[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14807-S14817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
S. 1850. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study of maritime sites in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Michigan
Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act, a bill to promote and protect
Michigan's Great Lakes history including its lighthouses and maritime
museums.
Before I discuss this bill, I want to say that it is extremely
fitting that we are discussing the importance of Michigan's Great Lakes
history, because today is an important day in that long history. Two
years ago today, President Bush signed into law the FY 2003 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, which included a provision which I authored
to place a two year ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes and
protect them from the imminent threat of drilling.
At the time, Governor Engler's administration was moving forward with
plans to issue permits for oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes
despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizens of Michigan and the
Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes drilling ban had overwhelming
bipartisan support of the Great Lakes Senators and House members; so
much so, that Senator Voinovich and I worked together to re-extend the
drilling ban for an additional two years, through the end of FY 2005,
in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill.
One of the reasons the Great Lakes drilling ban had such broad
support is that as the elected stewards of this precious natural
resource, we all understood how important the Great Lakes are to our
region and the Nation. The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of the
world's fresh water supply, and thirty-three million people rely on the
Great Lakes for their drinking water, including 10 million for Lake
Michigan alone. The Great Lakes' coastlines also are home to wetlands,
dunes and endangered species and plants. Lake Michigan alone contains
over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake.
The Great Lakes are not just an important natural resource, but they
are a critical part of Michigan's economy and quality of life. Millions
of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy their beaches, good
fishing and boating. The latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimate shows
that recreational fishing totals an $839 million boost to Michigan's
tourist economy alone. Michigan has over one million registered boaters
on file, more than any other State.
The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act would help preserve
the history of this precious natural resource for generations to come.
The bill would require the National Park Service (NPS) to study and
make recommendations as to the best way to promote and protect
Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. After 18 months, the NPS
would submit the study to Congress with its recommendations to link
these wonderful resources such as establishing a lighthouse and
maritime heritage trail, and to identify financial resources for
Michigan's communities to preserve and restore their lighthouses,
museums and other maritime resources. Congress could then move forward
with establishing the lighthouse and maritime heritage trail, and
implementing the NPS's recommendations. Hopefully, a Michigan
lighthouse and maritime heritage trail would lead to increased visitors
and tourism to these wonderful sites, which also would help bolster the
local economy in these communities.
The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and
cultural history, and Michigan's landscape reflects that bond. Michigan
is home to over 120 lighthouses, more than any other state in the U.S.
The oldest Michigan lighthouses are over 180 years, dating back to the
1820's. Michigan is also home to the country's only fresh water marine
sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This marine
sanctuary is designated to protect over 100 shipwrecks through an area
of Lake Huron known as shipwreck alley. Michigan is also home to
numerous maritime museums and lighthouse museums which are located
throughout the State.
[[Page S14808]]
The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act will help protect
these precious Great Lakes resources for future generations of
Michiganians, and promote the wonderful history of the Great Lakes for
all who visit Michigan to enjoy.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1851. A bill to raise the minimum state allocation under section
217(b)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will
increase the minimum funding level for low population States for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment
Partnerships Program.
The HOME program was created when the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing bill was signed into law in 1990. Funds were first
appropriated for this program in 1992. HOME program funds are disbursed
to State and local governments for the purpose of assisting with the
expansion of housing for low-income families. These governmental
entities have a great deal of flexibility when using these funds to
implement the program's purpose.
When this program was created, a minimum funding level of $3 million
was created for States that would normally receive a small amount of
HOME funds under the allocation formula, which is based on a State's
population, among other parameters. Three States--Alaska, Delaware, and
Nevada--received this level of funding for this program in fiscal year
2003. Assuming a three percent inflation rate per year between 1992--
when this program was first funded--and 2003, a $3 million allocation
in 1992 dollars decreased in value to $2,145,904 in 2003.
This is unacceptable. My State is one of the most expensive areas in
the country to develop housing, especially when one takes into account
the cost to transport building materials to extremely remote areas of
my State.
This legislation increases the minimum State funding level for the
HOME program to $5 million. Based on fiscal year 2003 allocations for
this program, ten States received less than $5 million. Those States
are: Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. My proposed increase in funding
would be offset by an overall decrease in allocations to other States.
If a $5 million minimum funding level had been in place by fiscal year
2003, the other 40 States would only have experienced an overall
decrease of less than $15 million. Bearing in mind that the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for this program is just under $2
billion, such a decrease in funds seems reasonable considering no
changes have been made to the minimum State funding level since the
HOME program was first funded in 1992.
In addition, the congressionally-appointed, bipartisan Millennium
Housing Commission recommended increasing the minimum State funding
level for the HOME program to $5 million in their May 30, 2002, report
to Congress.
It is imperative that we address this important issue so that we can
address the housing needs of a greater amount of low-income families in
low-population States.
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. 1851
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 ``Small State HOME Program
Equity Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
Section 217(b)(2)(A) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747(b)(2)(A)) is amended
by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it occurs and inserting
``$5,000,000''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM):
S. 1852. A bill to provide financial assistance for the
rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to
commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce a bill to authorize Federal funding for the rehabilitation of
the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. This memorial, an attraction
for some 1 million visitors annually, is truly a national treasure and
it has come under significant deterioration--threatening its very
existence. I, along with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania,
Senator Santorum, are introducing this bill to ensure that Federal
funding is made available to preserve and protect our Nation's memorial
to Benjamin Franklin, America's distinguished scientist, statesman,
inventor, and diplomat.
Unveiled in 1938, the memorial is located in the Memorial Hall of the
Franklin Institute Science Museum of Philadelphia, PA--one of the
Nation's premier science and technology museums. The Institute became
custodian of the memorial in 1972 when Public Law 92-511 designated the
Memorial Hall as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. In 1973, a
Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the Franklin Institute and directed the Department to
cooperate with the Institute in ``all appropriate and mutually
agreeable ways in the preservation and presentation of the Benjamin
Franklin National Memorial Hall as a national memorial.'' To date, the
Department has not provided any Federal funding to the Franklin
Institute other than $300,000, which Senator Santorum and I secured
from the ``Save America's Treasures'' program in the Fiscal Year 2000
Interior Appropriations Act to help improve accessibility to the
memorial.
Unlike other national memorials, the Benjamin Franklin National
Memorial does not receive an annual allocation of Federal funds that
provides for preventative maintenance or other important activities.
The significant burden of maintaining this national memorial has become
a challenge to the Franklin Institute. For example, under the terms of
the 1973 Agreement, the Institute is required to admit the public to
Memorial Hall free of charge. Accordingly, the Institute--a non-profit
organization--has absorbed the sole responsibility for providing the
funds necessary to preserve and maintain the memorial.
The legislation that Senator Santorum and I are introducing today
finally provides the Franklin Institute with the Federal support
necessary to ease the financial burden of maintaining a national
memorial--enabling the Institute to continue its duties as its
custodian. The bill authorizes up to $10 million in Federal funds to
provide needed rehabilitation and to help enhance the experience at the
memorial through the addition of exhibition space for the proper
display of the finest existing collection of Franklin artifacts.
The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial at the Franklin Institute
serves as the Nation's primary location honoring Franklin's life,
legacy, and ideals. This was further solidified in July 2002, when
President George W. Bush signed into law House Resolution 2362, which
created the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission.
This commission, which I chair, is charged with studying and
recommending activities appropriate for the 300th anniversary of
Franklin's birth in 2006. As we expect visitors to the memorial from
throughout the world for this celebration, it is important that the
Franklin Institute, as custodian of the memorial, begin the meticulous
restoration and enhancement of it promptly. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation to preserve this national tribute to Benjamin
Franklin for years to come.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 1857. A bill to amend the internal revenue Code of 1986 to provide
procedural fairness in the application of the controlled group
provisions to employers who contribute to multiemployer pension plans
and who engage in bona fide corporate transactions; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to day to introduce, along with my
colleagues Senator Smith from Oregon,
[[Page S14809]]
the multiemployer Pension Plan Procedural Fairness Act of 2003. The
purpose of this legislation is to provide a modest amount of procedural
fairness with respect to claims filed against former employers under
the multiemployer pension plan (MEPPA) rules.
By way of background, MEPPA makes an employer that completely or
partially withdraws from participation in a multiemployer pension fund
liable for the employer's share of the plans' unfunded vested benefits.
That liability is referred to as ``withdrawal liability'' and can be
collected from any member of the controlled group of employers that
included the withdrawing employer. The process of collecting withdrawal
liability can become quite unfair when the pension fund attempts to
assert liability against a former employer or a former member of a
controlled group of employers that, as a result of a legitimate
business separation, such as a sale or spin-off transaction, ceased to
be associated with the withdrawing employer several years before the
compete or partial withdrawal occurred.
MEPPA provides that a former employer or former member of a
controlled group can still be liable if ``a principal purpose'' of the
business separation transaction was ``to evade or avoid'' withdrawal
liability. The legislative history indicates that the ``evade or
avoid'' provision was designed to prevent unscrupulous employers from
dumping a distressed subsidiary in order to evade or avoid withdrawal
liability. I firmly believe that unscrupulous companies that attempt to
evade withdrawal liability should be held liable. However, companies
that engage in legitimate transactions should be able to defend against
withdrawal liability claims that arose from events which occurred many
years after the business separation.
The simplest way to understand the issue is with an illustration.
Assume that a parent company operates a subsidiary that makes
contributions to a multiemployer plan. Assume further that, for valid
business reasons, the parent company disposes of the subsidiary via a
bona fide ``spin-off'' transaction. At the time of the spin-off, the
subsidiary was current on all of its required contributions to the
multiemployer pension fund, and the subsidiary continues to make
contributions to the multiemployer plan after the spin-off. To complete
the example, assume that several years after the spin-off, the spun-off
subsidiary goes out of business and ceases to make contributions to the
multiemployer pension fund. Under this scenario, the MEPPA rules allow
the pension fund to claim that a principal purpose of the transaction
was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Because the MEPPA rules do
not provide any time restrictions for making these claims, a former
parent company may be forced to defend against such a claim years, if
not decades after the transaction in question. By contrast, the single-
employer plan rules provide a 5-year safe harbor rule that protects
employers against such claims.
While multiemployer plans should certainly be able to pursue claims
against unscrupulous employers, there are two procedural rules in MEPPA
that severely and unfairly hinder an employer's ability to defend
itself against a claim for withdrawal liability under the evade
or avoid standard when the transaction in question occurred several
years before the date of a complete or partial withdrawal. The first
rule is referred to as the ``pay to play'' rule, and the second rule
involves the burden of proof borne by the employer.
Under MEPPA, if the pension fund makes a claim for withdrawal
liability against the former parent company under the ``evade or
avoid'' standard, the claim is sent to arbitration. However, the parent
company must begin making payments to the multiemployer pension plan
within 60 days after receiving a demand solely based upon the plan's
unilateral decision to assert a withdrawal liability claim and long
before any neutral third party finds that ``a principal purpose'' of
the challenged transaction was to ``evade or avoid'' withdrawal
liability. As a result, a company that engaged in a bona fide business
transaction many years before the withdrawal occurred is forced to
begin paying on the claim based on nothing more than the plan's demand.
According to the legislative history, this unique ``pay to play''
rule was enacted in response to what Congress perceived to be
inefficient, cumbersome and costly procedures for collecting delinquent
contributions from employers. Simple collection actions were converted
into complex litigation through defenses that were unrelated to the
multiemployer plan's entitlement to the contribution. However, the
relevant MEPPA language is not limited to collection actions. While it
may be appropriate to require a contesting employer to commence
payments while the claim is being litigated, it is not fair to require
prepayment in the case of an ``evade or avoid'' claim when the
transaction in question occurred many years before the complete or
partial withdrawal occurred.
The second procedural unfairness involves the burden of proof that an
employer faces in rebutting a claim under the ``evade or avoid''
standard. MEPPA provides that a plan sponsor's determination is
presumed correct, unless the contesting party shows by a preponderance
of evidence that the determination is incorrect. The impetus behind
Congress's decision to include such a presumption was the need to avoid
a perceived potential for conflict and delay over the soundness of
actuarial determinations of liability. Specifically, the presumption
was crafted in order to prevent ``the likelihood of dispute and delay
over technical actuarial matters with respect to which there are often
several equally `correct' approaches. Without such a presumption, a
plan would be helpless to resist dilatory tactics by a withdrawing
employer--tactics that could, and could be intended to, result in
prohibitive collection costs to the plan.'' However, the MEPPA
presumption language is not limited to actuarial determinations, but
reaches liability determinations as well.
Even if this presumption is appropriate when withdrawal liability is
triggered shortly after a transaction occurs, it is unfair to apply the
presumption when the transaction in question occurred several years
before the withdrawal took place. In this situation, a company that
engages in a bona fide transaction may be forced to prove a negative--
namely that a principal purpose of a transaction that occurred many
years ago was not to evade or avoid withdrawal liability.
To summarize, under the MEPPA rules, an employer may find itself in a
position where it has to respond to claims regarding a legitimate
business transaction that occurred many years earlier. Furthermore, in
defending against the claim, the employer must 1. prove that a
principal purpose of the transaction was not to evade or avoid
withdrawal liability, and 2. prepay the contested amount of the
liability well in advance of any final determination of liability. This
is patently unfair. Our legislation is a modest attempt to inject some
notions of procedural fairness in this situation.
Our bill does not change the present-law rules regarding the
determination of liability with respect to a complete or partial
withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan. However, it does change
the procedural rules applicable to such a determination, but only with
respect to a transaction that occurred five years or more before the
date of the complete or partial withdrawal.
Under our bill, when a determination of an employer's withdrawal
liability is based on a finding by the plan sponsor that a principal
purpose of a transaction was to evade or avoid liability, and the
transaction in question occurred five years or more before the date of
the complete or partial withdrawal, the following rules would apply: 1.
the determination by the plan sponsor is not presumed to be correct,
and the plan sponsor has the burden to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, each and every element of the claim for withdrawal
liability, and 2. if an employer contests the plan sponsor's
determination either through arbitration or through a claim brought in
court, the employer is not obligated to make any withdrawal liability
payments until a final decision in the arbitration, or in court,
upholds the plan sponsor's determination. Our bill would apply to any
employer that receives a notification after October 31, 2003.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S14810]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1857
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 ``Multiemployer Pension Plan
Procedural Fairness Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.
(a) In General.--Section 414(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Common control.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection and
subtitle E of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), all trades or
businesses (whether or not incorporated) which are under
common control within the meaning of subsection (c) are
considered a single employer.
``(B) Principal purpose test.--If a principal purpose of
any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under subtitle
E of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), then, subject to paragraph
(6), the determination of whether one or more trades or
businesses are under common control for purposes of such
subtitle shall be made without regard to such transaction.'',
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Determination of common control more than 5 years
following a transaction.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) a plan sponsor of a plan determines that--
``(I) a complete or partial withdrawal of an employer has
occurred, or
``(II) an employer is liable for withdrawal liability
payments with respect to the complete or partial withdrawal
of an employer from the plan,
``(ii) such determination is based in whole or in part on a
finding by the plan sponsor that a principal purpose of any
transaction was to evade or avoid liability under subtitle E
of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), and
``(iii) such transaction occurred at least 5 years before
the date of the complete or partial withdrawal,
then the special rules under subparagraph (B) shall be used
in applying section 4219(c) and section 4221(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1399(c) and 1401(a)) to the employer.
``(B) Special rules.--
``(i) Determination.--Notwithstanding section 4221(a)(3) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1401(a)(3))--
``(I) a determination by the plan sponsor under
subparagraph (A)(i) shall not be presumed to be correct, and
``(II) the plan sponsor shall have the burden to establish,
by a preponderance of the evidence, each and every element of
the claim for withdrawal liability.
``(ii) Procedure.--Notwithstanding section 4219(c) and
section 4221(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1399(c) and 1401(d)), if an employer
contests the plan sponsor's determination under subparagraph
(A)(i) through an arbitration proceeding pursuant to section
4221(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1401(a)), or through a claim
brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, the employer
shall not be obligated to make any withdrawal liability
payments until a final decision in the arbitration, or in
court, upholds the plan sponsor's determination.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any employer that receives a notification
under section 4219(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1399(b)(1)) after October 31,
2003.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Allard,
Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1858. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct
a loan repayment program to encourage the provision of veterinary
services in shortage and emergency situations; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the United States is experiencing a
serious shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural and inner-city
areas. Veterinarians are needed in these areas to support our Nation's
defense against bioterrorism, improve food safety, and prevent disease
outbreaks. Unfortunately, the financial constraints of loan repayment
obligations prevent many new veterinary graduates from working in these
underserved areas.
Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with the distinguished
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, legislation that addresses these
challenges. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist
veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to
provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has
determined that a shortage of qualified veterinarians exist.
In addition, at the request of the United States Department of
Agriculture, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional
loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to
provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations.
When epidemics of animal diseases break out in specific locations in
the United States, there is often a serious shortage of trained
veterinarians available to respond. Examples include the Exotic
Newcastle Disease outbreak in California and an outbreak of low
pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002. This legislation would
enable the Department of Agriculture to locate trained veterinarians
where they are needed in an emergency situation.
This legislation has the support of the Department of Agriculture and
the American Veterinary Medical Association which have worked together
to develop this legislation to ensure that we have the veterinary
health professionals available to protect our food supply. This is an
important step in resolving the serious shortage of veterinarians.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Senator Cochran, to
introduce the National Veterinary Medical Service Act. This bill will
offer veterinarians a valuable opportunity to serve where they are
needed most, while receiving help in paying off their often burdensome
student loans.
The cost of becoming a veterinarian is tremendous. Unless aspiring
veterinarians come from a wealthy background, they will have
accumulated substantial debt by the time they leave school. Because of
this debt, their postgraduate opportunities for employment are greatly
limited to the geographical areas and types of jobs where incomes meet
the burden of student loan repayment. By defraying some of this debt,
this bill will help veterinarians to take jobs where there are
shortages of veterinarians--such as meat and poultry inspectors in the
Federal Government, or in rural areas where large animal practitioners
are needed.
Many of these unfilled positions are essential to ensuring the health
and food security of Americans. We need to keep the Federal Government
staffed with skilled veterinarians in order to maintain a safe food
supply and the health of our livestock and poultry. We have all seen
the devastating effects diseases such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella
and Foot and Mouth Disease can have on the livestock and poultry
industries and the human and economic toll they can take.
I have worked on many initiatives to address the uneven distribution
of medical professionals. Although it often can require extra
incentives to get these professionals where they are needed, they often
transform these shortage areas by providing critically important
services. I have been very happy with the ability of past bills to
enable medical professionals to go where they are needed, and I am
confident the National Veterinary Medical Service Act will be as
successful for veterinarians. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1859. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revise the
age and service requirements for eligibility to receive retired pay for
non-regular service; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that would
not only lower the retirement age for reservists but offer incentives
for members of the National Guard and Reserves to remain longer in the
service of their country.
The bill, the Reservists Retention Act of 2003, lowers the age at
which reservists could draw full retirement benefits. Under current
law, reservists must complete 20 qualifying years, ``good years'', or
more in order to retire at age 60. A number of bills have been
introduced during this Congress that would lower the reserve retirement
age in various ways: to age 55; or with immediate eligibility as soon
as
[[Page S14811]]
the reservist completes 20 qualifying years; or with a two-for-one
formula where for every two years served beyond 20, the reservist will
earn a one-year drop in the retirement age.
These bills are all serious attempts to address the growing
recognition that our Reserve Forces are overburdened and under-
compensated. The Reservists Retention Act of 2003 aims to balance key
provisions from these bills by allowing reservists who serve beyond the
requisite 20 qualifying years to retire one year earlier for each year
of service beyond 20, down to the age of 55. For example, a reservist
who completes 23 qualifying years would be able to retire at 57; one
who completes 25 or more years would be able to retire at 55, but no
earlier than 55.
In the face of frequent and increasingly long deployments, offering
this ``one-for-one'' retirement formula for extended service will aid
in retaining experienced reservists in both the National Guard and
Reserves beyond the 20-year mark.
I believe this bill is fair and recognizes the drastically changed
nature of Reserve service. Since the end of the Cold War, employment of
our Reserve Forces has shifted profoundly, from being primarily an
expansion force to augment Active Forces during a major war, to the
situation today where DoD admits that no significant operation can be
undertaken without the Reserve Components.
Right now there are 155,000 National Guard and Reserves who are
mobilized and on active duty. Another 43,000 reservists have been
alerted that they can expect to be called up early next year. Those who
are assigned to Iraq can expect to be away from their families for 18
months, with 12 months of that time in Iraq.
We need to clearly demonstrate our commitment to the well being of
America's reservists and their families. The Reservists Retention Act
of 2003 acknowledges the increasing stress associated with reserve
service by providing an incentive to experienced personnel to remain in
the Reserves or National Guard until retirement.
They are doing so much for us; we should do no less for them.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
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. 1859
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR
SERVICE.
(a) Age and Service Requirements.--Subsection (a) of
section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is
entitled, upon application, to retired pay computed under
section 12739 of this title, if the person--
``(A) satisfies one of the combinations of requirements for
minimum age and minimum number of years of service (computed
under section 12732 of this title) that are specified in the
table in paragraph (2);
``(B) performed the last six years of qualifying service
while a member of any category named in section 12732(a)(1)
of this title, but not while a member of a regular component,
the Fleet Reserve, or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, except
that in the case of a person who completed 20 years of
service computed under section 12732 of this title before
October 5, 1994, the number of years of qualifying service
under this subparagraph shall be eight; and
``(C) is not entitled, under any other provision of law, to
retired pay from an armed force or retainer pay as a member
of the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
``(2) The combinations of minimum age and minimum years of
service required of a person under subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) for entitlement to retired pay as provided in
such paragraph are as follows:
``Age, in years, The minimum years of service required for that age is:
55............................................................25 ....
56............................................................24 ....
57............................................................23 ....
58............................................................22 ....
59............................................................21 ....
60.........................................................20.''.....
(b) 20-Year Letter.--Subsection (d) of such section is
amended by striking ``the years of service required for
eligibility for retired pay under this chapter'' in the first
sentence and inserting ``20 years of service computed under
section 12732 of this title.''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of
the first month beginning on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to retired
pay payable for that month and subsequent months.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1860. A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control
Policy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to introduce with my colleagues,
Senators Biden and Grassley, ``The Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill is a forward-looking
measure which will strengthen the Office of National Drug Control
Policy as we face the new challenges posed by illegal drugs.
I want to thank my colleagues Senators Biden and Grassley for working
with me to draft this important legislation. Senator Biden has a long
and impressive record in addressing the problem of illegal drugs. He is
considered the father of ONDCP. He had the vision, the commitment, and
the dedication to make it a reality. I thank him again for his work on
this proposal that we are introducing today.
I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his work on this important
legislation. Senator Grassley has been a tireless advocate in fighting
illegal drugs. As the chair of the Senate Caucus on International
Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley has demonstrated leadership and
commitment in addressing issues relating to domestic and international
drug trafficking.
The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today reauthorizes
ONDCP for 5 years and provides ONDCP with the necessary tools and
resources to: Develop national drug control policy; coordinate and
oversee the implementation of the national drug control policy; assess
and certify the adequacy of national drug control programs and the
budget for those programs; evaluate the effectiveness of National Drug
Control Program agencies' programs; and develop specific goals and
performance measurements needed to assess the effectiveness of the
national drug control policy and the programs of the national drug
control program agencies.
The legislation includes a number of reforms which will enhance
ONDCP's ability to serve as the coordinator of Federal, State, and
local policies aimed at reducing the availability of, and demand for,
illegal drugs. The bill: 1. expands ONDCP's role and authority in
overseeing the performance of federal agencies' drug control programs,
and requires ONDCP to develop specific goals and measurements to assess
the performance of Federal agencies; 2. requires ONDCP to develop a new
performance measurement system which includes annual and 5-year
objectives for assessing the National Drug Control Strategy; 3. expands
and increases authorized funding for the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Program designed to reduce illegal Drug trafficking
and drug production activities in designated areas; 4. creates a new
emerging threat fund for ONDCP to allocated to individual HIDTAs to
respond to emerging drug trafficking threats in specific HIDTAs; 5.
improves the Counter-Drug Technology Transfer program to provide
increased technologies for State and local law enforcement agencies,
and reforms the program to ensure timely delivery of such technologies;
and 6. reauthorizes and enacts reforms to the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign to ensure responsible use of Federal funds used to
support the campaign.
I want to take a moment to address several specific issues. First, I
am a strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program brings
together Federal, State, and local law enforcement, promotes
intelligence sharing among these law enforcement agencies, and ensures
coordinated and effective law enforcement strategies. The HIDTA program
has proven successful, and is even more important today because of the
FBI's need to reallocate resources from drug enforcement to terrorism.
Given this reality, it is critical that we support the HIDTA program as
an important resource in the fight against illegal drug traffickers.
Second, I want to express my continued support for the National Youth
Anti-Drug Medical Campaign. While I know the campaign has suffered from
some management problems in the last few years, I am confident that the
campaign is on the right track. I want to commend ONDCP Director John
Walters and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America President Roy
Bostock
[[Page S14812]]
for their commitment to working together, and for the steps they have
taken to ensure that the campaign operates effectively.
The legislation includes specific reforms which will support the
campaign and make sure that it operates in a cost-effective manner.
Specifically, the bill: 1. Delineates the specific roles and
responsibilities of ONDCP, the Partnership and a media buying
contractor; 2. restricts the use of funds for creative development of
advertisements, except for advertisements intended to reach a minority,
ethnic or other special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from
the Partnership; 3. requires the Director to obtain no-cost matches of
advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind contributions which
directly relate to substance abuse prevention and specially promote the
purposes of the campaign; 4. disqualifies any corporation, partnership
or individual from bidding on a media buying contract if such entity,
within the last 10 years, in connection with the national media
campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal offense, subject to
any Federal civil judgment or penalty in a civil proceeding involving
the United States; or settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential
proceeding; and 5. provides financial and performance accountability
requirements for the campaign.
I also wanted to highlight title VII of the bill--Drug Abuse
Education, Prevention, and Treatment. These provisions, which Senators
Biden, Grassley, Leahy and I authored in the 107th Congress as part of
S. 304, provide much-needed education, prevention and treatment
resources which are so critical to reducing the demand for illegal
drugs. As I have said before, our national drug strategy must embrace a
comprehensive policy that reduces the demand for, as well as the supply
of, drugs. To reduce the demand for drugs, we must redouble our efforts
at prevention and treatment. This Nation's battle with substance abuse
can be successful only through a balanced approach--one that supports
law enforcement but at the same time promotes education, prevention and
treatment.
Title VII of the bill includes a proposal to establish residential
drug treatment facilities for drug-addicted women who have young
children. Such facilities are in short supply in this the country, and
the problem has grown worse with an ever increasing number of women
with children who are abusing drugs.
Treatment is even more imperative for our troubled juveniles, the
vast majority of whom will go on to lead productive lives if we can
just break the addiction cycle. This bill provides
substantial resources to States for juvenile residential treatment
facilities and to Federal, State, and local agencies and private
service providers to coordinate the delivery of mental health and
substance abuse services to children at risk.
Finally, the bill eliminates a restriction in the Controlled
Substances Act and will permit medical practitioners to provide drug
addiction treatment in group practices. This provision will expand
treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access
to critical addiction treatments.
The proposed legislation we are introducing today will ensure that
Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--ONDCP as it
continues its critical role of coordinating our National Drug Control
Strategy to ensure that we reduce the availability of, and demand for,
illegal drugs in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003
Section-by-Section Analysis
title i--organization of office of national drug control policy and
roles and responsibilities
Sec. 101. Amendments to Definitions. This section updates
the definitions for ``Demand Reduction'', ``Office'', ``State
and Local Affairs'', and ``Supply Reduction'', and adds a
definition for ``Appropriate Congressional Committees''.
Sec. 102. Establishment of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. This section expands the responsibilities of
ONDCP to require ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of
National Drug Control Program Agencies' programs, and to
develop specific goals and performance measurements relevant
to assessing these programs. This section also defines the
responsibilities of the Director, and four Deputy Directors.
Sec. 103. Appointment and Responsibilities of the Director.
This section clarifies succession of the Director and Deputy
Directors when vacancies occur; specifies additional
responsibilities for the Director and ONDCP; clarifies
ONDCP's fund control notice authority and requires
appropriate reporting to Congress of such notices; creates a
United States Interdiction Coordinator; and requires ONDCP to
submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to address the
increased threat from South American heroin.
Sec. 104. Amendments to Ensure Coordination With Other
Agencies. This section requires the secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Defense to
submit to ONDCP and Congress reports relating to their
agencies' efforts to reduce the cultivation and supply of
illegal drugs relevant to the preparation and implementation
of the National Drug Control Strategy.
title ii--the national drug control strategy
Sec. 201. Annual Preparation and Submission of the National
Drug Control Strategy. This section retains the requirement
that the President submit to Congress by February 1st of each
year a National Drug Control Strategy which sets forth a
comprehensive plan for the year to reduce abuse and the
consequences of drug abuse by limiting the availability of
and demand for illegal drugs. The section also sets forth the
required contents of the strategy, and the process for
developing the strategy.
Sec. 202. Performance Measures. This section requires that
ONDCP submit with the National Drug Control Strategy a new
performance measurement system that includes annual and 5-
year targets for each of the National Drug Control Strategy
goals and objectives.
title iii--high intensity drug trafficking areas program and counter-
drug technology assessment center
Sec. 301. Purposes of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program. This section establishes the purposes of the HIDTA
program--to reduce drug trafficking and drug production in
designated areas in the United States by: (1) facilitating
cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies to share information and implement coordinated
enforcement activities; (2) enhancing intelligence sharing
among Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies; (3)
providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies
needed to design effective enforcement strategies and
operations; and (4) supporting coordinated law enforcement
strategies which maximize use of available resources to
reduce the supply of drugs in HIDTA designated areas.
Sec. 302. Designations of HIDTAs and Evaluation of HIDTA
Performance. This section includes minor changes to existing
law regarding factors for consideration in designating HIDTAs
and consultation with appropriate officials. In addition, the
section sets out specific requirements for an initial
evaluation of all existing HIDTAs and a requirement for
continuing evaluation of HIDTAs as part of the National Drug
Control Strategy.
Sec. 303. Organization of HIDTAs. This section established
minimum requirements for organization of HIDTAs, and
specifically requires that each HIDTA have an Executive Board
responsible for managing the HIDTA comprised of an equal
number of representatives from Federal law enforcement and
State and local law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 304. HIDTA Funding. This section authorizes funding
for HIDTAs: $280 million for FY 2004; $290 million for FY
2005 and 2006; and $300 million for FY 2007 and 2008;
requires the Director to submit to Congress a budget
justification document each year to support the funding
request for each HIDTA; and authorizes the Director to set
aside up to 10 percent of the total HIDTA funding request for
grants to respond to emerging drug trafficking threats.
Sec. 305. Assessment of Task Forces in HIDTA Areas. This
section requires the Director to submit to Congress, not
later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act, a report
assessing the number and operation of all task forces within
each HIDTA.
Sec. 306. Funding for Certain HIDTA Areas. This provision
dedicates $1 million of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
money to (1) prevent intimidation of potential witnesses in
drug cases and (2) combat drug trafficking by creating a
toll-free telephone hotline for use by the public to provide
information about drug activity.
Sec. 307. Report on Intelligence Sharing. This section
requires the Director to submit to Congress, not later than
180 days after the enactment of the Act, a report
evaluating existing and planned intelligence systems in
order to ensure effective information sharing among
Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies
responsible for drug trafficking and drug production
enforcement.
Sec. 308. Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center. This
section revised the title of the Director of Technology to
Chief Scientist for Technology; reauthorizes the Technology
Transfer Program; establishes procedures and reporting
requirements to ensure prompt transfer to technologies to
State and local law enforcement agencies; and authorizes use
of such technologies for homeland security purposes.
[[Page S14813]]
title iv--reauthorizaiton and improvement of the national youth anti-
drug media campaign
Sec. 401. Short Title. This section establishes the title,
``National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Reauthorization Act
of 2003.''
Sec. 402. Purposes of the National Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. This section clarifies the purposes of the
campaign: (1) preventing drug abuse among young people in the
United States; (2) increasing awareness of adults of the
impact of drug abuse on young people; and (3) encouraging
parents and other interested adults to discuss the dangers of
drug use with young people.
Sec. 403. Roles and Responsibilities of the Director, the
Responsibilities of the Director, the Partnership for a Drug
Free America, and a Media Buying Contractor. This section
establishes the roles and responsibilities of the Director,
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and a Media Buying
Contractor. The Director, in consultation with PDFA, shall
determine the overall purposes and strategy of the national
media campaign.
Sec. 404. Responsible Use of Federal Funds for the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This section requires the
Director to allocate sufficient funds to meet the goals of
the national media campaign; restricts the use of such funds
for creative development of advertisements, except for
advertisements intended to reach a minority, ethnic or other
special audience that cannot be otherwise obtained from PDFA;
requires the Director to obtain no cost matches of
advertising broadcast times, print space or in-kind
contributions which directly relate to substance abuse
prevention and specifically promote the purposes set forth in
section 102(a); and exempts any no cost match advertisements
from the sponsorship identification provisions in section 317
of the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 103(c)(2)).
In addition, this section ensures responsible use of
federal funds by requiring: not less than 89 percent of
appropriated amounts for each fiscal year be used for the
purpose of advertising time and space (Section 103(d)(1)(A));
no more than $5,000,000 is used in each fiscal year to
develop creative content by an entity other than the
Partnership for a Drug Free America (Section 103(d)(1)(B));
disqualification of any corporation, partnership or
individual from bidding on a contract if such entity, within
the last 10 years, in connection with the national media
campaign has been convicted of any Federal criminal
offense, subject to any Federal civil judgment or penalty
in a civil proceeding involving the United States; or
settled any Federal civil proceeding or potential
proceeding (Section 103(d)(1)(C)(i-iii); and ONDCP to re-
solicit bids for any existing contracts with a
disqualified bidder, provided that the national media
campaign is not interrupted during the re-solicitation
process.
Finally, this section includes financial and performance
accountability requirements, and expands ONDCP's reporting
requirements to Congress on issues related to the national
media campaign.
Sec. 405. GAO Audit of National Media Campaign. This
section directs GAO to conduct an audit of the national media
campaign and submit a report to Congress, within one year
after the date of enactment of the Act.
Sec. 406. Authorization for the National Media Campaign.
This section authorizes funding for the national media
campaign of $195 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
title v--authorizations and extension of termination date
Sec. 501. Authorization of Appropriations. This section
extends the authorization date for ONDCP from 2004 through
2008.
Sec. 502. Extension of Termination Date. This section
extends the termination date of the Act from September 30,
2003 to September 30, 2008.
title vi--designation of united states anti-doping agency
Sec. 601. Designation of United States Anti-Doping Agency.
This section designates the United States Anti-Doping Agency:
to serve as the independent anti-doping organization for
amateur athletic competitions recognized by the United States
Olympic Committee; to ensure that athletes participating in
amateur athletic activities do not use performance-enhancing
drugs; to implement anti-doping education programs; and (4)
to serve as the United States representative responsible for
coordination with other similar anti-doping organizations.
Sec. 602. Authorization of Appropriations. This section
authorizes funding for the United States Anti-Doping Agency
for fiscal years 2004 through 2008: for fiscal year 2004,
$7.2 million; for fiscal year 2005, $9.2 million; for fiscal
year 2006, $9.5 million; for fiscal year 2007, $9.9 million;
and for fiscal year 2008, $10.5 million.
TITLE VII--DRUG EDUCATION, PREVENTION, AND TREATMENT
Sec. 701. Expansion of Substance Abuse Education and
Prevention Efforts. This section authorizes the Administrator
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration to make grants to public and non-profit
private entities to carry out school-based programs
concerning the dangers of abuse of and addiction to illicit
drugs and to carry out community-based abuse and addiction
prevention programs that are effective and research-based. In
awarding grants, the Administrator is required to give
priority to rural and urban areas that are experiencing a
high rate or rapid increase in abuse. The section authorizes
$100 million to be appropriated for FY 2004 and such sums as
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.
Sec. 702. Funding for Rural States and Economically
Depressed Communities. This section authorizes $50 million
for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2007 for grants to
States to provide treatment facilities in rural and
economically depressed communities that have high rates of
drug addiction but lack resources to provide adequate
treatment.
Sec. 703. Residential Treatment Programs for Juveniles.
This section authorizes $100 million a year for each fiscal
year of 2005 through 2007 for grants to States to provide
residential treatment facilities designed to treat drug
addicted juveniles.
Sec. 704. Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison Programs
Administered by State or Local Prosecutors. This section
authorizes funding of $30 million for each fiscal year of
2004 through 2006 to create a pilot project for the Attorney
General to award grants to State or local prosecutors to
develop, implement or expand residential drug treatment
programs as an alternative to prison drug treatment programs.
Sec. 705. Funding for Residential Treatment Centers for
Women and Children. This section authorizes $10 million for
each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2007 for grants to
States to provide residential treatment facilities for women
who have minor children and who are addicted to
methamphetamine, heroin, and other drugs. Such facilities
offer specialized treatment for addicted mothers and allow
their children to reside with them in the facility or nearby
while undergoing treatment.
TITLE VIII--ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2003
Sec. 801. Short Title. This section creates a short title,
``The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.''
Sec. 802. Amendments to the Controlled Substances Act. This
section amends the definition of ``anabolic steroid'' under
21 U.S.C. 802, to remove the requirement that such a
substance promote muscle growth, and thereby encompass
steroid precursors such as androstenedione and other similar
substances--many of which have been developed since the
Steroid Control Act of 1990. This section also makes
technical corrections to the current list of anabolic
steriods, and adds known steroid precursors to the
anabolic steroid list except dehydroepiandrosterone
(DHEA). Finally, this section modifies the definition of
``felony drug offense'' in 21 U.S.C. 802 to apply to
offenses involving anabolic steroids.
Sec. 803. Sentencing Commission Guidelines. This section
directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and
revise the sentencing guidelines, as necessary, for crimes
involving anabolic steroids.
Sec. 804. Prevention and Education Programs. This section
authorizes $15 million for each of the fiscal years of 2004
through 2009 for the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry
out science-based education programs in elementary and
secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of
steroids and steroid precursors.
Sec. 805. National Household survey on Drug Use and Health.
This section authorizes $1 million for each of the fiscal
years of 2004 through 2009 for the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to include questions concerning the use of
steroids and steroid precursors in the National Survey on
Drug Use and Health, an annual survey conducted to measure
the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United
States.
title ix--national guard counter-drug schools
Sec. 901. National Guard Counter-Drug Schools. This section
authorizes $30 million for each fiscal year of 2004 through
2008 for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to establish
and operate five National Guard Counter-Drug Schools to
provide training in drug interdiction and demand reduction
activities to Federal, State and local law enforcement
agencies, community-based organizations, and other
organizations engaged in counter-drug activities.
title x--miscellaneous provisions
Sec. 1001. Repeals. This section repeals the President's
Council on Counter-Narcotics and the Parents Advisory Council
on Youth Drug Abuse, neither of which has ever met.
Sec. 1002. Amendment to the Higher Education Act. This
section clarifies and narrows Section 484(r)(1) of the Higher
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1) to prohibit the award of
any federal education grant to any student who has been
convicted of any offense under Federal or state law involving
possession or sale of a controlled substance while they are
receiving a federal education grant.
Sec. 1003. Controlled Substances Act Amendment. This
section makes a technical correction to the Drug Addiction
Treatment Act of 2000 which inadvertently classified HMOs and
other large health systems in the same category as small
group practices of physicians. Additionally, this section
clarifies that the reporting requirements under the Act apply
three years after approval of the controlled substance, not
three years from the date of passage of the Act.
[[Page S14814]]
Sec. 1004. Exportation of Narcotic and Nonnarcotic Drugs.
This Section authorizes companies to export controlled
substances to central warehouse facilities outside the United
States for delivery to locations in other countries, subject
to the DEA certification requirement.
Sec. 1005. Study of Work Place Environment at ONDCP. This
section directs GAO to conduct a study and report to Congress
on the workplace environment at ONDCP.
Sec. 1006. Requirement for Latin American Heroin Strategy.
This section requires the Director to submit to Congress a
comprehensive strategy that addresses the increased threat
from Latin American heroin, and in particular Colombian
heroin.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the so-called ``Drug Czar's'' office with Senator Hatch,
the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley, the
Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to
reauthorize the drug director's office for 5 years. No matter what
perspective any of us have on a specific drug policy, this legislation
is about whether we will have a drug director and a drug office to be
responsible for developing, coordinating and enacting a national drug
policy.
Some twenty years ago I began fighting to create the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) because I believed then, as I
believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would
coordinate Federal drug policy. I argued that Cabinet-level status was
necessary because this individual needed to have the clout to stop
interagency feuding, fight for necessary budgetary resources and
decertify inadequate agency drug budgets. But just as important, I
believed that the public needed to have one high profile person to hold
accountable for developing and implementing an effective national
strategy.
In 1982 my bill creating a national drug director passed as part of a
larger crime bill, but the President vetoed it. He, like all
Presidents--both Democrats and Republicans did not like the idea of
being held accountable for what was seen as an intractable problem. But
I kept at it and six years later the bill became law.
Before we had a drug czar's office there was no official in charge of
the Administration's drug effort. And because there was no one Cabinet
official in charge, other members of the President's Cabinet could duck
responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues. And that meant
no Administration talked enough or did enough about the drug problem
and no Administration was held accountable on drug policy. I'm glad
that those days are behind us.
As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, the
drug czar deals with almost every federal agency, from the Department
of Justice on drug courts to the Department of Homeland Security on
interdiction issues to the State Department and the Department of
Defense on Plan Colombia to the Department of Health and Human Services
on groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain chemistry. It
is the drug director's job to make sure that all of these wide ranging
issues are addressed in the annual drug strategy so that our national
policy is a balanced one, giving proper attention to drug enforcement,
drug treatment, drug prevention and research.
That is why the bill that Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley and I are
introducing today retains the provision in current law requiring the
Drug Director to submit to Congress an annual drug strategy, detailing
how he proposes to address all aspects of our national drug problem. We
also ask him to reach out to state and local officials not only to get
their input but also to get their support to advance the national goals
on the local level.
And just as with my original drug czar legislation, the
reauthorization bill retains as its central goal holding every
Administration and every President accountable on the drug issue by
requiring ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policy and
programs and develop specific performance measurements and goals.
The bill also includes a number of changes to strengthen current drug
control policies and programs. In the area of law enforcement, the bill
reauthorizes and increases the funding for the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program which helps to coordinate federal,
state and local efforts to reduce drug trafficking and production in
designated areas. The bill also requires an evaluation of each
individual HIDTA to monitor the program's effectiveness and requires
ONDCP to report to Congress on intelligence sharing among HIDTAs and
other law enforcement entities.
In terms of prevention and treatment efforts, the legislation
includes a number of important provisions. First, it reauthorizes the
National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign and modifies the program so
that it will be more accountable. Second, it includes a number of
provisions that the Senate passed unanimously last Congress as part of
the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act to expand drug
treatment for rural states, economically depressed communities,
juveniles and women with children as well as to create a demonstration
project to fund drug treatment alternatives to prison programs
administered by state and local prosecutors. And finally, the bill
amends the Higher Education Act to clarify that those convicted of drug
offenses are not prohibited from receiving federal student aid unless
they commit a drug felony while they are receiving the grant, loan or
work assistance.
I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley for their
cooperation in crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. Both Senators have been leaders on drug
policy issues and I am glad to work with them on this important matter.
I hope that the rest of my colleagues will support this legislation and
that we can pass it without delay.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my comments to those
of Senator Hatch and Senator Biden on the re-authorization of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug use in America may not be
on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, but remains
a deep concern for many people in small towns and local neighborhoods
where the effects of drug abuse are painfully felt. Drugs pose an
immediate threat to their lives, and the lives of their children.
The re-authorization of ONDCP is about the leadership role we expect
the Federal government to play in confronting the issue. I want to take
a moment to highlight a few revisions we have proposed in an effort to
strengthen the leadership role that ONDCP should play.
The legislation we are introducing today will improve the capacities
of the Office to coordinate our Federal efforts against drug use. We
have strengthened the role of the Deputy Director of State and Local
Affairs, because we recognize that the coordination of activities,
information sharing, and resource allocations between Federal, State,
and local law enforcement is increasingly critical.
As everyone is this body knows, there isn't enough money to go around
to fully fund all of the worthy causes that are out there, and part of
our job is making these tough choices. By increasing the coordination
between resources that are already deployed, we can increase the
effectiveness of these efforts without having to reinvent how business
gets done. ONDCP is an ideal place to play broker over these efforts
and move this forward.
We have also included provisions clarifying the authorities and
responsibilities of the offices of Demand Reduction and Supply
Reduction. Much of ONDCP's responsibilities involves coordinating the
activities and focus of other Departments. There is no one simple
solution to our drug problem, and ONDCP has a responsibility to ensure
that Federal prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and interdiction
initiatives cover the full spectrum of opportunities available.
Accordingly, our bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the
various Deputies at ONDCP to strengthen their ability to coordinate the
counterdrug activities both within ONDCP and those of other
Departments.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy also has responsibility
for the execution and effectiveness of the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas program, or HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has
proven to be an effective
[[Page S14815]]
mechanism for getting multiple law enforcement agencies from multiple
levels of government to work together. For a relatively modest amount,
participating law enforcement agencies have benefited tremendously from
the increased information sharing and coordination that HIDTAs
generate.
However, there was legitimate concern over the lack of performance
measures for the HIDTA program. In addition, there seemed to be some
confusion over what the overall purpose of a HIDTA designation was.
finally, funding for the HIDTA program has been stifled because of a
fear that ONDCP may cut the amount for one particular HIDTA in favor of
another. Our legislation addresses these concerns in ways we believe
will improve the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the
program.
First, this legislation establishes that the purpose of the HIDTA
program is fourfold: facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and
local law enforcement; enhancing intelligence sharing; providing
reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies for the design of
effective enforcement strategies and operations; and supporting
coordinated strategies designed to reduce the supply of illegal drugs
within a designated area. By focusing the purpose of a HIDTA on
improving the capabilities and capacities of those within the HIDTA, we
will strengthen the effectiveness of these designated areas to go after
drugs.
Second, the legislation creates an evaluation mechanism which
requires ONDCP to first establish specific purposes and measures for
each HIDTA, and then evaluate the performance of each HIDTA based on
the purposes and measures that were established. Because threats each
HIDTA faces are unique, the performance of each HIDTA will be evaluated
against the goals which are established for that particular HIDTA,
rather than an undefined National standard. Not only should this give
Congress a better understanding of the performance of this program, but
it should give ONDCP a mechanism to better evaluate and support the
particular needs of individual HIDTAs.
Third, this legislation requires ONDCP to itemize how much it
believes each HIDTA should be funded when the budget request is
submitted, rather than waiting until after the appropriations process
is complete. Combined with the previous two changes, these changes will
combine to give ONDCP the flexibility it needs and the HIDTA program
the credibility it needs to expand its leadership and funding for the
coordination of law enforcement counterdrug operations.
The final section of this legislation that I would like to mention is
the National Media Campaign. I will be honest: I am still not convinced
that this program makes the best possible use of drug prevention
dollars. But I am in the minority here. Almost everyone I've talked to
believes our prevention efforts will be better with the campaign than
without it--even if the evidence that the campaign makes a difference
is questionable, at best. If the campaign is going to continue, and
this legislation does extend the Campaign, I think it's important that
it get back to the parameters that were established when it was
initially pitched to and authorized by congress.
I think what we have here is a good start in this direction, and I
appreciate my colleagues' willingness to take my concerns into
consideration. The legislation we have drafted refocuses the campaign
toward its initial, buy-one-get-one-free hypothesis. We've proposed
enhancing the capacity of the campaign to measure its effectiveness, in
an effort to move beyond the 6-month time lag that has hampered past
measurements of performance. We have also included a clearer outline of
what should, and should not, be paid for by the campaign. And we have
created a clear role for the Partnership for a Drug Free America, who
has been working on this effort for much longer than Congress has
funded it.
All in all, I think we have a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a
good bill. I look forward to continue working with the Committee, our
colleagues in the House, and the Administration with the hope that we
can re-authorize ONDCP expeditiously.
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 1861. A bill to provide a framework for consideration by the
legislative and executive branches of proposed unilateral economic
sanctions in order to ensure coordination of United States policy with
respect to trade, security, and human rights; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy
Reform Act.
The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance
through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral
economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a
set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative
process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral
sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does
it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the
principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and
public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself.
Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed
and often harm the United States more than the target country.
Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings
and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our
international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those
markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our
ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad.
Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many
unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American
companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly,
American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international
competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established
market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to
our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide
humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our
international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral
sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create
the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions
are actually undermining our own interests in the world.
Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There
will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are
so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response
by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and
justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the
attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change
behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for
creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems.
But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated.
Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often
the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid
desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent
foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American
interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight-
jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions
on our own security and prosperity before we enact them.
To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions
decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines
and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition
of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing
unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings
by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed
sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital
markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the
prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to
the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American
objectives.
In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more
active consultation between the Congress and the President and for
Presidential waiver authority if the President determines
[[Page S14816]]
it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an
executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with
evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing
appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of
such sanctions.
The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply
only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It
also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are
intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade
remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access
restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial
or trade laws.
Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe
should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral
economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort. To the
extent possible, other means of persuasion and influence ought to be
exhausted first; if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow
the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we
harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and
international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and
are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to
obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as
possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent
possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian
population. We should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign
policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to
function; our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and
achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a
minimum the adverse affects to our sanctions on our friends and allies;
we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse
consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that
prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a
mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target
country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems
through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or
rewards; the President of the United States should always have options
that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to
circumstance and nuance; the Congress should be vigilant by insuring
that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law;
and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our
actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that
is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international
obligations and objectives.
An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for
a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in
satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous
posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own
prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on
a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests.
The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the
world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however,
whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries
whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to
influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my
judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best
answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that
they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By
improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our
information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign
policy will be more effective.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1867. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to encourage
greater recycling of certain beverage containers through the use of
deposit refund incentives; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe
that next season, my team will be victorious. I bring this same level
of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and
litter caused by discarded beverage containers. I rise today to
introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003,
the Bottle Bill, convinced that this is our year.
I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed
its Bottle Bill in 1972 when I was State Attorney General. In 1975,
during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I
introduced a national Bottle Bill, closely resembling Vermont's very
successful example. Last Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing in
many years on recycling, in which the Committee heard expert testimony
on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers.
The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes
sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see
a dramatic improvement in our environment. One hundred and twenty
billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``B''--beverage containers
were wasted by not being recycled in 2001. If we could raise the
Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of
300 million barrels of oil over the next ten years and eliminate 4
million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have
enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter
by up to 84 percent.
These savings may sound unrealistic. But, in Vermont alone, recycling
efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons
of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all
industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in
Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those
savings sound remarkable.
Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience
demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more
effective than voluntary efforts. The ten States that have implemented
deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States
combined. While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling
efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States
account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers.
My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003,
strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of
individual states, and the needs of a healthy environment. Unlike
traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market
incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and
allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit-
return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle
bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their
own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance
standard.
This Saturday, November 15, 2003, is America Recycles Day in Vermont
and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001
America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement
to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods. The
importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public
service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it
to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every
day of the year.
Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive
statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal
waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers
were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials
recovery facilities. The benefit of these programs is, of course, that
they help keep our Green Mountains green. I commend and thank Governor
Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve
the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor
Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container
recycling programs at 20 State information centers. In the first phase,
in less than two months, over 200 pounds
[[Page S14817]]
of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,000 visitors
passing through one such information center in Williston, VT.
And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me
and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original
cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility
Act of 2003.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
for the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, a bill
introduced today by Senator Jim Jeffords. This bill serves a need that
we already have seen in Hawaii--to reduce litter and increase recycling
by encouraging businesses to work together in a partnership with
government to reclaim glass, plastic bottles, and cans that accumulate
on our shores, in our landfills, and along our streets.
The bill sets up a deposit charge that can be reclaimed when the
beverage container is returned. The legislation sets a measurable
performance standard of 80 percent recovery rate for used, empty
beverage containers for recycling or reuse. The bill was crafted to
address the concerns of industry, retain the authority of individual
States, and promote a healthy environment. It empowers the beverage
container industry to design a container recycling program that best
fits its business requirements to meet the 80 percent goal. States like
Hawaii and 10 other States across the Nation that already have bottle
bills will be able to continue their programs as long as the programs
meet the national performance standard. It aims to protect and preserve
our Nation's natural resources and reduce costs to counties, cities,
and residents. In my own State, Hawaii recently enacted a beverage
container bill which will take effect in 2005.
As our Nation prepares to celebrate America Recycles Day on Saturday,
November 15, I am optimistic that the National Beverage Producer
Responsibility Act of 2003 will help keep our parks, beaches, and
roadsides cleaner; reduce burdens on landfills; decrease ground water
contamination; save energy; lower taxes for disposal costs; and create
new industries and jobs.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Smith, and Mr.
Santorum):
S.J. Res. 24. A joint resolution providing for the recognition of
Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel before the United States
recognizes a Palestinian state, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution
regarding the status of Jerusalem, and its potential in catapulting the
Middle East Peace process forward.
Just prior to returning from the summer recess, I traveled to Israel
for five days on one of the most important official trips I have made
since coming to the Congress in 1994. I have been to Israel before, but
this trip had a special meaning for me both in terms of who and what I
saw.
I arrived in the aftermath of the bus bombing in Jerusalem that
killed Yeshiva students going to the Wailing Wall. The same week I was
there, Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen lost a no confidence vote
and conceded to a shake up of the Palestinian cabinet. A wave of
Palestinian terrorism ensued and it appeared that no Palestinian
leader, at that time, had the will or the desire to contain terrorism
much less stamp it out so that President Bush's Roadmap for Peace could
proceed.
On my way from the airport in Tel Aviv to the hotel in Jerusalem, I
made a brief visit to a town called B'nei Berek, a small Orthodox
suburb of Tel Aviv. B'nei Berek was established shortly after the
founding of Israel. In the intervening 50 year period, this town has
turned into a thriving city of over 200,000 people--a very special
place for the Orthodox community in Israel.
While I was there I met with one of the most respected and senior
Rabbis in Israel. This man lived in a very modest apartment on an
average street, and you would never know that he was one of the most
important theological scholars in Israel. His home was lined with
volume after volume of theological text, but he spoke plainly and
deliberately about the importance of his faith and the role of faith in
the lives of the Jewish people. The history of the Jewish people seemed
to be etched onto his face and into his eyes.
On this same trip I met with the Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Former Israeli Defense
Force General Ephraim Eitam and Ambassador John Wolf, who is charged
with monitoring the implementation of commitments in the peace process.
One evening, I went on a tour of the Western Wall and the tunnels
that run underneath the current level of buildings around the old city
wall. The tour took over an hour and explored some of the most exciting
history about Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple.
There is a point in the tunnels that leads to an old entrance into
the old city that, if opened, would lead to a special place below where
the Temple once stood. This place, I'm sure my colleagues as children
in Sunday school learned, is called the Holy of Holies.
The Temple was built around this place, and it could not be entered
except by the High Priest on Yom Kippur. It is the place, described in
the Book of Genesis, where Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac. It
is also the place where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This was a
unique experience.
Jerusalem is a special place. It is extremely important to the peace
process. In my hand is the ``Jerusalem Resolution,'' a proposition
which I hope will propel the peace process forward by moving two big
issues forward.
This resolution seeks to make it U.S. policy that prior to the
recognition by the U.S. of a Palestinian State, the U.S. Embassy must
be moved to Jerusalem and that Jerusalem be declared as the undivided
capital of Israel. This resolution would establish an important,
tangible asset on both sides for advancing the peace process.
For the past decade, we have attempted to forge a peace agreement
between the Palestinians and Israelis on a design of land for peace.
This model has failed. We should attempt a new way. If we address two
major issues at the outset of vital interest to the ultimate desire for
peace, we can help to create a powerful momentum for peace. This bill
pushes for the resolution of the status of Jerusalem in conjunction
with the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for three
thousand years, and is the center of Jewish faith and culture.
Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's Government, and is the only capital
city designated by the host country in which the U.S. does not maintain
an embassy nor recognize it as the capital.
In this resolution, three months prior to the recognition of a
Palestinian state, the United States must move its embassy to Jerusalem
and the status of Jerusalem must be resolved by the international
recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in my effort. The peace
process is in need of a major paradigm shift. We can't continue to bog
ourselves down in the mechanics of the process. We must think grand
about this problem and move beyond the status quo.
This resolution is a challenge to this body to change its perspective
on this issue. I hope in the coming months we can engage in serious
debate over peace and the way toward it in the Middle East.
____________________