[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.



                          ____________________