[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 28, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4494-S4504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Bennett, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 2353. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic 
Mapping Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators 
Murkowski, Domenici, Burns, Roberts, Bunning, Cochran, Crapo, Bennett, 
and Reid, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004. 
This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves 
to be reauthorized.
  The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 
1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 
(NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the 
State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with 
urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse 
clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, 
mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, 
and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as 
providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts: 
FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, 
StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a 
program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our 
colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually 
by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to 
provide future guidance.
  FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of 
Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and 
cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also 
coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a 
competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic 
mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of 
this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched 
one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State 
Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas 
and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program 
ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with 
widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. To date 
approximately $50M has been awarded to State geological surveys through 
StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by 
State dollars.
  In 2003, more than 450 new digital geologic maps were published by 
NCGMP, covering over 120,000 square miles of the Nation. These high 
quality geologic maps will be used by a very broad base of customers 
including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land 
managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on 
how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the 
National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users.
  EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities 
across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training 
are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students 
go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, 
energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists 
themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a 
remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and 
independent field mapping experience. At this very moment, a former 
EdMap student, Sergeant Alexander Stewart, is serving his Nation in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, where his geologic mapping skills have been 
put to excellent use training his unit in all aspects of map making and 
interpretation.
  Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act 
benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, 
usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so 
that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely 
consideration.
  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:

[[Page S4495]]

                                S. 2353

       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 ``National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) although significant progress has been made in the 
     production of geologic maps since the establishment of the 
     national cooperative geologic mapping program in 1992, no 
     modern, digital, geologic map exists for approximately 75 
     percent of the United States;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``homeland and'' 
     after ``planning for'';
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``predicting'' and 
     inserting ``identifying'';
       (C) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K); 
     and
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
       ``(J) recreation and public awareness; and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (9), by striking ``important'' and 
     inserting ``available''.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       Section 2(b) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. 31a(b)) is amended by striking ``protection'' and 
     inserting ``management''.

     SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR ACTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL 
                   SURVEY.

       Section 4(b)(1) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 
     1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c(b)(1)) is amended in the second 
     sentence--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``not later than'' and 
     all that follows through the semicolon and inserting ``not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National 
     Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004;'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not later than'' and 
     all that follows through ``in accordance'' and inserting 
     ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004 in 
     accordance''; and
       (3) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (C), 
     by striking ``not later than'' and all that follows through 
     ``submit'' and inserting ``submit biennially''.

     SEC. 5. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

       Section 4(c)(2) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 
     1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``geophysical-map data base, geochemical-
     map data base, and a''; and
       (2) by striking ``provide'' and inserting ``provides''.

     SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM COMPONENTS.

       Section 4(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the National Geologic Mapping Act 
     of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c(d)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) the needs of land management agencies of the 
     Department of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 7. GEOLOGIC MAPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 5(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. 31d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a designee'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     of the Interior or a designee from a land management agency 
     of the Department of the Interior'';
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after ``Energy or a designee,''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``, and the Assistant to the President for 
     Science and Technology or a designee''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``Not later than'' and all that follows 
     through ``consultation'' and inserting ``In consultation'';
       (B) by striking ``Chief Geologist, as Chairman'' and 
     inserting ``Associate Director for Geology, as Chair''; and
       (C) by striking ``one representative from the private 
     sector'' and inserting ``2 representatives from the private 
     sector''.

     SEC. 8. FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL GEOLOGIC-MAP DATABASE.

       Section 7(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. 31f(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``geologic map'' and 
     inserting ``geologic-map''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``information on how to obtain'' after ``that includes''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``under the Federal 
     component and the education component'' and inserting ``with 
     funding provided under the national cooperative geologic 
     mapping program established by section 4(a)''.

     SEC. 9. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       Section 8 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31g) is amended by striking ``Not later'' and all that 
     follows through ``biennially'' and inserting ``Not later than 
     3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic 
     Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004 and biennially''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; ALLOCATION.

       Section 9 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31h) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act $64,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``2000'' and inserting ``2005'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``48'' and inserting 
     ``50''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking 2 and inserting ``4''.
                                 ______
                                 

                By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):

  S. 2354. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly 
conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as 
a national scenic trail or a national historic trail; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator 
Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill 
would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct 
a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona 
Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill 
is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by 
Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.
  Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, 
Congress has designated twenty national trails. This legislation is the 
first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona 
Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a 
part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation 
will be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National 
Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.
  The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, 
mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. 
The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico 
border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip 
District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail 
winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the 
Western United States.
  For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, state and local agencies, as 
well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a 
partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. 
Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline 
the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of 
diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.
  The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of 
ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing 
trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through 
seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the 
Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland 
desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered 
San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in 
elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that 
a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. 
The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, 
and developed urban areas, as well as remote, pristine wildlands.
  With nearly 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the 
Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks 
recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider 
themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails 
each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the 
designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National 
Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open 
space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, 
snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.
  I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in 
building

[[Page S4496]]

a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception 
to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-distance 
trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona 
Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the 
natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to 
use and enjoy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 2355. A bill to make available hazardous duty incentive pay to 
uniformed service members performing firefighting duties; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Pay 
for Military Firefighters Act. This bill authorizes hazardous duty 
incentive pay for our Nation's military firefighters.
  It may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues, as it did to me, 
that military firefighters are not currently eligible to receive 
hazardous duty incentive pay. This issue was first brought to my 
attention in a letter I received several months ago from an Air Force 
Staff Sergeant stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The letter 
stated, ``We are in one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We 
face danger not only when we deploy like other jobs that get this pay 
but we face hazards at our home station.''
  As the Staff Sergeant said, firefighting is in itself a dangerous 
profession, but military firefighters must confront a wide variety of 
threats and are exposed to toxic materials distinctive to the military. 
The fires they fight often involve fuel and propellants, munitions, or 
chemicals which present unique and extremely dangerous situations. 
These servicemembers face risks not only when in combat, but as a part 
of their every day duties. Despite these dangers, most of the 
approximate 5,000 military firefighters serving in the Armed Forces are 
not eligible to receive hazardous duty incentive pay. If these 
servicemembers are willing to take the risk, our nation should be 
willing to provide them the benefits they deserve.
  In addition to being the right thing to do, I believe there are 
broader reasons to support hazardous duty incentive pay for military 
firefighters. First, there is an issue of fairness. Federal civilian 
firefighters, who also face great risk and are critically important to 
protecting our nation, rightly have risk calculated into their 
compensation package. This creates a situation where federal civilian 
and military firefighters, who often work side-by-side, are exposed to 
the same risk but are compensated differently.
  Second, it is my understanding that each of the Services supports 
providing this benefit to our military firefighters because they see it 
as a manning and retention issue. In fact, according to survey results, 
lack of hazardous duty incentive pay was cited by military firefighters 
as one of the top three reasons for morale and retention problems. The 
Air Force has specifically stated that the lack of hazardous duty 
incentive pay is a primary factor in poor retention rates among its 
military firefighters. In my view, providing hazardous duty incentive 
pay is essential to retaining our best firefighters and maintaining 
this crucial capability within our Armed Forces.
  Mr. President, I am pleased the Fair Pay for Military firefighters 
Act has been endorsed by both the Fleet Reserve Association and the Air 
Force Sergeants Association and I thank them for their assistance in 
preparing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text 
of two letters from these distinguished organizations be printed in the 
Record and the bill be printed in the Record.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Pay for 
Military Firefighters Act and to extending hazardous duty incentive pay 
benefits to our nation's military firefighters. There can be no doubt 
that firefighting is one of the most dangerous professions. Military 
firefighters understand this threat and deserve the recognition of 
receiving hazardous duty incentive pay for the sacrifices they make and 
the risks they take.
  There being no objection, the two letters and the text of the bill 
were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 22, 2004.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) 
     has been advised that you plan to introduce a bill to 
     recognize the regimen that requires military firefighters to 
     put themselves in harm's way by authorizing their eligibility 
     to receive Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP). FRA strongly 
     endorses this initiative.
       There is no doubt these firefighters rate special 
     consideration in the performance of their duties. They race 
     to quell fires placing themselves in jeopardy from dangerous 
     traffic conditions. They rush into burning buildings to fight 
     flames and smoke, rescue persons in peril, and face the 
     possibility of structures falling on them at any moment. They 
     rush to stop burning aircraft from exploding, fight toxic 
     chemical spills, rescue victims in danger of losing their 
     lives, resolve hazardous material conditions, and even free 
     kittens caught in tree tops. All are dangerous and can be 
     life threatening at any time.
       It is the Association's understanding that the military 
     services are in favor of authorizing this special pay to 
     their military firefighters. However, there are forces within 
     the Administration that believe military firefighters, all 
     enlisted service members, do not deserve HDIP. But the 
     question arises that if their sacrifices are not worthy of 
     recognition then why do civilian personnel, working side-by-
     side with these uniformed personnel, receive a risk factor 
     incorporated in their federal pay checks?
       FRA applauds your leadership on this proposal, and remains 
     committed to working with you and your staff on its 
     advancement. Please contact our legislative department at 
     (703) 683-1400 if the Association can be of assistance.
                                                 Joseph L. Barnes,
     National Executive Secretary.
                                  ____

                                               Air Force Sergeants


                                                  Association,

                                 Temple Hills, MD, April 23, 2004.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of the 135,000 members of 
     this association, thank you for introducing legislation which 
     would provide Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for military 
     firefighters. Your efforts will undoubtedly pave the way to 
     correct an inequity that senior military leaders have 
     identified as a contributing factor to low retention and 
     morale among enlisted firefighters.
       Military firefighters face hazardous duty every day--not 
     just in wartime. They are confronted with fuel fires and 
     explosive situations on our flightlines and in the 
     environments unique to executing the military missions 
     required to protect this nation. Like you, we are extremely 
     proud of their courage and dedication. We are pleased you 
     have taken the lead to honor them and to provide them 
     equitable compensation for their intrepidity.
       Senator Johnson, thank you again for your leadership and 
     your dedication to enlisted military members. AFSA will 
     continue to inform Airmen of all ranks at our chapters around 
     the world that they have a dedicated champion in Washington 
     thanks to your untiring efforts. We look forward to continue 
     working with you on this and other matters of mutual concern. 
     Please let me know when we can be of further assistance to 
     you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard M. Dean,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                                S. 2355

       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 ``Fair Pay for Military 
     Firefighters Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF HAZARDOUS DUTY INCENTIVE PAY FOR 
                   MILITARY FIREFIGHTERS.

       (a) Additional Type of Duty Eligible for Pay.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 301 of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(13) involving regular participation as a firefighting 
     crew member, as determined by the Secretary concerned; or''.
       (b) Monthly Amount of Pay.--Subsection (c) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(12)'' and inserting 
     ``(13)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``(13)'' and inserting 
     ``(14)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2356. A bill to require the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to issue guidance for, and provide oversight of, the 
management of micropurchases made with Government-wide commercial 
purchase cards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Russ

[[Page S4497]]

Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 
2004,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending through the use of 
governmental credit cards.
  Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee explored the federal 
government's use of ``purchase cards,'' which are commercial charge 
cards used by federal agencies to buy billions of dollars worth of 
goods and services. The Committee heard the results of the General 
Accounting Office's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
purchase card program.
  The American people have the right to expect the federal government 
to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at 
all times, it is never more so than today, when the government faces 
enormous fiscal pressures and a growing budget deficit.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has a mandate to help safeguard 
those tax dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. To meet this mandate, 
the Committee has launched an initiative to root out government waste. 
Today's hearing was part of that effort and focused on wasteful, 
inefficient, and in some cases, fraudulent, transactions using purchase 
cards.
  These cards were first introduced by the General Services 
Administration on a government-wide basis in 1989. Purchase cards are 
used primarily for making routine purchases such as office supplies, 
computers and copying machines. Purchase cards are similar to the 
personal credit cards we all carry, but with one important difference: 
The taxpayers pays the bill. Although the card is only supposed to be 
used for official purposes, the Federal Government is responsible for 
paying all charges by authorized cardholders, regardless of what was 
purchased.
  While legitimate purchases are usually small, they nevertheless add 
up to big money. Purchase card use has soared during the past decade--
from less than $1 billion in fiscal year 1994 to more than $16 billion 
in fiscal year 2003. There are more than 134,000 purchase cardholders 
in the Defense Department alone.
  This explosive growth presents both challenges and opportunities. 
While there are many benefits to the purchase card, such as expediting 
purchases, cutting red tape, and saving administrative costs, the 
General Accounting Office and the Inspectors General have reported that 
inadequate controls over purchase cards leave agencies vulnerable to 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony describing how 
smarter use of purchase cards could save taxpayers hundreds of millions 
of dollars. A GAO report that I requested along with Senator Feingold 
and Congresswoman Schakowsky, which is being released today, highlights 
several wasteful purchasing practices.
  The GAO concludes that many agency cardholders fail to obtain readily 
available discounts on purchase card buys. In too many cases, purchase 
cardholders are buying goods and services from vendors that already 
agreed to provide government discounts through the GSA schedule, yet 
cardholders often lack the information and training needed to obtain 
the discounted prices. As a result, GAO found numerous instances of 
cardholders paying significantly more for items for which discounts 
already had been negotiated. In light of the fact that conscientious 
shoppers often can obtain savings beyond the schedule discounts, these 
findings indicate that some federal agencies are substantially 
overpaying for routine supplies.
  For example, an analysis of the Department of Interior's purchase 
card buys of ink cartridges found that most of the time the cardholder 
paid more than the government schedule price to which the vendors had 
already agreed. One vendor had agreed to a schedule price of $24.99 for 
a particular ink cartridge, yet of 791 separate purchases of this 
model,only two were at or below that price. Some purchasers paid $34.99 
or about 40 percent more for the same item.
  In conducting its investigation, the GAO examined six agencies that 
together account for over 85 percent of all government purchase card 
transactions. If the six agencies reviewed in this study negotiated 
automatic discounts of just 10 percent from major vendors, and if 
agency employees had used those discounts, GAO estimates annual savings 
of $300 million. Over 10 years, that's $3 billion. Pretty soon, as 
Senator Dirksen once observed, we're talking real money.
  The GAO also found that agencies should be making greater efforts to 
collect and analyze data on purchase card transactions. This would help 
agencies to eliminate waste and to expose fraud and abuse.
  We must assure taxpayers that the federal government is shopping 
carefully, wisely and honestly. That's why the legislation we introduce 
today would require the Office of Management and Budget to direct 
agencies to better train cardholders and to more effectively scrutinize 
their purchases. This legislation would also instruct the General 
Services Administration to increase its efforts to secure discount 
agreements with vendors and to better provide agencies with the tools 
needed to control wasteful spending. According to testimony by GAO, 
this legislation would be a strong first step to eliminating $300 
million in wasteful spending.
  The American people have the right to expect the federal government 
to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. I urge my colleagues 
to cosponsor this legislation and help eliminate wasteful purchase card 
spending.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2357. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, to maintain a minimum quantity of stored water 
in certain reservoirs in the vicinity of the upper portion of the 
Missouri River; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2357

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

     SECTION 1. UPPER MISSOURI RIVER WATER STORAGE.

       (a) Water Storage.--Notwithstanding any project or activity 
     carried out by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin 
     Program authorized by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 
     1944 (58 Stat. 891), or any other law, the Secretary shall 
     cease to support water releases for navigation purposes at 
     any time at which the total volume of water stored in the 
     reservoirs described in subsection (b) is less than 
     44,000,000 acre-feet.
       (b) Reservoirs.--The reservoirs referred to in subsection 
     (a) are the following reservoirs located in the vicinity of 
     the upper portion of the Missouri River:
       (1) Fort Peck Lake.
       (2) Lake Sakakawea.
       (3) Lake Oahe.
       (4) Lake Sharpe.
       (5) Lake Francis Case.
       (6) Lewis and Clark Lake.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 2358. A bill to allow for the prosecution of members of criminal 
street gangs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Leahy, 
Kennedy, and Feinghold in introducing the American Neighborhoods Taking 
the Initiative--Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act, 
which is a comprehensive, tailored bill that will help State and local 
prosecutors prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their 
neighborhoods.
  The National Youth Gang Center has reported evidence of resurgence in 
gang violence, and this is clearly reflected in Chicago, IL, where 45 
percent of the homicides last year were gang-related. In Chicago, there 
are 98 identified gangs, with an estimated 100,000 gang members; over 
13 percent of the gang members nationwide are located within Chicago's 
city limits.
  I would like to commend the State and local prosecutors and law 
enforcement agencies for their work in fighting this problem. The ANTI-
GANG Act would authorize $862.5 million in grants over the next 5 years 
to provide them with the tools they need and have specifically 
requested of Congress to combat violent gangs.
  For example, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) wrote 
the following: ``We must find new methods of protecting those 
individuals brave enough to come forward as

[[Page S4498]]

witnesses. Our biggest problem is getting the financial help to 
establish, and run, meaningful witness protection programs.'' The 
National Alliance of Gang Investigators (NAGI) also has identified a 
trend in witness intimidation that is ``dramatically affecting the 
prosecution of violent gang offenders.'' The ANTI-GANG Act responds by 
authorizing $300 million over 5 years for the protection of witnesses 
and victims of gang crimes. This bill also would allow the Attorney 
General to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses in 
State gang, drug, and homicide cases, and it would allow States to 
obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in Stage gang cases 
through the Federal witness relocation and protection program, without 
any requirement of reimbursement for those temporary services.
  The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $200 million for grants to develop 
gang prevention, research, and intervention services. However, these 
grants should not be limited to those areas already identified as 
``high intensity'' interstate gang activity areas. The NAGI also has 
identified a trend of gangs migrating from larger cities to smaller 
communities, which is fueled in large part by an increase in gang 
involvement in drug trafficking. This may be related to the spread of 
methamphetamine, which is the fastest-growing drug in the United States 
and, according to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the ``single-
greatest threat to rural America today.'' In response to these trends, 
the ANTI-GANG Act would allow rural communities and other jurisdictions 
to apply for these grants, to prevent gang violence from occurring in 
the first place.
  The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $262.5 million over five years for 
the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang 
crimes. Most of this funding would be for criminal street gang 
enforcement teams made up of local, State, and Federal law enforcement 
authorities that would investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs 
in high intensity interstate gang activity areas (HIIGAAs). 
Importantly, this bill would allow HIIGAAs to be integrated with High 
Intensity Interstate Drug Trafficking Areas (HIIDTAs), to avoid 
conflicts in those areas where the two entities would coexist.
  The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $100 million over five years for 
technology, equipment, and training to identify gang members and 
violent offenders and to maintain databases to facilitate coordination 
among law enforcement and prosecutors.
  In addition to these new resources, the ANTI-GANG Act will 
effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors to prosecute violent 
street gangs, by creating a stronger federal criminal gang prosecution 
offense. This new offense criminalizes participation in criminal street 
gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness 
intimidation. At the same time, it responds to concerns raised by the 
NDAA regarding potential conflicts with local investigation and 
prosecution efforts, by requiring certification by the Department of 
Justice before any prosecution under this bill could be undertaken in 
federal court.
  The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes the recruitment and retention of 
highly-qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a 
student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for 
federal employees. Almost a third of prosecutors' offices across the 
country have problems with recruiting or retaining staff attorneys, and 
low salaries were cited as the primary reason for recruitment and 
retention problems. This proposed loan forgiveness program is supported 
by the American Bar Association, the NDAA, the National Association of 
Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender 
Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.
  The ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of 
prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level to prosecute violent 
street gangs, and it will give state and local governments the 
resources they need to protect witnesses and prevent youth from joining 
gangs in the first place. This bill achieves these important goals 
without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences, which conservation 
jurists such as Justice Anthony Kennedy have criticized as ``unfair, 
unjust, unwise.'' It also does not unnecessarily expand the federal 
death penalty--a measure which has been included in other federal gang 
legislation but is opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights, NAACP, ACLU, and National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers.
  Finally, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition 
has raised the following concerns regarding federal gang legislation 
that would allow more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults in the 
federal system: ``[T]he fact remains that transfer of youth to the 
adult system, simply put, is a failed public policy. Comprehensive 
national research on the practice of prosecuting youth in the adult 
system has shown conclusively that transferring youth to the adult 
criminal justice system does nothing to reduce crime and actually has 
the opposite effect. In fact, study after study has shown that youth 
transferred to the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re-
offend and to commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who 
were charged with similar offenses and had similar offenses histories 
but remained in the juvenile justice system. Moreover, national data 
show that young people incarcerated with adults are five times as 
likely to report being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten 
by staff and 50 percent more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than 
youth held in juvenile facilities. A Justice Department report also 
found that youth confined in adult facilities are nearly 8 times more 
likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities.''
  In light of these concerns, the ANTI-GANG Act provides Congress with 
the necessary data to decide whether to expand the federal role in 
prosecuting juvenile offenders, by requiring a comprehensive report on 
the current treatment of juveniles by the states and the capability of 
the federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases 
and house additional prisoners. The American Bar Association has 
written that this study is ``the more prudent course of action at this 
time.''
  The ANTI-GANG Act is a comprehensive, common-sense approach to fight 
gang violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against 
                   Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act


                                overview

       The American Neighborhoods Taking the Iniative--Guarding 
     Against Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act of 2004 is a 
     comprehensive, tailored bill that will help state and local 
     prosecutors prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes 
     in their neighborhoods. This bill contains four major 
     provisions:
       (1) It gives state and local prosecutors the tools they 
     need and have specifically requested of Congress to combat 
     violent gangs by authorizing $52.5 million for the 
     cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of 
     gang crimes; $20 million for technology, equipment, and 
     training to identify gang members and violent offenders and 
     to maintain databases to facilitate coordination among law 
     enforcement and prosecutors; $60 million for the protection 
     of witnesses and victims of gang crimes; and $40 million for 
     grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention 
     services.
       (2) It replaces the current provision on criminal street 
     gangs in federal law, seldom-used penalty enhancement, with a 
     stronger measure that criminalizes participation in criminal 
     street gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and 
     witness intimidation. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence 
     and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner.
       (3) It will provide Congress with the necessary data to 
     decide whether to expand the federal role in prosecuting 
     juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the 
     current treatment of juveniles by the states and the 
     capabilities of the federal criminal justice system to take 
     on these additional cases and house additional prisoners.
       (4) It promotes the recruitment and retention of highly-
     qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a 
     student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current 
     program for federal employees.
       The ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability 
     of prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level to 
     prosecute violent street gangs, it will give state and local 
     governments the resources they need to protect witnesses and 
     prevent kids from joining gangs in the first place. This bill 
     achieves these important goals without increasing any 
     mandatory minimum sentences

[[Page S4499]]

     (which conservative jurists such as Justice Anthony Kennedy 
     have criticized as ``unfair, unjust, unwise''). It also 
     respects the traditional principles of federalism, by 
     requiring certification by the Department of Justice before 
     any prosecution under this bill may be undertaken in federal 
     court and by not unnecessarily expanding the federal death 
     penalty.


            SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE ANTI-GANG ACT

                     Title I--Criminal Street Gangs

       Sec. 101. Criminal Street Gangs--Definitions. Defines a 
     criminal street gang as a preexisting and ongoing entity 
     (e.g., having already committed crimes); targets violent 
     criminal street gangs by requiring that at least one 
     predicate gang crime be a violent gang crime; establishes 
     evidentiary relevance of gang symbolism in prosecutions; and 
     allows federal prosecution of neighborhood gang activity when 
     those activities substantially affect interstate commerce.
       Sec. 102. Criminal Street Gangs--Prohibited Acts, 
     Penalties, and Forfeiture. Creates three new federal crimes 
     to prosecute cases involving violent criminal street gangs. 
     (1) It prohibits the recruitment and forced retention of gang 
     members, including harsher penalties if an adult recruits a 
     minor or prevents a minor from leaving a criminal street 
     gang. (2) It prohibits participation in a criminal street 
     gang if done with the intent to further the criminal 
     activities of the gang or through the commission of a single 
     predicate gang crime. (3) It prohibits witness intimidation 
     and tampering in cases and investigations related to gang 
     activity. Before the federal government may undertake a 
     prosecution of these offenses, the Department of Justice must 
     certify that it has consulted with state and local 
     prosecutors before seeking an indictment and that federal 
     prosecution is ``in the public interest and necessary to 
     secure substantial justice.''
       Sec. 103. Clerical Amendments.
       Sec. 104. Conforming Amendments.
       Sec. 105. Designation of and Assistance for ``High 
     Intensity'' Interstate Gang Activity Areas. Requires the 
     Attorney General, after consultation with the governors of 
     appropriate States, to designate certain locations as ``high 
     intensity'' interstate gang activity areas (HIIGAAs) and 
     provide assistance in the form of criminal street gang 
     enforcement teams made up of local, State, and Federal law 
     enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute criminal 
     street gangs in each designated area. The ANTI-GANG bill also 
     allows for HIIGAAs to be integrated with High Intensity 
     Interstate Drug Trafficking Areas (HIIDTAs), to avoid 
     conflicts and bureaucratic morasses in those areas where the 
     two entities would coexist. Subsection (c) authorizes funding 
     of $40 million for each fiscal year 2005 through 2009.
       Sec. 106. Gang Prevention Grants. Requires the Office of 
     Justice Programs of the Department of Justice to make grants 
     to States, units of local government, tribal governments, and 
     qualified private entities to develop community-based 
     programs that provide crime prevention, research, and 
     intervention services designed for gang members and at-risk 
     youth. Subsection (f) authorizes $40 million for each fiscal 
     year 2005 through 2009. No grant may exceed $1 million nor 
     last for any period longer than 2 years.
       Sec. 107. Gang Prevention Information Grants. Requires the 
     Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice to 
     make grants to States, units of local government, tribal 
     governments to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
     state and local sheriffs, police agencies, and prosecutor 
     offices to increase accurate identification of gang members 
     and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such 
     information to facilitate coordination among law enforcement 
     and prosecutors. Subsection (f) authorizes $20 million for 
     each fiscal year 2005 through 2009. No grant may exceed $1 
     million nor last for any period longer than 2 years.
       Sec. 1089. Enhancement of Project Safe Neighborhoods 
     Initiative to Improve Enforcement of Criminal Laws Against 
     Violent Gangs. Expands the Project Safe Neighborhood program 
     to require United States Attorneys to identify and prosecute 
     significant gangs within their district; to coordinate such 
     prosecutions among all local, State, and Federal law 
     enforcement agencies; and to coordinate criminal street gang 
     enforcement teams in designated ``high intensity'' interstate 
     gang activity areas. Subsection (b) authorizes the hiring of 
     94 additional Assistant United States Attorneys and funding 
     of $7.5 million for each fiscal year 2005 through 2009 to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       Sec. 109. Additional Resources Needed by the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation to Investigate and Prosecute Violent 
     Criminal Street Gangs. Requires the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation to increase funding for the Safe Streets 
     Program and to support the criminal street gang enforcement 
     teams in designated high intensity interstate gang activity 
     areas. Subsection (b) authorizes $5 million for each fiscal 
     year 2005 through 2009 to expand the FBI's Safe Streets 
     Program.
       Sec. 110. Expansion of Federal Witness Relocation and 
     Protection Program. Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3521(a)(1), which 
     governs the Federal witness relocation and protection 
     program, to make clear that the Attorney General can provide 
     for the relocation and protection of witnesses in State gang, 
     drug, and homicide cases. Current law authorizes Federal 
     relocation and protection for witnesses in State cases 
     involving ``an organized criminal activity or other serious 
     offense.''
       Sec. 111. Grants to States and Local Prosecutors to Protect 
     Witnesses and Victims of Crime. Authorizes the Attorney 
     General to make grants available to State and local 
     prosecutors and the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia for the purpose of providing short-term protection 
     to witnesses in cases involving an organized criminal 
     activity, criminal street gang, serious drug offense, 
     homicide, or other serious offense. State and local 
     prosecutors will have the option of either providing the 
     witness protection themselves or contracting with the United 
     States Marshals Service for use of the Federal witness 
     protection and relocation program. Subsection (d) authorizes 
     $60 million for each fiscal year 2005 through 2009 to fund 
     the program. By providing significantly increased resources 
     and flexibility for State and local prosecutors, this 
     provision responds in a meaningful way to the need for 
     effective witness protection emphasized by prosecutors during 
     the September 17, 2003, hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
       Sec. 1112. Witness Protection Services. Amends 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3526 to allow States to obtain the temporary protection 
     of witnesses in State gang cases through the Federal witness 
     relocation and protection program, without any requirement of 
     reimbursement for those temporary services. Currently, 
     complex reimbursement procedures deter State and local 
     prosecutors from obtaining witness protection services from 
     the Federal government in emergency circumstances.

     Title II--Related Matters Involving Violent Crime Prosecution

       Sec. 201. Study on Expanding Federal Authority for Juvenile 
     Offenders. This section requires the General Accounting 
     Office to do a comprehensive report on the advantages and 
     disadvantages of increasing Federal authority for the 
     prosecution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders. Some have 
     proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal 
     courts as a step in combating gang violence. Although there 
     is insufficient data to support this proposition, it is 
     appropriate for the GAO to review the current treatment of 
     such offenders by the States and the capability of the 
     Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional 
     cases and house additional prisoners. With this review, 
     Congress can knowledgeably consider whether to expand the 
     Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.
       Sec. 202. Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act. This 
     section establishes a student loan repayment program for 
     prosecutors and public defenders that is modeled after the 
     program currently available to federal employees. This would 
     increase the ability of federal, state, and local prosecutors 
     and public defenders to recruit and retain highly-qualified 
     attorneys. Attorneys in this program must agree to serve for 
     a minimum of three years. Participants can receive up to 
     $10,000 per year and a total of up to $60,000; these amounts 
     are identical to the limitations in the program for federal 
     employees. Subsection (h) authorizes $25 million for fiscal 
     year 2005 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     succeeding fiscal year.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the introduction 
of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold.
  The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against 
Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2004 is a bill carefully crafted to target 
violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the 
neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.
  As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about 
making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention 
of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police 
departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs 
are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented 
criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines 
of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work 
of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. 
This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there 
is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires 
consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on 
a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why 
major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and 
local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang 
crimes in their own neighborhoods.
  There are four major sections of the bill:
  First, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources 
to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $72.5 million for 
the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang 
crimes; $40 million for grants to develop gang prevention,

[[Page S4500]]

research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection 
of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are also 
provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund 
technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate 
identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain 
databases with such information to facilitate state and Federal 
coordination.
  The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a 
good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang 
activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that 
would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on 
others--to be effective. When Chairman Hatch appropriately targeted 
gang violence as a subject for a full Committee hearing last year, all 
agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining 
gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.
  Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's 
hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting 
witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs 
from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect 
witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in 
certain State prosecutions involving gang activity.
  Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using 
well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. 
Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal 
crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill 
actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent 
criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities 
whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their 
association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is 
safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and 
allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and 
evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism 
in gang prosecutions.
  In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes 
established by this bill include: One, participation in criminal street 
gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of 
the gang; two, participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or 
for the benefit of the gang, and three, recruitment and retention of 
gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors 
for recruitment in a criminal street gang.
  Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current 
treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal 
criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house 
additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision 
about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile 
offenders.
  Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to 
proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's 
protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence 
to support his claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of 
this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General 
Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether 
justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the 
Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of 
Prisons--is prepared for such a step.
  Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly-
qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by 
establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the 
current program for Federal employees.
  We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further 
blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement 
responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary 
Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced 
with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no 
longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism 
prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law 
enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the 
FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that 
are best handled at the local level.
  Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy 
of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a 
single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed 
to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge your support 
for this important bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2358, the 
Anti-Gang Act. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal 
law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully 
fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like 
methamphetamine into our communities.
  Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of 
prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the 
problem of gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act gives local prosecutors and 
law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted 
financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and 
proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative 
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, 
grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and 
victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive 
formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching 
suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the 
communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and 
smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their 
ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated 
with methamphetamines and other narcotics.
  The Anti-Gang Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of 
highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a 
student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most 
demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan 
forgiveness will allow Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant 
Attorney Generals to remain in public service and allow them to take 
their wealth of experience and use it to combat gang violence.
  The Anti-Gang Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute that 
was never intended to be used against violent street gangs with a tough 
statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street 
gangs, but addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and 
retention of gang members. The Anti-Gang Act targets gang violence and 
gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also 
recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and 
prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and 
local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with 
State and local law enforcement before seeking an indictment and that a 
Federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure 
substantial justice.
  Finally, the Anti-Gang Act will provide Congress with the data 
necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting 
juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current 
treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal 
criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house 
additional prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more 
juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence without 
being able to tell us why this is necessary and what effect it might 
have on the criminal justice system. With this review, Congress can 
intelligently consider whether to expand the Federal role in 
prosecuting juveniles.
  Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use 
their parks and walk their streets without fearing that ever-spreading 
gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The Anti-Gang 
Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues 
Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold in introducing this 
important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act.

[[Page S4501]]

  Gang violence is a serious problem in many communities across the 
nation, and it deserves a serious response by Congress. The key to 
success is an effective strategy that rejects partisanship and ``lock-
em-up'' sound bites in favor of tough, targeted law enforcement; 
aggressive steps to take guns out of the hands of criminal gang members 
and other violent juvenile offenders; and heavy emphasis on prevention 
programs that discourage gang membership and provide realistic 
alternatives for at-risk youth.
  The past decade saw a dramatic reduction in violent juvenile crime, 
in large part because of these crime-fighting strategies. Many of us 
remember the dire ``juvenile superpredator'' predictions that were 
common before that reduction took place. In 1996, William Bennett and 
John Walters wrote that America was a ``ticking crime bomb,'' faced 
with the ``youngest, biggest, and baddest generation'' of juvenile 
offenders that our country had ever known. Fortunately, these 
predictions were wrong. From 1993 to 2001, arrest rates for violent 
juvenile crime fell by more than two-thirds. We're still reaping the 
benefits of this lower crime rate today.
  The decrease in crime is explained partly by the sensible measures 
taken by Congress on gun safety in the early 1990's, including the ban 
on assault weapons. In 1999, the National Center for Juvenile Justice 
concluded that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles between 
the mid-1980's and mid-1990's was firearms-related. The Surgeon General 
concluded that guns were responsible for both the epidemic in juvenile 
violence in the late 1980's and the decrease in violence after 1993. 
``It is now clear,'' the Surgeon General wrote, ``that the violence 
epidemic was caused largely by an upsurge in the use of firearms by 
young people. . . . Today's youth violence is less lethal, largely 
because of a decline in the use of firearms.'' The current ban on 
assault weapons is scheduled to expire in September, and given its 
proven results against crime, it is reckless for anyone to oppose its 
continuation.
  Another factor that contributed to the remarkable decrease in 
juvenile violent crime was the innovative, cooperative crime-fighting 
strategy developed in Boston and other communities across the nation. 
The Boston strategy was neither a ``liberal'' nor a ``conservative'' 
approach. It engaged the entire community, including police and 
probation officers, clergy and community leaders, and even gang members 
themselves in a united effort to crack down on gang violence, 
strengthen after-school prevention programs, and take guns out of the 
hands of juvenile offenders. This strategy was very successful--
juvenile homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995--and it 
succeeded without prosecuting more juveniles as adults, without housing 
nonviolent juvenile offenders in adult facilities, and without spending 
huge sums of money on new juvenile facilities.
  The call for expanding federal prosecution of juveniles as adults was 
already controversial in those years when juvenile violent crime was at 
its peak. It makes no sense today, when juvenile violent crime rates 
have fallen to historic lows.
  Unfortunately, an expansion is exactly what is sought by the 
supporters of S. 1735, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence 
Act. Their bill responds to the problem of gang violence in the wrong 
way. They want the expanded federal prosecution of juveniles as adults. 
They want to federalize a broad range of street crimes now being 
prosecuted effectively at the local level. They want to create an 
unnecessary bureaucratic morass by duplicating law enforcement efforts 
now taking place on drug trafficking. They support a one-size-fits-all, 
Washington-knows-best approach to juvenile crime that ignores the 
achievements of the past decade and will only make the current problem 
of gang violence worse.
  Our bill, the ANTI-GANG Act, avoids the most serious defects of S. 
1735 by recognizing, first and foremost, the primary role of state and 
local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The American Bar 
Association and the Judicial Conference have both called on Congress to 
consider the risks of federalizing offenses that have traditionally 
been the responsibility of state criminal justice systems. Many of us 
support the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 966), to deal 
with hate crimes. It would require the Justice Department to certify 
the need for federal involvement before commencing federal prosecution 
of a hate crime. We also oppose the enactment of federal ``concealed 
carry'' laws, which would undermine state and local gun-safety laws.
  Instead of ignoring the primary role of state and local governments 
in fighting violent gang crimes in their communities, our ANTI-GANG Act 
strengthens that role, by giving local law enforcement and prosecutors 
the resources they need. It authorizes $52 million for cooperative 
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. It 
authorizes $20 million for technology, equipment, and training, so that 
state and local sheriffs, police agencies, and prosecutors can improve 
their identification of gang members and maintain databases with 
information to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and 
prosecutors. It authorizes $60 million for the protecting and 
relocation of witnesses and victims of gang crimes, and $40 million for 
grants for gang prevention, research, and intervention services.
  The resources in our bill for witness relocation and protection are 
particularly important. At a Judiciary Committee hearing last 
September, state and local prosecutors specifically asked for 
Congress's help in protecting witnesses of gang crimes. Our bill 
responds to this need by authorizing $60 million in assistance. By 
contrast, the most recently revised version of S. 1735 authorizes only 
$12 million.
  In addition, our bill amends the current law on governing federal 
witness relocation and protection to make clear that the Attorney 
General can use these provisions to support witnesses in state gang, 
drug, and homicide cases. We also allow states to obtain the temporary 
protection of witnesses in gang cases, without any requirement of 
reimbursement. The current complex reimbursement procedures deter state 
and local prosecutors from obtaining witness protection assistance from 
the federal government, even in emergencies. Our bill offers 
needed relief to state prosecutors undertaking difficult prosecutions 
of gang offenders, but no such relief is included in S. 1735.

  The ANTI-GANG Act respects the primary role of state and local 
governments in fighting street crime, but it also recognizes that 
violent gangs can be a substantial impact on federal interests. 
According to the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal 
street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the 
cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being 
distributed in communities throughout the United States. Gang activity 
interferes with lawful commerce and undermines the freedom and security 
of entire communities.
  The current provision on criminal street gangs in federal law is a 
seldom-used penalty enhancement. To address these legitimate federal 
interests, the ANTI-GANG Act replaces that provision with a stronger 
set of measures criminalizing participation in criminal street gangs, 
recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness intimidation. It 
also increases penalties for gang members who target minors for 
recruitment. It targets gang violence and gang crimes in a sensible 
way, avoiding the confusing and counterproductive approach taken in S. 
1735. Before any federal prosecution can take place under our bill, a 
high-level representative from the Justice Department, after 
consultation with state and local prosecutors, must certify that the 
federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to achieve 
substantial justice.
  The Act strengthens the ability of prosecutors at all levels--
federal, state and local--to prosecute violent street gangs, and it 
does so without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences or 
unnecessarily expanding the federal death penalty to include state 
murder offenses.
  An increasing number of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and 
other criminal justice authorities now agree that mandatory minimum 
sentences are, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, ``unfair, 
unjust, and unwise.'' They are inconsistent with and undermine the 
sentencing guidelines that Congress established in the Sentencing

[[Page S4502]]

Reform Act of 1984. The supporters of S. 1735 have commendably removed 
some of the mandatory sentencing provisions in their original bill, but 
even a single increased mandatory minimum is counterproductive and 
unjustified.
  The ANTI-GANG Act also requires the General Accounting Office to 
conduct a comprehensive study and report on the current treatment of 
juveniles by states and local governments and the capability of the 
Bureau of Prisons and other parts of the federal criminal justice 
system to take on the additional cases that would result from an 
expansion of the federal prosecutions of juvenile offenders as adults. 
This report will enable Congress to make a better informed decision on 
this criminal issue.
  Finally, the Act encourages the recruitment and retention of highly-
qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student 
loan forgiveness program modeled on the current program for federal 
employees. According to the National District Attorneys Association, 
this provision ``would allow prosecutors to relieve the crushing burden 
of student loans that now cause so many young attorneys to abandon 
public service.'' The provision is also strongly supported by the 
National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the American Council of 
Chief Defenders.
  I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing this 
important legislation to protect American communities from gang 
violence without undermining fundamental principles of fairness and 
federal-state relations. I urge the Senate to approve it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2359. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a refundable tax credit for small business health insurance costs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy 
Employees, Healthy Small Businesses Act of 2004. This legislation 
addresses a number of fundamental problems: the fact that millions of 
hard working American families have no health insurance, they live in 
fear that financial ruin is just one illness away, or that a family 
member will need medical treatment that they simply can't afford; the 
fact that small businesses in this country are facing health care costs 
that are skyrocketing far beyond the rate of inflation, and that as 
much as many small business owners would like to provide health 
benefits to their employees, it is becoming more and more difficult for 
them to afford these costs; and the fact that this health care dilemma 
is damaging our Nation's competitive position internationally.
  In 2002, 44 million Americans lived without health insurance for the 
entire year. 85 percent of these uninsured people belong to working 
families.
  Think about that. The vast majority of the people in the United 
States of America who have no health insurance work.
  These uninsured workers are trapped in the middle--in fact, most of 
them are middle class families. They do not receive health coverage 
through their jobs. They are too young to qualify for Medicare. They 
earn too much to qualify for a public health insurance program.
  Yet they cannot afford private insurance plans.
  For each one of those 44 million people, and each one of those 
millions of families, living without health coverage causes real and 
serious problems.
  Living without health insurance is difficult for anyone. It is 
especially hard for parents with children. In addition to the constant 
worry about whether their child will have an accident or get sick, 
there are serious long-term consequences for kids who grow up without 
health insurance.
  Uninsured kids have a higher rate of acute and infectious diseases 
than children who are covered by health insurance, and uninsured kids 
actually have a higher number of hospitalizations, because their 
problems don't get treated until they become serious.
  Uninsured children are: four times as likely to have necessary care 
delayed; five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room as 
their regular source of care; and six times as likely as other children 
to go without the care they need.
  But having no health care is a problem even when kids are not sick. 
It forces parents into the kinds of choices that none of us would want 
to make, and that nobody in America should have to make.
  When your daughter is uninsured, you have to think twice about 
signing her up for a youth soccer league, because she might break her 
arm.
  When your son has no health coverage, maybe it is not safe to let him 
ride his bike through the neighborhood, or try out his friend's new 
rollerblades.
  Accidents happen to everyone, especially to active children. But when 
your family has no health insurance, a simple fall requiring a few 
stitches, a broken bone, or a minor sports-related injury could result 
in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in emergency room fees.
  In the end, in a lot of families, living without health insurance 
sometimes means that kids do not get to do very much living at all.
  In her book The Betrayal of Work, Beth Shulman asked Flor Segunda, a 
working mom with no health insurance, about how her family's uninsured 
status affects her kids. Segunda says:

       Doctors require immediate payment before they will see you, 
     but many times I don't have the money. Right now, [my son] 
     Luis has a temperature. But I try to take care of it myself 
     because I can't afford to take him to the doctor every time. 
     It is one of the reasons I don't like my children to play 
     outside. They will get sick and I can't afford it.

  A lack of access to health care can destroy a family's financial 
security in a heartbeat--that is certainly true. But it can also deny 
uninsured kids some of the most basic and simple pleasures of being a 
child: going outside to play, joining a tee-ball team, riding a bike.
   Surely we can do better.
  Living without health insurance is a terrible problem. So why are so 
many families forced to do it? Who are these families trapped in the 
middle--earning too much to qualify for free care, but not enough to 
pay for private insurance?
  It turns out that more than half of the uninsured people in our 
country live in a family supported by someone who works for a small 
business--meaning a company that employs fewer than 100 workers.
  This is not because small businesses are less committed to their 
workers than larger employers. On the contrary, the small business 
owners in my State seem to care a great deal about their employees. 
Most small business owners work closely with their employees, and they 
understand that the success of their enterprise depends on the loyalty 
of the people who work for them.
  The reason small businesses are less likely to provide health 
insurance is simply a matter of economics.
  At a small business, where people are delivering a product or service 
with just a handful of employees, the margin between revenues and costs 
can be pretty slim.
  That does not leave much room for error--or for rising costs. But 
health care costs are spiraling out of control.
  Every year for the last several years, we have seen double-digit 
inflation in health care prices. With health care costs rising out of 
sight, small business owners are rightly concerned about whether these 
uncontrolled prices represent too much of a risk to their overall 
business health.

  My legislation would create a Federal refundable tax credit to 
reimburse small employers for part of the costs they incur for 
providing health insurance coverage to their employees.
  The HEHSB tax credit would operate on a sliding scale, providing a 
large tax credit to all businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but 
giving the greatest tax relief to the smallest enterprises.
  Last year, the average health insurance plan for a single person 
costs $3,383, of which the employee paid an average of $508 and the 
employer paid an average of $2,875.
  For a family policy, the average cost totalled $9,068, with the 
employee bearing $2,412 and the employer shouldering $6,656.
  Under my bill, companies with fewer than 10 employees would be 
eligible to claim a credit of 50 percent of the cost of each eligible 
employee's policy, up to a limit of $1,500 for an individual policy or 
$3,400 for a family policy.
  Companies with 25 to 50 employees would be eligible to claim a credit 
of 35 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a 
limit of $750 for

[[Page S4503]]

a self-only policy or $1,700 for a family policy.
  I believe that this legislation will give more small business owners 
the ability to do what they want to do in the first place: provide 
their first-rate employees with first-rate benefits.
  It will shield them from the worst risks associated with rising 
health care costs.
  And I hope that it will eventually result in families like the 
Segundas feeling a little more security and happiness.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MILLER:
  S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution to repeal the seventeenth article of 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, we live in perilous times. The leader of 
the free world's power has become so neutered he cannot, even with the 
support of the majority of the Senate, appoint highly qualified 
individuals endorsed by the American Bar to a Federal court. He cannot 
conduct a war without being torn to shreds by partisans with their eyes 
set, not on he defeat of our enemy but on the defeat of our President.
  The Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage 
by special interests, and so impotent an 18-wheeler truck loaded with 
Viagra would do no good.
  Andrew Young, one of the most thoughtful men in America, recently 
took a long and serious look at the Senate. He was thinking about 
making a race for it. After visiting Washington, he concluded that the 
Senate is composed of:

       A bunch of pompous, old--

And I won't use his word here, I would say ``folks''--

     listening to people read statements they didn't even write 
     and probably don't believe.

  The House of Representatives, theoretically the closest of all the 
Federal Government to the people, cannot restrain its extravagant 
spending nor limit our spiraling debt, and incumbents are so entrenched 
you might as well call off 80 percent of the House races. There are no 
contests.
  Most of the laws of the land, at least the most important and lasting 
ones, are made not by elected representatives of the people but by 
unelected, unaccountable legislators in black robes who churn out 
volumes of case law and hold their jobs for life. A half dozen dirty 
bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could 
kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens and bring this Nation to its 
knees at any time, and yet we can't even build a fence along our border 
to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will 
cause erosion.
  This Government is in one hell of a mess. Frankly, as Rett Butler 
said--my dear, very few people up here give a damn.
  It is not funny. It is sad. It is tragic. And it can only get worse--
much worse. What this Government needs is one of those extreme 
makeovers they have on television, and I am not referring to some minor 
nose job or a little botox here and there.
  Congressional Quarterly recently devoted an issue to the mandate 
wars, with headlines blaring: ``Unfunded Mandates Add to Woes, States 
Say; Localities Get the Bill for Beefed Up Security; Transportation 
Money Comes With Strings, and Medicare Stuck in Funding Squabbles,'' et 
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  One would think that the much heralded Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 
1995 never passed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has 
set the unfunded mandate figure for the States at $33 billion for 2005. 
This, along with the budget problems they have been having for the last 
few years, has put States under the heel of a distant and unresponsive 
government. That is us. And it gives the enthusiastic tax raisers at 
the State level the very excuse they are looking for to dig deeper and 
deeper into the pockets of their taxpayers.
  It is not a pretty picture. No matter who you send to Washington, for 
the most part smart and decent people, it is not going to change much 
because the individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and 
decaying foundation of what is no longer a Republic. It is the system 
that stinks, and it is only going to get worse because that perfect 
balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer 
exists.
  Perhaps, then, the answer is a return to the original thinking of 
those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to 
function. Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this 
generation of leaders, some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, 
dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. The line on that monitor 
went flat some time ago.
  You see, the reformers of the early 1900s killed it dead and cremated 
the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators.
  Up until then, Senators were chosen by State legislatures, as James 
Madison and Alexander Hamilton had so carefully crafted.
  Direct elections of Senators, as great and as good as that sounds, 
allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is 
filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations. The 
State governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along 
with that popular fad at the time.
  Today it is heresy to even think about changing the system. But can 
you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the States or 
a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if Senators were 
still chosen by and responsible to the State legislatures?
  Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their 
fundraising power that elect Senators and then hold them in bondage 
forever.
  In the past five election cycles, Senators have raised over $1.5 
billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money 
spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the 
daily business of the Senate in fact is scheduled around fundraising.
  The 17th amendment was the death of the careful balance between State 
and Federal Government. As designed by that brilliant and very 
practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in 
competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the 
other. The election of Senators by the State legislatures was the 
lynchpin that guaranteed the interests of the States would be 
protected.
  Today State governments have to stand in line because they are just 
another one of the many special interests that try to get Senators to 
listen to them, and they are at an extreme disadvantage because they 
have no PAC.
  You know what the great historian Edward Gibbons said of the decline 
of the Roman Empire. I quote: ``The fine theory of a republic 
insensibly vanished.''
  That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the State legislatures, 
except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 
17th amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and 
destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special-interest 
tyranny and a blow to the power of State governments that would cripple 
them forever.
  Instead of Senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds as they 
did during the Senate's greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, we 
now have too many Senators who are mere cat's-paws for the special 
interests. It is the Senate's sorriest of times in its long, checkered, 
and once glorious history.
  Having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, 
before I hit the water and go splat, I have introduced a bill that 
would repeal the 17th amendment. I use the word ``would,'' not 
``will,'' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a 
single cosponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own.
  Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, IL, in 
which he called our founding principles ``a fortress of strength.'' 
Then he went on to warn, and again I quote, that they ``would grow more 
and more dim by the silent artillery of time.''
  A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well 
the fate of our republican form of government. Too bad we didn't listen 
to him.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4504]]

                              S.J. Res. 35

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the 
     date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
       ``Section 2. The Senate of the United States shall be 
     composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the 
     legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall 
     have one vote.
       ``Section 3. If vacancies happen by resignation or 
     otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State, 
     the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until 
     the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill 
     such vacancies.
       ``Section 4. This amendment shall not be so construed as to 
     affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it 
     becomes a valid part of the Constitution.''.
                                  ____


                              S. Res. 334

       Whereas the United States and Singapore have a strong and 
     enduring friendship;
       Whereas the United States and Singapore share a common 
     vision in ensuring the continued peace, stability, and 
     prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region;
       Whereas Singapore is a member of the coalition for the 
     reconstruction of Iraq and is a strong supporter of the 
     coalition efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq;
       Whereas Singapore is a steadfast partner with the United 
     States in the global campaign against terrorism and has 
     worked closely with the United States to fight terrorism 
     around the world;
       Whereas Singapore is a core member of the Proliferation 
     Security Initiative and is committed to preventing the 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
       Whereas Singapore has provided valuable support to the 
     United States Armed Forces, including inviting such Forces to 
     use the state-of-the-art Changi Naval Base;
       Whereas Singapore is the 11th largest trading partner of 
     the United States;
       Whereas Singapore was the first country in Asia to enter 
     into a free trade agreement with the United States;
       Whereas Singapore, which has one of the busiest ports in 
     the world, was the first country in Asia to join the 
     Container Security Initiative (CSI), a key initiative of the 
     United States Customs Service designed to prevent terrorist 
     attacks through the use of cargo;
       Whereas Singapore is a leader in biological research, has 
     established a regional Emerging Diseases Intervention Center, 
     and is leading efforts to respond to new health threats, 
     including emerging diseases and the use of biological agents;
       Whereas the relationship between the United States and 
     Singapore is reinforced by strong ties of culture, values, 
     commerce, and scientific cooperation; and
       Whereas relationship and international cooperation between 
     the United States and Singapore is important and valuable to 
     both countries: Now, therefore, be it
         Resolved, That the Senate--
         (1) welcomes the Prime Minister of Singapore, His 
     Excellency Goh Chok Tong, to the United States;
         (2) expresses profound gratitude to the Government of 
     Singapore for its assistance in Iraq and its support in the 
     global campaign against terrorism; and
         (3) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the 
     continued expansion of friendship and cooperation between the 
     United States and Singapore.

                          ____________________