[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.
____________________