure
spending is necessarily injected into the economy.
According to the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new
infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 direct jobs
for construction workers, engineers, contractors, and other on-site
employees, and 21,000 indirect jobs resulting from the spending
associated with the investment.
These are jobs our economy desperately needs, particularly in the
transportation and nonresidential construction sectors, which have been
hit hard by the recent downturn. While new home construction has
sustained the homebuilding trades, there are now 715,000 unemployed
private construction workers, most of whom were laid off due to a
downturn in nonresidential building. That represents an 80 percent
increase from three years ago.
As anyone who has taken a hard look at our transportation needs can
attest, federal funding for highways, transit, aviation, high-speed
rail, and ports, among other areas, remains inadequate.
Without those funds, we are on the verge of falling behind the rest
of the developed world in the quality of our infrastructure. I recently
visited the port of Hong Kong and was amazed by the automated
technology used to process thousands of containers each day with fewer
employees than would be required to move an equivalent amount of cargo
at even our most advanced ports.
And while many countries around the world, including France, China,
Germany, and Japan, now have operating MAGLEV train systems, the United
States does not have a single demonstration MAGLEV line operating
anywhere in the country.
Increasingly, global industry demands a level of efficiency and
reliability which requires substantial upgrades to existing
infrastructure. In California, where computer and electronic products
account for 51 percent of the State's manufacturing exports, the trend
is toward lighter, higher value shipments. Nationwide, shipments of
below 1,000 lbs accounted for 18 percent of total value in 1977, and 32
percent of value in 1997, a dramatic increase.
Those changes put a premium on speed and reliability, without which
``just-in-time'' manufacturing and lean inventory controls are
impossible. A company such as Hewlett Packard, which uses Intel
processors made in California in servers which it assembles in Texas,
must be able to ship processors without risk of even a 24-hour delay.
This bill takes a big step toward ensuring that level of speed and
reliability by dedicating $50 billion to infrastructure upgrades. And I
must stress the huge incremental value of that spending in the context
of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, TEA-21, which is expected this year.
Reauthorization of TEA-21 will dedicate more than $250 billion toward
transportation projects over the next six years, but even that level of
funding will only allow us to tread water. Maintenance of existing
infrastructure will consume much of that spending.
To take one example, the Department of Transportation estimates that
$20.6 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve performance of
public transit systems alone.
The $50 billion provided by the ``Rebuild America Act'' will go
beyond current maintenance and actually improve overall productivity by
allowing substantial upgrades to go forward. Specifically, the bill
provides:
$5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway
capital investments, drawn from the $19 billion surplus in
the Highway Trust Fund.
$3 billion in transit capital and operating grants, drawn
from the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund.
$3 billion in airport development projects, including $2
billion in airport improvement program grants to enhance
airport safety, efficiency, and capacity.
$14 billion of tax-credit high-speed rail bonds for
infrastructure construction and the acquisition of rolling
stock.
$7.5 billion for capital investment in passenger and
freight rail, including $2.5 billion for Amtrak.
$2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine
facility operators.
$11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure, to be administered
[[Page S9422]]
through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund and
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
$1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized
water resources infrastructure projects.
$1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed
communities for economic development.
$500 million for the repair and alteration of Federal
buildings.
In my home State of California, the infrastructure needs that could
be addressed by this bill are particularly great. Although the just-
completed BART link to San Francisco International Airport is a major
achievement, we still remain a long way off from the long-term goal of
ringing the Bay Area with BART stations.
And despite the recent economic downturn, California's economy
remains the engine of much of the country's economic growth, and
California's population continues to grow. That puts tremendous demands
on our roads, airports, and transit systems, and is one reason why Los
Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are consistently ranked as the
top two urban areas in the U.S. with the longest annual delays per
rush-hour driver.
This bill will provide a total of $1.8 billion in new funds for
California transportation and safe drinking water infrastructure, and
more than $1.5 billion more for high speed and passenger and freight
rail. All told, the bill will create well over 100,000 new jobs in
California.
That could bring us farther toward fulfilling one of California's
most urgent needs, a high speed rail link from the Bay Area all the way
south to San Diego. Without high speed rail there is little hope of
taking some of the pressure off of California's over-burdened highways
and airports.
In addition to the transportation improvements contemplated by the
bill, I would like to say a few words about the need for additional
funds for port security and clean drinking water.
Since the attacks of September 11 it has become clear that our ports
should be one of the first lines of defense against attempts to bring
weapons of mass destruction into this country. And yet the funds we
have dedicated to securing our ports have been woefully inadequate.
Last year I introduced comprehensive legislation to improve security
at our ports, and to inspect more of the 16 million containers which
come through those ports each year. Currently, only one to two percent
of those containers are inspected, and the possibility of a dirty bomb
or nuclear device being shipped in via container remains alarmingly
real.
This bill provides an additional $2.5 billion for port security,
which would go some of the way toward meeting the $6 billion in
expenses the Coast Guard anticipates over the next 10 years for ports
to comply with security standards imposed under the Maritime
Transportation Security Act.
With respect to clean drinking water, a very different, but equally
important, priority, this bill provides $11.5 billion for wastewater
and drinking water infrastructure investment. That funding is important
because the Administration continues to insist on funding cuts for the
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
Even level funding will not allow us to upgrade existing water
treatment facilities, many of which were built in the 1970s, when the
federal government first began to take a major role in the construction
of drinking water infrastructure. Many of those facilities will require
substantial improvements and overhauls over the next two decades as
pipes and equipment fall into disrepair.
In the West, the magnitude of water supply contamination by
perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has only recently become
apparent. The costs of cleaning up perchlorate in California alone will
likely stretch into the billions of dollars, and some of those funds
must come from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which
would receive $1.5 billion under this bill.
With the Federal budget deficit certain to top $400 billion this
year, and with the gross federal debt projected to increase by over $5
trillion by 2013, there is a real question as to where these funds will
come from.
I am glad to say, therefore, that this bill is fully offset and would
not add at all to our deficit. The bill uses three offsets to recoup
the $34 billion cost of the bill, two of which are designed to limit
corporate fraud, and the last of which extends customs user fees.
The bulk of the funds used to offset the bill are generated by
limiting the ability of large corporations to shelter income from
taxation. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee on corporate
fraud at the Enron Corporation speaks to the magnitude of this problem.
For several years Enron reported huge profits to its shareholders,
while reporting little or no taxable income to the IRS. We now know
that Enron executives treated their tax division as a for-profit entity
within the company and set annual revenue targets for the division.
Between 1996 and 1999, Enron reported aggregate profits of $2.1
billion on its income statement, while claiming aggregate losses, for
tax purposes, of $3 billion. Some of that gap can be explained by the
massive tax deductions Enron took for employee stock deductions, and
the rest stemmed from the closely guarded tax-shelter transactions
designed for the company by banks, accountants, and legal firms.
This bill closes those Enron-specific loopholes, but also strengthens
a very simple provision which will have a big impact on shutting down
future loopholes.
The so-called ``Economic Substance Doctrine'' imposed by the bill
states that any transaction which has no material economic impact on
the business of the company, but which is purely designed for the
purpose of tax avoidance, shall be disallowed for tax purposes.
That will allow enhance the ability of tax courts to crack down on
companies that engage in off balance sheet transactions, artificial
income shifting, uneconomic financing transactions, and other tax
avoidance schemes which are not designed to provide any profit to the
company beyond a tax savings.
In the same vein, the bill puts an end to the practice of setting up
corporate headquarters offshore in order to avoid corporate taxes at
home. This practice is not only blatantly unpatriotic, but also creates
an imbalanced playing field for companies that abide by the spirit of
the law but are forced to compete with firms that don't.
This bill will require such corporate expatriates to continue to pay
U.S. taxes even if they move abroad. All told, these provisions fully
offset the cost of the infrastructure improvements included in the
bill.
Just about any American you talk to will tell you that our economy is
not in good shape. A quick look at the front page of newspapers shows
that our stock markets remain well below their 2000 high, that more
people face long-term unemployment than at any time in the past two
decades, and that businesses are not making new investments.
The tax cut which was recently signed into law is the wrong medicine
for our economy, and will do little to reverse our current course. In
fact, it may well increase uncertainty and act as a long-term drag on
the economy by increasing the federal debt and putting pressure on
long-term interest rates.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a much better means of
stimulating economic growth, and one which will pay long-term dividends
in terms of improved roads, railways, and water treatment facilities.
Rather than simply hand down a burden of debt to our children and
grand-children, this bill would create a lasting legacy of modern
infrastructure for their benefit.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Grassley,
and Mr. Daschle):
S. 1410. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. Today, I am introducing legislation
called, ``The Access to Medical Treatment Act, AMTA'', on behalf of
myself and my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Inouye, Grassley, and
Daschle.
This legislation is important for thousands of Americans who suffer
from illness or disease for which conventional medical treatments offer
little or no promise of cure or relief.
[[Page S9423]]
Many Americans are plagued with the hopelessness of debilitating pain
caused by illness. For some of these patients, non-conventional
treatments could offer much needed relief. Thousands of other Americans
live with potentially fatal diseases that are unresponsive to
traditional medical treatments. Increasing the options for treatment by
utilizing unconventional therapy could provide newfound hope for
lifesaving results.
AMTA addresses limits placed on unconventional medical care and would
allow Americans access to many promising, even proven, treatments that
are currently restricted. For example, the bill would lift some
restrictions on treatments that have been approved and used in other
countries. The bill would also allow access for many additional
patients to drugs or therapies otherwise available through the Food and
Drug Administration, FDA, human clinical trials.
This legislation establishes parameters for the use of such non-
conventional therapies. A health care practitioner may provide the
medical treatment requested by a patient under certain guidelines.
First, the health care practitioner must personally examine the
patient, the treatment must be within the practitioner's appropriate
range of practice, it must not violate any existing licensing laws, and
the treatment must comply with the Controlled Substances Act. Next,
there must be no reason for the practitioner to conclude that the
treatment will cause danger to the patient. The patient must be
informed, in writing, of the contents and methods of treatment, its
possible side effects, anticipated benefits, results of prior use of
treatment on other patients, and any other information necessary to
fully meet the requirements for informed consent of human subjects in
FDA regulations.
I believe we have some of the best medicine, technology, and health
care providers in the United States. However, there are vast amounts of
information yet to be learned on disease and treatment. We must not
allow ourselves to be exclusively, perhaps, myopically, focused on
traditional forms of treatment when some Americans find no relief from
them. Those with debilitating pain and disease should have access to
new options for relief, especially when conventional treatments fail.
We owe it to the American people to engage in this crucial discussion
on access to non-conventional forms of medical treatments. There are
many questions that need to be addressed. We must begin to address them
by exploring the new and innovative forms of therapy that exist, and by
engaging in an educated dialogue on this issue.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 1411. A bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the
Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent,
safe, and affordable housing for low-income families, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an affordable housing
crisis. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the
availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have
dramatically increased the cost of those that remain. More families are
forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing at a
time when Federal spending on housing programs are under attack. That
is why, along with Senator Chafee, I am again proposing to address the
severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that
will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund and begin a
rental housing production program.
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this
legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5
million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely
low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long-
term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest
opportunities for low-income families. Seventy-five percent of Trust
Fund assistance will be awarded, based on need, through matching grants
to States and local jurisdictions. The States and local jurisdictions
will allocate funds on a competitive basis to projects that meet
Federal requirements, such as mixed-income projects and long-term
affordability, and that address local needs. The remainder of the
funding will be competitively awarded by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, HUD, to intermediaries, such as the Enterprise
Foundation, which will be required to leverage private funds. A portion
of the Trust Fund will be used to promote home ownership activities for
low-income Americans.
The Trust Fund would be paid for out of surplus revenue generated by
the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage
Administration after ensuring their fiscal safety and soundness. These
Federal housing programs generate billions of dollars in excess income,
which currently goes to the general Treasury for use on other Federal
priorities. It is time to stop taking housing money out of housing
programs. These excess funds should be used to help alleviate the
current housing crisis. According to current projections, approximately
$28 billion will be available for the Trust Fund between now and 2008.
The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have
been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. Today, for
many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately
owned rental housing is simply out of reach. According to the National
Housing Conference, more than 14 million families spent over half of
their income on housing in 2001. Today, working families in this
country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. A person
trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000 annually,
just to afford a two-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors,
social workers, police officers and other full-time workers may have
trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment.
The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer
Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of
inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs
have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low
wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in cost of rental
housing.
Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are
forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children
at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to
experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from
infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have
difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our
Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing.
At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing,
there has been a significant decrease in affordable rental housing
units. More than 1.8 million affordable housing units have been
demolished over the past decade. Making matters worse, many current
affordable housing providers are deciding to opt-out of their Section 8
contracts or are prepaying their HUD-insured mortgages. These decisions
have further limited the availability of affordable housing across the
country. Many more providers will be able to opt-out of their Section 8
contracts in the next few years, further limiting the availability of
affordable housing in our nation. The current decline has already
forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston
to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing
units which accept vouchers.
The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in
this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We have the
resources, yet we are not devoting these resources to fix the problem.
Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing and
there are fewer affordable rental housing units, we have decreased
Federal spending on critical housing programs. Between 1978 and 1995,
the number of households receiving Federal housing assistance was
increased by almost 3 million. From 1978 through 1984, an additional
230,000 families received Federal housing assistance each year. This
number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year
from 1985 through 1995.
[[Page S9424]]
In 1996, this nation's housing policy went all the way back to square
one-- not only was there no increase in families receiving housing
assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From
1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households dropped by 51,000.
During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the
loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are
not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available
to working families. Yet in the face of these critical housing problems
and the effect it has on our children, the Bush Administration is
working to dismantle many federal programs that help Americans find
affordable housing. The Bush Administration has proposed to block grant
the Section 8 Voucher program, which I believe will reduce the number
of families with children eligible for Federal housing assistance and
increase housing costs for those families who remain. A recent Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities study that shows President Bush's
fiscal year 2004 budget request is inadequate to fund all Section 8
housing vouchers needed in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, the lack of
funding in the voucher program request means that approximately 184,000
vouchers now in use serving low-income families will not be funded. In
Massachusetts, this would mean a reduction of more than 6,000 vouchers
or nearly ten percent of the vouchers projected to be in use in October
2003. If the President's request is enacted into law, the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities believes that it is likely that some
families that now rely on vouchers to help pay their rent will lose
assistance, placing these families at high risk of eviction and, in
some cases, homelessness. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget
request also proposes cutting an additional $2.45 billion from existing
housing programs and eliminating the HOPE VI program, which has helped
revitalize neighborhoods around the country. These cuts come on top of
an earlier Bush Administration action to abolish the Public Housing
Drug Elimination Grant program.
The Bush Administration changes in Federal housing programs mean that
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many other States will likely
receive a reduction in Federal housing funds in fiscal year 2004.
Almost every State is facing serious budget deficits and are forced to
dramatically increase spending on homeland security. Additional funds
are not available to make up the decline in Federal spending. The
future is even bleaker. These reductions at HUD follow the enactment of
two separate tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest in our
society, that will make it almost impossible for any significant
increases in the HUD's budget over the next decade. We need to bring
housing resources back to where they belong. The National Affordable
Housing Trust Fund will provide desperately needed funds to begin
production of affordable housing in the United States. Enacting the
Housing Trust Fund legislation is an important step in the right
direction to add resources to housing and to help begin producing
housing again.
We can no longer ignore the shortage of affordable housing in
America, and the impact it is having on families and children around
the country. It is still unclear to me why this lack of housing has not
caused more uproar. How many families are to be pushed out of their
homes and into the streets, before action is taken. I believe it is
time for our nation to take a new path--one that ensures that all
Americans, especially our children, has the opportunity to live in
decent, affordable and safe housing. Everyone knows that decent
housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous
roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance, has assisted
millions of low-income children across the nation and has helped
develop stable home environments. However, too many children still live
in families that have substandard housing or are homeless. These
children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be
productive citizens. Because of the positive effect that this
legislation would have on America's children, the Trust Fund was
included in the Act to Leave No Child Behind, a comprehensive proposal
by the Children's Defense Fund to assist in the development of our
nation's children.
I urge you to support this legislation to restore our commitment to
provide affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn our
backs on those who struggle every day just to put a roof over their
family's head.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
S. 1412. A bill to suspend the implementation of the revised
definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas applicable to Kent,
Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegan Counties in the State of Michigan; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
along with Mr. Levin, that would stop the implementation of a new
Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA, in the Michigan counties of Kent,
Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegan, KOMA.
On June 6, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued its
Bulletin No. 03-04 on Revised Definition of Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined
Statistical Areas, and Guidance on the Use of the Statistical
Definitions in These Areas.
This bulletin finalizes a process that began with the last census.
Statistical areas, as explained by the OMB, are designed solely for
statistical purposes. As stated in the bulletin, they are designed to
``provide nationally consistent definitions in collecting, tabulating,
and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas.'' The
problem is that the are used for much more than that. They are
principal tool for allocating Federal dollars. And, although OMB
recognizes this, it will ``not take into account or attempt to
anticipate any nonstatistical uses that may be made of the MSAs.''
This is a serious problem. On one hand, we are implementing new MSAs
to serve basic statistical purposes. On the other hand, these new MSAs
are critical for the allocation of Federal money and OMB does not
consider, in the least bit, how these new MSAs may negatively or
positively affect communities. It is easy for OMB staff to say that
their hands are tied by rules and strict methodologies, but this is not
about number-crunching. This is about real dollars for Michigan.
I have heard from numerous constituents in West Michigan who are
concerned about how these new statistical, designations will affect
Medicaid and Medicare payments, Housing and Urban Development grants,
Community Development Block Grants, and other important programs in
Michigan. I share these concerns and want to make sure that we do not
allow a new system of Federal dollar allocations to come into effect
that would hurt West Michigan. We need time to study the impact of the
new MSAs. That is why I am offering legislation to stay the
implementation of the new West Michigan MSAs until October 1, 2004,
leaving the current Kent-Ottawa-Muskegon-Allegan, KOMA, MSA in place.
The KOMA region has developed a common identity over the last decade.
It shares regional challenges such as tourism, transportation networks,
environmental protection, and community health. Business leaders have
worked hard to market the region as a common community with much to
offer potential new businesses and families looking to relocate. I do
not want these leaders to lose this marketing tool. By the OMB setting
up a new MSA with no consideration of the economic and social
integration of the existing MSA, we could see the undermining of a
great deal of progress for this part of Michigan.
We, in Congress, should eventually look at this issue of MSAs
comprehensively. We should ensure that communities do not have to fact
this uncertainty every decade with a new census. We should either
ensure that the OMB takes into account economic and other community
concerns when creating MSAs or we should make sure that Federal funding
allocations are not made through MSAs. Regardless, in the short run, it
is essential that the hospitals, the community development
organizations, the business leaders, and the social service providers
of West Michigan who are raising these concerns with me have time to
study the problem and understand the impact of OMB's decision. Once
that has been studied, we can work with OMB and
[[Page S9425]]
the interested parties to ensure that there is no loss of Federal money
to West Michigan.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 1413. A bill to authorize appropriations for conservation grants
of the Environmental Protection Agency, to direct the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct expedited feasibility
studies of certain water projects in the State of California, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California
Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA.
Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes
innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in
California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State
are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's
agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs.
This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's
declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population.
California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the
Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15
million residents in California over the next 20 years.
Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed,
environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily
available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on
the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into
production.
There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes
expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California.
Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide
environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be
shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government.
Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply
strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution
for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial
use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives;
groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater
demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may
provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These
additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their
dependence on imported water sources.
The second section of this bill increases funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs,
including $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state
revolving loan program. EPA conservation grants provide funding for
measures that include: urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water
meter installation or retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater
treatment system upgrades for compliance with Clean Water Act
requirements, and groundwater recharge facilities projects.
Water agencies and local officials throughout California are
constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope
is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges
facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven
benefits of water conservation and recycling.
Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would
be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward
with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform
the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to
see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to
independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps
projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will
have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the
Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining
project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects
will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious
natural resources.
I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I
ask for their support.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Graham of
South Carolina, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1414. A bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of
Columbia; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece
of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward
restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside
in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.
It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's
Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the
country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per
capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8
out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest
murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and
unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of
Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the
``Murder Capital of the United States''.
It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect
themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators.
All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder
carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to
imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting
criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself.
We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a
position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell
the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of
the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow
Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal
Protection Act would do exactly that.
Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do.
This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and
rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration
requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal
penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and
businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats
some firearms as if they were machineguns.
Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent,
gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if
law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my
liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and
security.
Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded
myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like
we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I
will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of
the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent,
gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties
for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only
is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it
also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding
men and women to own and possess firearms.
In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's
gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This
initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise
approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of
crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun
during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very
hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the
[[Page S9426]]
rights of law-abiding American men and women.
Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in
the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who
care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always
feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon
law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they
are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to
protect themselves and their families.
The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as
ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time
we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
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. 1414
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 ``District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the rights of individuals, including those who are
not members of a militia or engaged in military service or
training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia
are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns
that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the
rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful
defense of persons, homes, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita
murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to
local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding
persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and
their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide
comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District
of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of
Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of
firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there
is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding
citizens.
(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of
Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens
under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
and thereby enhance public safety.
SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.
Section 303.43 of title 1, District of Columbia Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``This section
shall not be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or
any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of
Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly
burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to possess
firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in
their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-
protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither
prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National
Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have
authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or
eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.''.
SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.
Section 2501.01(10) of title 7, District of Columbia Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to
shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of
the trigger.''.
SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
Section 2502.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``, and no person or organization in the
District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the
person or organization holds a valid registration certificate
for the firearm''; and
(B) by striking beginning with ``A registration'' through
paragraph (3); and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``firearm or'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the semicolon at the end
and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
SEC. 6. REPEAL D.C. HANDGUN BAN.
Section 2502.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
period;
(C) by striking paragraph (4); and
(D) by striking ``(a)''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 7. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.
Section 2506.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is
repealed.
SEC. 8. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
Section 2507.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is
repealed.
SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.
Sections 2502.03, 2502.04, 2502.05, 2502.06, 2502.07,
2502.08, 2502.09, 2502.10, and 2502.11 of title 7, District
of Columbia Code, are repealed.
SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF
UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
Section 2507.06 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``that:'' through ``(1) A'' and inserting
``that a''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
SEC. 11. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING PISTOL IN
ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.
Section 4504(a) of title 22, District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other
land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,''
before ``a pistol''; and
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a pistol, without a
license pursuant to District of Columbia law, or''.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1415. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, Connecticut, as the
``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building'', to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today proudly to introduce
legislation to rename the postal facility at 141 Weston Street in
Hartford, CT, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.''
Barbara Kennelly is a dear friend, a former member of the House of
Representatives, and an outstanding citizen of Connecticut who has
dedicated her life to public service on behalf of the citizens of our
great State. It is long past time, and the very least that we can do to
pay tribute to her in this small but lasting way.
Barbara's life of public service came as no surprise to those of us
who knew her and her family--the first family of Connecticut politics,
I might add. Her father, John M. Bailey, was one of the all time great
political legends of our State--a powerful political leader, confidante
of John F. Kennedy, and Democratic Party chairman under Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson. I devoted the better half of my senior year at
Yale to the study of Bailey and wrote my senior thesis, later turned
into a book, on his brilliant and sophisticated use of political power.
Barbara's mother was active in Democratic politics long after the death
of her husband in 1975, her brother Jack served as the chief state
attorney in Connecticut, and her late husband Jim was a Speaker of the
Connecticut House. Politics has been in Barbara's bones practically
from the time she was born.
She once told a newspaper that politics didn't ``come naturally, but
certainly it's a lot easier when you see members of your family doing
it. Obviously I was watching my father all the time and learning
through osmosis.''
She had good instructors and she learned well. After serving on the
Hartford City Council and as Connecticut's Secretary of State, Barbara
was elected to Congress in 1982 and served with distinction until 1999,
when she answered her party's call to run for governor.
Like her father, she was a hard-driving and skilled tactician in the
House, working the back corridors of politics and shunning the bright
lights of the modern media ever in search of a nine-second sound bite.
She was an insider, a loyal Member of the House leadership, and a
golf partner to the likes of Danny Rostenkowski. She rose in through
the party ranks making few enemies, seeking consensus, playing fair,
and gathering strength one vote at a time.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, she was one of the more powerful women
in the Congress--part feminist hero, part backroom pol. She had a knack
for getting along with the good old boys even as she pushed the
boundaries for women's rights.
In 1984, she was thrilled to be chosen to nominate Geraldine Ferraro
as the first woman Vice Presidential candidate on a Democratic ticket.
Years
[[Page S9427]]
afterward, Barbara said that moment was one of the high points of her
career. But there would be many others. In her second term, House
Speaker Tip O'Neill recognized her ability and appointed her to serve
on the prestigious tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a committee
most members wait years to join. She also became the first woman member
of the House Intelligence Committee. And in 1991, she became the first
woman to join the House leadership as a chief deputy whip.
We miss her strong presence and her wise counsel here in Congress but
are grateful for her continuing work on behalf of seniors as the
President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare. I appreciate the opportunity to help honor a great woman in
this way. 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. 1415
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BARBARA B. KENNELLY POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford,
Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ``Barbara
B. Kennelly Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.
____________________