[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.

                          ____________________