[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13788-S13811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2119. A bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families block grant program through June 30, 2006, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am here to introduce bill to provide a
6-month extension of the Nation's largely successful welfare program.
It is known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, or
TANF.
Congress enacted the TANF program in 1996, to help welfare recipients
gain work skills and to help low-income families become economically
self-sufficient.
Welfare reform has mostly succeeded. States have adopted creative
policies to support low-income families making the transition from
welfare to work. Millions have moved to self-sufficiency.
But the TANF law expired in 2002. And Congress has failed to
reauthorize it. Instead, Congress has extended TANF on a short-term
basis, 12 times. The latest short-term extension expires in just over 2
weeks.
This bill is a simple extension of the current welfare program. It
would provide stability for the States to operate their welfare
programs. And it would continue our successful partnership with the
States in supporting needy families as they move from welfare to work.
Earlier this week, the Senate voted 64-27 to keep the welfare program
out of the budget cutting reconciliation bill that the House has
passed. The Senate voted instead to build on the bipartisan Finance
Committee bill that Chairman Grassley and I worked diligently on this
year. That bill is called the Personal Responsibility Individual
Development for Everyone or PRIDE Act. The Finance Committee reported
it out in March with near unanimous support. The PRIDE Act has been
awaiting full Senate consideration since then.
Despite broad support in the Finance Committee, the Senate has not
taken this measure up for debate. Despite the broad support of
governors, the Senate has not taken this measure up for debate. The
Republican Governors Association said that TANF reauthorization ``is
too important to leave to the limitations of the reconciliation
process.'' But the Senate has not taken this measure up for debate.
This vote was a vote to debate this bill on the Senate floor. It was
a vote to build on the broadly-supported bill from the Finance
Committee. We are going to need some time to complete that debate.
The 6-month extension that I offer this afternoon will keep the
welfare program operating. The 6-month extension will allow us the time
to debate, pass, and go to conference on a fully considered PRIDE Act.
I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing. I urge my
colleagues to support this extension. I urge my colleagues to keep this
important safety net program operating.
______
By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 2125. A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of Senator
Brownback, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine to introduce the
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy
Promotion Act.
As we try to conclude our business for the year here in the Senate,
we are in the midst of sharp debates on a large number of issues. In
the foreign policy arena alone, the Administration and Congress are
consumed with nurturing a political process and defeating insurgents in
Iraq, attempting to halt proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and
trying to end the bloodshed in Darfur, Sudan.
But there is another country embroiled in conflict that has not yet
received the high-level attention or resources it needs. It's the
Democratic Republic of Congo, and right now it is in the midst of a
humanitarian catastrophe.
An International Rescue Committee report from 2004 found that 31,000
people were dying in the Congo each month and 3.8 million--3.8
million--people had died in the previous 6 years. This means that this
conflict, which still smolders and burns in some regions, has cost more
lives than any other conflict since World War II.
Beyond the humanitarian catastrophe, resolving the problems in the
Congo will be critical if Africa is to achieve its promise. The
country, which is the size of Western Europe, lies at the geographic
heart of Africa and borders every major region across the continent. If
left untended, Congo's tragedy will continue to infect Africa--from
North to South; from East to West.
I believe that the United States can make a profound difference in
this crisis. According to international aid agencies, there are
innumerable cost-effective interventions that could be quickly
undertaken--such as the provision of basic medical care, immunization
and clean water--that could save thousands of lives. On the political
front, sustained U.S. leadership could fill a perilous vacuum.
The bill that we are introducing here today is an important step on
the long road towards bringing peace and prosperity to the Congo. I am
proud to be a part of a collaborative, bipartisan effort with some of
the Senate's leading voices on Africa--Senators Brownback, Durbin and
DeWine.
This bill establishes 14 core principles of U.S. policy across a
range of issues; authorizes a 25 percent increase in U.S. assistance
for the Democratic Republic of the Congo; calls for a Special Envoy to
resolve the situation in Eastern Congo; and urges the Administration to
use its voice and vote at the
[[Page S13789]]
United Nations Security Council to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping
force that is providing security in parts of the Congo.
The legislation has been endorsed by a number of faith-based and
humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, including some with
extensive field operations in Congo: CARE, Catholic Relief Services,
Global Witness, International Crisis Group, International Rescue
Committee, and Oxfam America. I ask unanimous consent that these
letters of support be printed in the Record.
I want to stress something before closing. We are under no illusion
that enacting the policies in this bill would be a panacea for Congo's
many ills. But the one thing we do know is that the one way to ensure
that a complex problem will not be resolved is to accept the status
quo.
The other thing we know is that status quo in the Democratic Republic
of Congo is unacceptable--unacceptable to the women and children caught
up in the crossfire, unacceptable to the civilians being felled by
preventable disease, unacceptable to a continent that is making great
strides, and unacceptable to our country, the United States, which has
the financial and diplomatic resources to make a profound difference.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration
to enacting this bill and working to promote peace and prosperity in
the Congo.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Catholic Relief Services,
Baltimore, MD, December 2, 2005.
Hon. Barack Obama,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Obama: Catholic Relief Services would like to
commend you for your leadership in writing in ``Democratic
Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy
Promotion Act of 2005''. We also want to sincerely thank you
and your staff for giving us the opportunity to comment on an
early draft of the bill and for incorporating some of our
recommendations.
As an agency active on the ground in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) for many years, we support this
legislation as a vehicle for elevating the priority of the
DRC among lawmakers and policy makers. The bill advances key
U.S. policy objectives for promoting peace, justice,
democracy, and development in the DRC, and also allocates
much-needed additional funds for the DRC.
We look forward to working with you and your staff to gain
support for the bill and advance its goals.
Sincerely,
Ken Hackett,
President.
____
December 9, 2005.
Hon. Barack Obama,
Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Obama: As representatives of humanitarian,
civil society and conflict prevention organizations, we are
writing to express our support for the Democratic Republic of
the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of
2005, and our appreciation of your efforts to ensure that the
longstanding conflict in the region receives the attention it
demands.
As stated in the legislation, the conflict in the eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo touches every major region
of the continent and is one of the deadliest since World War
II. Some 3.8 million people have lost their lives due to the
conflict in the last six years.
Despite these troubling statistics, the DRC is not without
hope. Landmark elections are planned for next year and, with
strong support from the international community, they have
the potential to help end the longstanding violence and put
the country on the path toward peace and stability. Your
legislation would ensure the active participation of the
United States and authorizes critical funding to address
humanitarian and development needs, promote good governance
and rule of law, and help ensure transparent management of
natural resource revenues.
We look forward to continuing work with you and your staff
on this important issue and in particular, would like to note
the effort Mr. Mark Lippert has made to reach out to our
community and incorporate our recommendations.
Sincerely,
CARE USA,
Global Witness, International Rescue
Committee, Oxfam America.
____
International Crisis Group,
Washington, DC, December 8, 2005.
Senator Barack Obama,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Obama: The International Crisis Group strongly
supports the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security,
and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005 and your efforts to raise
the visibility of and define new policies to respond to this
largely overlooked, longstanding, and deadly conflict.
The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has had
far reaching regional consequences and resulted in the loss
of an estimated 4 million lives since 1998. The situation in
the country, especially in the eastern region where armed
groups continue to assault local communities, remains most
precarious and in need of urgent action.
The country is now on the brink of landmark elections
scheduled for next year. Crisis Group has advocated
comprehensive action to stop the suffering of the Congolese
people and ensure the success of the transition by June 2006.
Your legislation would ensure the active participation of
the United States in this effort and help in promoting good
governance and justice. It would further authorize critical
funding to address development needs and provide life-saving
humanitarian assistance to millions of conflict-affected
civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Your leadership in introducing this legislation is greatly
appreciated and we look forward to continue to work with you
and your staff on this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
Mark L. Schneider,
Senior Vice President, International
Crisis Group.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 2126. A bill to limit the exposure of children to violent video
games; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help
parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In
rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the
Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence.
As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our
children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's
teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing
our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's
friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of
influence.
If somebody is exposing our children to material we find
inappropriate, we remove our children from that person.
If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and
sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do?
If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him
or her to come back.
Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything
else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a
stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your
children.
It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the
subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to
be of tremendous importance to our families.
This bill would take an important step towards helping parents
protect their children against influences they often find to be
inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply,
the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system,
which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people
under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system,
this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken
seriously.
I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games
and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I
hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at
issue here today.
Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented
film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs
think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are
hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film.
Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just
jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient,
tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a
villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays
from his severed carotid artery. . . .
This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game
that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I
don't know if it's one of the most popular games out
[[Page S13790]]
there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't
want her playing it.
Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of
street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies
are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San
Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing
them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also
means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes.
No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The
video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system
that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the
``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to
parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a
child to play.
Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase
Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal
Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages
13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National
Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children,
as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a
quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did
not provide any training to their employees.
This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does
just that.
I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video
games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and
old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce
children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning
to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and
spatial skills.
This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression.
Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a
causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in
our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional
strict scrutiny.
Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of
these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the
rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this
bill will have absolutely no impact on them.
And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role
parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them,
their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents,
who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the
violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall
away.
The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games,
which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates,
policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable
for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that
value judgment is meaningful.
Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated
games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried
about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep
these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the
awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on
this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention.
Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence
on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of
2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the
Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and
numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and
public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal
connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some
children,'' states their report.
The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media
Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games
is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung
cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by
the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in
video games and interactive media.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media
Whereas, decades of social science research reveals the
strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive
behavior of children and youth (APA Task Force On Television
and Society; 1992 Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory
Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972); and
Whereas, psychological research reveals that the electronic
media play an important role in the development of attitude,
emotion, social behavior and intellectual functioning of
children and youth (APA Task Force On Television and Society,
1992; Funk, J. B., et al. 2002; Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L.
2005; Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L. 2001); and
Whereas, there appears to be evidence that exposure to
violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about
aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and
demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential
conflict situations (Anderson, C.A., 2000; Anderson, C.A.,
Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J.,
Valentine, J. C., 2004; Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder,
J. R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004; Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J.,
Podolski, C. P., & Eron, L. D., 2003; Singer, D. & Singer,
J., 2001); and
Whereas, perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent
scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective
means of resolving conflict. Only 16% of all programs
portrayed negative psychological or financial effects, yet
such visual depictions of pain and suffering can actually
inhibit aggressive behavior in viewers (National Television
Violence Study, 1996); and
Whereas, comprehensive analysis of violent interactive
video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases
aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.)
increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior,
and, e.) increases physiological arousal (Anderson, C.A.,
2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M.,
Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004;
Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E., 2000; Bushman, B.J., &
Anderson, C.A., 2002; Gentile, D. A, Lynch, P. J., Linder, J.
R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004); and
Whereas, studies further suggest that sexualized violence
in the media has been linked to increases in violence towards
women, rape myth acceptance and anti-women attitudes.
Research on interactive video games suggests that the most
popular video games contain aggressive and violent content;
depict women and girls, men and boys, and minorities in
exaggerated stereotypical ways; and reward, glamorize and
depict as humorous sexualized aggression against women,
including assault, rape and murder (Dietz, T. L., 1998; Dill,
K. E., & Dill, J. C., 2004; Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A,
Richter, W. A., & Dill, J.C., in press; Mulac, A., Jansma, L.
L., & Linz, D. G., 2002; Walsh, D., Gentile, D. A.,
VanOverbeke, M., & Chasco, E., 2002); and
Whereas, the characteristics of violence in interactive
video games appear to have similar detrimental effects as
viewing television violence; however based upon learning
theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993), the practice,
repetition, and rewards for acts of violence may be more
conducive to increasing aggressive behavior among children
and youth than passively watching violence on TV and in films
(Carll, E. K., 1999a). With the development of more
sophisticated interactive media, such as virtual reality, the
implications for violent content are of further concern, due
to the intensification of more realistic experiences, and may
also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than
passively watching violence on TV and in films (Calvert, S.
L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Ed.) 2002; Carll, E. K.,
2003; Turkle, S., 2002); and
Whereas, studies further suggest that videogames influence
the learning processes in many ways more than in passively
observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant
with a violent character while playing video games, b.)
actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing
entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the
sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases
learning (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N.
L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J.
C., 2004; Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K. E., 2000); and
Whereas the data dealing with media literacy curricula
demonstrate that when children are taught how to view
television critically, there is a reduction of TV viewing in
general, and a clearer understanding of the messages conveyed
by the medium. Studies on media literacy demonstrate when
children are taught how to view television critically,
children can feel less frightened and sad after discussions
about the medium, can learn to differentiate between fantasy
and reality, and can identify less with aggressive
characters. on TV, and better understand commercial messages
(Brown, 2001; Hobbs, R. & Frost, R., 2003; Hortin, J.A.,
1982; Komaya, M., 2003; Rosenkoetter, L.J., Rosenkoetter,
S.E., Ozretich, R.A., & Acock, A.C., 2004; Singer & Singer,
1998; Singer & Singer, 1994)
Therefore be it Resolved that APA advocate for the
reduction of all violence in
[[Page S13791]]
videogames and interactive media marketed to children and
youth.
Be it further Resolved that APA publicize information about
research relating to violence in video games and interactive
media on children and youth in the Association's publications
and communications to the public.
Be it further Resolved that APA encourage academic,
developmental, family, and media psychologists to teach media
literacy that meets high standards of effectiveness to
children, teachers, parents and caregivers to promote ability
to critically evaluate interactive media and make more
informed choices.
Be it further Resolved that APA advocate for funding to
support basic and applied research, including special
attention to the role of social learning, sexism, negative
depiction of minorities, and gender on the effects of
violence in video games and interactive media on children,
adolescents, and young adults.
Be it further Resolved that APA engage those responsible
for developing violent video games and interactive media in
addressing the issue that playing violent video games may
increase aggressive thoughts and aggressive behaviors in
children, youth, and young adults and that these effects may
be greater than the well documented effects of exposure to
violent television and movies.
Be it further Resolved that APA recommend to the
entertainment industry that the depiction of the consequences
of violent behavior be associated with negative social
consequences.
Be it further Resolved that APA (a) advocate for the
development and dissemination of a content based rating
system that accurately reflects the content of video games
and interactive media, and (b) encourage the distribution and
use of the rating system by the industry, the public,
parents, caregivers and educational organizations.
Mrs. CLINTON. In June, a groundbreaking study by researchers at the
University of Indiana School of Medicine, which was published in the
Journal of Clinical Psychology, concluded that adolescents exposed to
high levels of violent media were less able to control and to direct
their thoughts and behavior, to stay focused on a task, to plan, to
screen out distractions, and to use experience to guide inhibitions.
A 2004 meta-analysis of over 35 research studies that included over
4,000 participants, found similar results. It concluded that playing
violent video games significantly increases aggressive behavior,
physiological arousal and feelings of anger and hostility, and
significantly decreases pro-social helping behavior.
And according to testimony by Craig Andersen before the Commerce
Committee in 2000, violent video games have been found to increase
violent adolescent behavior by 13 to 22 percent. Eighty-six percent of
African American females in the games are victims of violence. And, the
most common role for women in video games is prostitutes.
Research also demonstrates the opposite--reducing exposure to
violence reduces aggressive behavior. A 2001 study by Stanford
University School of Medicine found that reducing TV and video violence
consumption to under one hour per day reduces verbal aggression by 50
percent and physical aggression by 40 percent among 3rd and 4th grade
children.
Now, if you don't find the scientists compelling, consider a child
named Devon Thompson, who shot three police officers after being
brought in under suspicion of driving a stolen car. He grabbed one of
the officer's guns, shot three men and then jumped into a police car, a
scene remarkably like one found in the game Grand Theft Auto. When
Thompson was apprehended he said ``Life is a video game. You've got to
die sometime.''
In the face of this mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence,
the same company that developed Grand Theft Auto is coming out with a
new game called Bully. In Bully, the player is a student who beats up
other students in school.
Again, I am not here to argue that these games shouldn't be developed
or made available. But, I am here to ask, can't we as a society do
better by our kids? Can't we give parents the tools to make sure they
know what may fall into the hands of their children?
That is what this bill is all about and I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting it.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 2128. A bill to provide greater transparency with respect to
lobbying activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide
greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and
ensure greater accountability among public officials.
The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster
reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and
their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists,
including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms.
The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and
Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or
financed by a lobbyist or his client.
To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence
elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and
their political action committees to disclose their campaign
contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political
action committees and political party committees. It further mandates
disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by
these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events
involving legislative and executive branch officials.
To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who
actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires
registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000
or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact,
however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of
members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under
the Internal Revenue Code.
To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and
the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior
members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional
staff are restricted from lobbying.
The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from
the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian
tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as
outside lobbyists and agents.
To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting
gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives
the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more.
To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill
also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market
value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and
entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced
ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for
violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions
on enforcement and oversight.
This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half,
the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and
abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming
in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across
the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has
taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in
town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a
sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of
dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not.
Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of
what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary
way of doing business in this town.
The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in
the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy
and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry
favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to
ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush
skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports
and entertainment events. They
[[Page S13792]]
arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing
links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to
meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill
casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater
disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities,
then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The
American people deserve no less.
During its investigation, the committee also learned about
unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public
opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach,
DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We
saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of
cell phones and a desk drawer.
I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public
discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these
practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false
messages but also with fake messengers.
I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots
activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups
that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame
only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as
Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way
that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and
confidence in Congress.
The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and
privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists
to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but
also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits.
Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for
air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect
to the gift rules of Congress.
I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is
investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had
with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may
have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with
the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how
that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that
can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address
the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years
for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch
officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a
loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for
those who represent Indian tribes.
Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic
government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye.
The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and
transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public
officials.
The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with
its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate
their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the
ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government
must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.
We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the
public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of
confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully
examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other
Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can
join together on this issue.
I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a
little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval
Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this
year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people
approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed
somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of
days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64
percent disapprove, 26 percent approve.
Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and
Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in
the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is
nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that
disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of
them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the
priorities of the American people, that special interests set our
agenda here rather than the people's interest.
Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea
for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do
believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously
make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only
for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of
the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively
if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the
people whom we purport to represent.
I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an
honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with
people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and
priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of
rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy
papers, with data, et cetera.
But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we
highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our
Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports
boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper
workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way
the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting.
Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in
regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that
these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far
more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native
Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better
description.
I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the
American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not
corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as
well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be
taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can
give us confidence.
I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I
have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my
colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the
recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early
as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability,
transparency, and the confidence of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I came to the floor to thank my friend from Arizona
not just for the legislation he has just introduced but for his
characteristically courageous investigation of the events surrounding a
particular lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and the way in which they
demonstrate the extent to which the system has gone out of control.
The direct victims here, of course, are those whose money was
essentially taken without cause, who were cheated. But the indirect,
yet very real, victims of these abuses are the Members of Congress, and
the extent to which there has been abuse of a classic and very critical
function of our Government--lobbying--the extent to which there has
been abuse of that role breaks the public trust in Congress itself.
Disclosures, investigations such as Senator McCain and his committee
have been involved in, fearlessly, are critically important, but these
disclosures and revelations and abuses cry out to us now to take some
legislative action. I have not had the opportunity yet to review fully
the provisions of the legislation Senator McCain has introduced. I look
forward to doing that
[[Page S13793]]
over the recess. I hope that will put me in a position to join him as a
sponsor of this legislation. It would be an honor and a privilege to
work with him on this matter, as it has been to work on so many other
matters.
For today, I did not want this moment to go by without thanking him
for coming forward with this legislation. It makes the point we are
due--perhaps, in fact, overdue--for a review of our lobbying and
disclosure laws. They need strengthening, and they need strengthening
because it is right to do so and it is necessary to do so to restore
the public trust in our Government.
Mr. President, I am privileged to serve as the ranking member on the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In the normal
course of the Senate rules, I believe this legislation would be
referred to our committee, and there I look forward, along with the
chairman, Senator Collins, to reviewing it. But in a personal sense, I
want to work with Senator McCain and his staff and mine over the recess
and hope that I can join him as a cosponsor of this legislation after
the first of the year.
I thank my friend, Senator Durbin, for yielding me these few moments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in echoing the comments of the
Senator from Connecticut about what we just heard from the Senator from
Arizona. He has really touched an important issue. There is no doubt in
my mind there is a crisis in confidence in terms of the integrity of
Congress. Unless and until we deal with that directly, little else we
might do will be noticed or believed. I believe he is on the right
track.
But I would suggest to him there is something more to the story. It
is not just a question of lobbyists larding Members of Congress with
gifts, trips to Scotland for golf outings or lavish meals or whatever
it happens to be. There is more to the story, and it really goes to the
heart of the issue about how we get to Congress and how we get to the
Senate.
It is no longer ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' if it ever was. It
is no longer a matter of putting your candidacy before the people of
the State and asking that they consider you and wait for the
consequence. It is a money chase. It is a huge money chase. And unless
you happen to be one of the fortunate few and independently wealthy,
you have to spend an awful lot of time chasing it, an awful lot of time
raising money.
If you come from a State, as I do, like Illinois, you know an
ordinary Senate campaign in my State is going to cost anywhere from $5
million to $20 million to $40 million. Now, imagine, if you will, for a
moment that you had to raise that sum of money, and the largest
contribution was in the range of $4,000. It takes a lot of time, and it
takes a lot of contacts, and it takes a lot of commitment. So what you
find is that as people of the Senate are running for reelection, for
example, they are spending more and more and more time on the road
raising money. They are finding precious little time to dedicate to
their constituents or to the work of Congress because they are out
raising huge sums of money.
That is part of the reality of the relationship between Members of
Congress and lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists also are fundraisers,
so to have them on your side is to guarantee they will not only buy you
diner, if that is what you are looking for, but also help you in this
fundraising effort. I think real, ethical reform, which gets to the
heart of the issue, has to get to the issue of how we finance these
campaigns.
Unless and until we bring campaigns for election and reelection to
the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to a level where they
are affordable for common people, I am afraid we are going to continue
to be enslaved by the current system, which requires us to raise so
much money from so many people.
I can recall when the Republican leader Tom DeLay announced he was
starting something called the K Street project. He was a House leader,
and he said he was going to set out to make sure that the lobbyists who
came to see him were all loyal Republicans, loyal contributors. He
didn't want to see Democratic lobbyists. He prevailed on major
associations and organizations not to hire anybody other than a
Republican who had met with his approval.
For those of us who have been around this Hill for a while, it was
pretty clear what he was creating. He was creating a very generous
network of people, who would lobby him on legislation, whom he would
possibly reward and then find their support in his campaign. It had
built into it some very perilous opportunities. I won't talk about his
situation in Texas. Let that be decided in Texas. But unless and until
we get to the heart of the issue, the financing of campaigns, I am
afraid we are not going to be able to deal forthrightly with the
charges of corruption against Congress.
Let me add why campaigns cost so much money. Certainly in Illinois
and most other States, it is all about television. It is all about
millions of dollars which I have to raise to then give to television
stations in my State. It troubles me because what those television
stations are selling to me is something I own, something all Americans
own--the airwaves. So we are paying premium dollars to television
stations to run our ads for election and reelection. We are raising
millions of dollars to make sure that we transfer this money as if it
were a trust fund from our contributors directly to TV stations. It is
about time we change the fundamentals in America. In changing the
fundamentals, we can bring real reform.
I supported McCain-Feingold. Senators McCain and Feingold talked
about limiting soft money. That is the tip of the iceberg. It is
insidious, the soft money that came into campaigns, but the real
problem is the cost of campaigns and the millions you have to raise to
pay for television. If we said basically that in our country incumbents
and challengers will have access to a certain amount of television to
deliver their message at an affordable rate, we would dramatically drop
the cost of campaigns, dramatically reduce the need to fund raise, and
dramatically reduce our dependence on the sources of funds, whether
they are generous individuals, special interest groups, or lobbyists.
We have to get to the heart of the issue. It isn't an appetite for
golfing in Scotland; it is an appetite for money you need to run your
campaign.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2129. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka
Project, Idaho; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to
formally convey title a portion of the American Falls Reservoir
District from the Bureau of Reclamation to the National Park Service.
The Minidoka Internment National Monument Draft General Management Plan
and Environment Impact Statement proposes the transfer of these two
publicly owned parcels of land, which are both within and adjacent to
the existing 73-acre NPS boundary, and have been identified as
important for inclusion as part of the monument. The sites were both
within the original 33,000-acre Minidoka Relocation Center that was
operated by the War Relocation Authority, where approximately 13,500
Japanese and Japanese Americans were held from 1942 through 1945.
The smaller 2.31-acre parcel is located in the center of the monument
in the old warehouse area and includes three historical buildings and
other important cultural features. The Draft General Management Plan
proposes to use this site for visitor services, including a Visitor
Contact Station within an original warehouse to greet visitors and
provide orientation for the monument. The other, a 7.87-acre parcel, is
on the east end of the monument and was undeveloped during WWII. The
NPS proposes to use this area for special events and to provide a site
for the development of a memorial for the Issei, first-generation
Japanese immigrants. These two publicly-owned properties are critical
for long-term development, visitor services, and protection and
preservation of historical structures and features at Minidoka
Internment National Monument.
[[Page S13794]]
I would like to add that this legislation was developed with and is
strongly supported by both the agencies involved and the local
communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this small land
transfer that we might move a step closer toward properly memorializing
an important, but often forgotten, chapter of our Nation's history.
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. 2129
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 ``American Falls Reservoir
District Number 2 Conveyance Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means Agreement No.
5-07-10-L1688 between the United States and the District,
entitled ``Agreement Between the United States and the
American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 to Transfer Title to
the Federally Owned Milner-Gooding Canal and Certain Property
Rights, Title and Interest to the American Falls Reservoir
District No. 2''.
(2) District.--The term ``District'' means the American
Falls Reservoir District No. 2, located in Jerome, Lincoln,
and Gooding Counties, Idaho.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO CONVEY TITLE.
(a) In General.--In accordance with all applicable law and
the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the
Secretary may convey--
(1) to the District all right, title, and interest in and
to the land and improvements described in Appendix A of the
Agreement, subject to valid existing rights;
(2) to the city of Gooding, located in Gooding County,
Idaho, all right, title, and interest in and to the 5.0 acres
of land and improvements described in Appendix D of the
Agreement; and
(3) to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game all right,
title, and interest in and to the 39.72 acres of land and
improvements described in Appendix D of the Agreement.
(b) Compliance With Agreement.--All parties to the
conveyance under subsection (a) shall comply with the terms
and conditions of the Agreement, to the extent consistent
with this Act.
SEC. 4. TRANSFER.
As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall direct the Director of the National
Park Service to include in and manage as a part of the
Minidoka Internment National Monument the 10.18 acres of land
and improvements described in Appendix D of the Agreement.
SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS.
(a) In General.--On conveyance of the land and improvements
under section 3(a)(1), the District shall comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and local laws (including
regulations) in the operation of each facility transferred.
(b) Applicable Authority.--Nothing in this Act modifies or
otherwise affects the applicability of Federal reclamation
law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093),
and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43
U.S.C. 371 et seq.)) to project water provided to the
District.
SEC. 6. REVOCATION OF WITHDRAWALS.
(a) In General.--The portions of the Secretarial Orders
dated March 18, 1908, October 7, 1908, September 29, 1919,
October 22, 1925, March 29, 1927, July 23, 1927, and May 7,
1963, withdrawing the approximately 6,900 acres described in
Appendix E of the Agreement for the purpose of the Gooding
Division of the Minidoka Project, are revoked.
(b) Management of Withdrawn Land.--The Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall
manage the withdrawn land described in subsection (a) subject
to valid existing rights.
SEC. 7. LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), upon completion
of a conveyance under section 3, the United States shall not
be liable for damages of any kind for any injury arising out
of an act, omission, or occurrence relating to the land
(including any improvements to the land) conveyed under the
conveyance.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to liability
for damages resulting from an injury caused by any act of
negligence committed by the United States (or by any officer,
employee, or agent of the United States) before the date of
completion of the conveyance.
(c) Federal Tort Claims Act.--Nothing in this section
increases the liability of the United States beyond that
provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 8. FUTURE BENEFITS.
(a) Responsibility of the District.--After completion of
the conveyance of land and improvements to the District under
section 3(a)(1), and consistent with the Agreement, the
District shall assume responsibility for all duties and costs
associated with the operation, replacement, maintenance,
enhancement, and betterment of the transferred land
(including any improvements to the land).
(b) Eligibility for Federal Funding.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
District shall not be eligible to receive Federal funding to
assist in any activity described in subsection (a) relating
to land and improvements transferred under section 3(a)(1).
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
funding that would be available to a similarly situated
nonreclamation district, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 9. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
Before completing any conveyance under this Act, the
Secretary shall complete all actions required under--
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(3) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.); and
(4) all other applicable laws (including regulations).
SEC. 10. PAYMENT.
(a) Fair Market Value Requirement.--As a condition of the
conveyance under section 3(a)(1), the District shall pay the
fair market value for the withdrawn lands to be acquired by
them, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
(b) Grant for Building Replacement.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, and in full
satisfaction of the Federal obligation to the District for
the replacement of the structure in existence on that date of
enactment that is to be transferred to the National Park
Service for inclusion in the Minidoka Internment National
Monument, the Secretary, acting through the Commission of
Reclamation, shall provide to the District a grant in the
amount of $52,996, in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Hagel):
S. 2131. A bill to amend title 9, United Stares Code, to provide for
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair
Contracts for Growers Act of 2005. This bill would simply give farmers
a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural
contracts. This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it
would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that
the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not
waived under coercion.
I certainly recognize that arbitration has tremendous benefits. It
can often be less costly than other dispute settlement means. It can
also remove some of the workload from our Nation's overburdened court
system. For these reasons, arbitration must be an option--but it should
not be a coerced option.
Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of
agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These
provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the
company, even when a violation of Federal or State law is suspected.
Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are
required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer at a
severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of
discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. The effect of
these violations for the individual farmer can be bankruptcy and
financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration clauses make it impossible
for farmers to seek redress in court.
When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to
access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to
discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case,
the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not
prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information.
Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to
limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals,
bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or
birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a
grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against
farmers who join producer associations.
During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote
of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment
[[Page S13795]]
to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with
agricultural contracts.
I have some letters supporting this legislation and ask unanimous
consent that they be printed in the Record.
I also ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Organization for Competitive
Markets,
Lincoln, NE, November 15, 2005.
Re: Fair Contracts for Growers Act.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Senator Grassley:
1. The Organization for Competitive Markets would like to
express its support for your Fair Contracts for Growers Act.
Arbitration has a role in dispute resolution in the livestock
industry, and in other economic sectors. It should not be an
abuse tool. Your bill will remedy this.
2. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 7 says this: ``. . .
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . .''. The
law says citizens can waive this right, but the law also says
waivers should be knowing and voluntary.
3. It is a fact integrators and packers have more
information and sophistication, and more power, when
contracting with producers. Producers rely on integrator/
packer representations when making business decisions
including contract signing or rejection. Mandatory
arbitration clauses are not explained or negotiated, but
merely included in boilerplate language.
4. Producers are unable to knowingly and voluntarily waive
their right to a court-resolved future dispute. This is true
because they cannot anticipate the type of possible disputes
which may arise. The American Medical Assn, American
Arbitration Assn, and American Bar Assn have agreed with this
principal in the context of consumer health care contracts.
5. Producers must be provided real, not illusory, choice.
Your bill leaves producers free to agree to arbitration once
a dispute arises, but prohibits this forced ``choice''
before. Thank you for your efforts for U.S. livestock and
poultry producers.
Respectfully,
Keith Mudd,
President.
____
Iowa Farmers Union,
Ames, IA.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of Iowa
Farmers Union, Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN) and
the Iowa Chapter of National Farmers Organization to express
our strong support for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act,
and to thank you for your leadership in introducing this
legislation.
Contract livestock and poultry producers are being forced
to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-
or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with large, vertically
integrated processing firms. These producers forfeit their
basic constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must
accept an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely
limits their rights and is often prohibitively expensive.
These clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving
farmers little if any ability to seek justice if they become
the victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived
in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or
grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has
control over the information needed for growers to argue
their case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be
available to a grower's attorney through discovery. In an
arbitration proceeding, the company is not required to
provide access to this information, thus placing the farmer/
grower at an extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal
rights that are waived through arbitration are access to
mediation and appeal, as well as the right to an explanation
of the decision.
Many assume that arbitration is a less costly way of
resolving dispute than going to court, but for the producer,
the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is
often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front
filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of
the dispute itself, with farmers being required to pay fees
in the thousands of dollars just to start the arbitration
process.
Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute
resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by
two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant
party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
Independent family farmers all over the U.S. will benefit
from a law that stops the abuse of arbitration clauses in
livestock and poultry contracts.
Sincerely,
Chris Petersen,
President.
____
Center for Rural Affairs,
Lyons, NE.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of the Center
for Rural Affairs to express our strong support for the Fair
Contacts for Growers Act, and to thank you for your
leadership in introducing this legislation.
The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very timely. With the
rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of agricultural
production, farmers are increasingly producing agricultural
products under contract with large processors. Under these
contracts, it is common for farmers and growers to be forced
to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-
or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with a large, vertically
integrated processing firm. In doing so, the farmer is forced
to give up their basic constitutional right to a jury trial,
and instead must accept an alternative dispute resolution
forum that severely limits their rights and is often
prohibitively expensive. These clauses are signed before any
dispute arises, leaving farmers little if any ability to seek
justice if they become the victim of fraudulent or abusive
trade practices.
Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived
in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or
grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has
control of the information needed for a grower to argue their
case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available
to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration
proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to
this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an
extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are
waived through arbitration are access to mediation and
appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the
decision.
In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less
costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for
the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of
arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers.
The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the
magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required
to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the
arbitration process.
Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute
resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by
two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant
party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
The Center for Rural Affairs believes this is important
because of the number of small and mid-size farms that enter
into contract livestock production. Small and mid-size farms
that don't have the capital to invest in starting their own
livestock operations often look to contract production as
mechanism for diversifying their farming operations as well
as their cash flow. However, when these farmers and ranchers
are not allowed equal legal protection, their entire farming
operations lay at risk.
Moreover, farmers who enter into contracts with meatpackers
and large, corporate livestock producers will never have the
power or negotiating position that those companies will enjoy
in virtually every contract dispute. Producers often lack the
financial and legal resources to challenge vertical
integrators when their rights are violated. A legal agreement
between smaller farm operations and integrators should,
therefore, provide at least as much legal protection for
producers as it does for the integrator.
Although the impetus behind this legislation emanates from
the poultry industry, the rights of farmers who raise hogs
and other livestock under contract are also threatened. And
the increased use of production contracts in these sectors
has made this issue that much more important to farmers in
the Midwest and Great Plains as well.
Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these
concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense
legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the
livestock and poultry contracts.
Sincerely,
Traci Bruckner,
Associate Director, Rural Policy Program.
____
Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.
Senator Chuck Grassley,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in support of the Fair
Contract for Growers Act and to thank you for your leadership
in introducing this legislation.
The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is necessary to help
level the playing field for our farmers and ranchers who
enter into production contracts with packers and processors.
The rapid rise of vertically integrated production chains,
combined with the high degree of concentration of poultry
processors and meatpackers, leave farmers and ranchers in
many regions of the country with few choices, or only a
single choice, of buyers for their production. Increasingly,
farmers and ranchers are confronted with ``take-it-or-leave-
it,'' non-negotiable contracts, written by the company. These
contracts require that farmers and ranchers give up the basic
constitutional right of access to the courts and sign
mandatory arbitration clauses if they want access to a market
for their products. These clauses are signed before any
dispute arises, leaving the producers little, if
[[Page S13796]]
any, ability to seek justice if they become the victim of
fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute
resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by
two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant
party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon. Many basic
legal processes are not available to farmers and ranchers in
arbitration. In most agricultural production contract
disputes, the company has control of the information needed
for a grower to argue a case. In a civil court case, this
evidence would be available to the grower's attorney through
discovery. In an arbitration proceeding, however, the company
is not required to provide access to this information, thus
placing the grower at an extreme disadvantage. In addition,
in most arbitration proceedings, a decision is issued without
an opinion providing an explanation of the principles and
standards or even the facts considered in reaching the
decision. The arbitration proceeding is private, closed to
effective pubic safeguards, and the arbitration decisions are
often confidential and rarely subject to public oversight or
judicial review.
Moreover, there is a growing perception that the
arbitration system is biased towards the companies. This
private system is basically supported financially by the
companies which are involved repeatedly in arbitration cases.
The companies also know the history of previous arbitrations,
including which arbitrators repeatedly decide in the
companies' favor. This arbitration history is rarely
available to a farmer or rancher involved in a single
arbitration proceeding.
Arbitration is often assumed to be a less costly way of
resolving disputes than litigation. But this assumption must
be tested in light of the relative resources of the parties.
For most farmers and ranchers, arbitration is a significant
expense in relation to their income. One immediate
financial barrier is filing fees and case service fees,
which in arbitration are usually divided between the
parties. A few thousand dollars out of pocket is a
miniscule expense for a well-heeled company but can be an
insurmountable barrier for a farmer with a modest income,
especially when the farmer is conflict with the farmer's
chief source of income. This significant cost barrier,
when coupled with the disadvantages of the arbitration
process, can effectively deny farmers a remedy in contract
dispute cases with merit.
The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition represents family
farm, rural development, and conservation and environmental
organizations that share a commitment to federal policy
reform to promote sustainable agriculture and rural
development. Coalition member organizations include the
Agriculture and Land Based Training Association, American
Natural Heritage Foundation, C.A.S.A. del Llano (Communities
Assuring a Sustainable Agriculture), Center for Rural
Affairs, Dakota Rural Action, Delta Land and Community, Inc.,
Future Harvest-CASA (Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable
Agriculture), Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Innovative
Farmers of Ohio, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation,
Kansas Rural Center, Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture,
Land Stewardship Project, Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute, Michigan Agricultural Stewardship Association,
Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, The
Minnesota Project, National Catholic Rural Life Conference,
National Center for Appropriate Technology, Northern Plains
Sustainable Agriculture Society, Ohio Ecological Food and
Farm Association, Organic Farming Research Foundation, and
the Sierra Club Agriculture Committee. Our member
organizations included thousands of farmers and ranchers with
small and mid-size operations, a number of whom have entered
into agricultural production contracts or are considering
whether to sign these contracts. As individuals, these
farmers and ranchers do not have the financial power or
negotiating position that companies enjoy in virtually every
contract dispute. We agree with Senator Grassley that, in the
face of such unequal bargaining power, the Fair Contract for
Growers Act is a modest and appropriate step which allows
growers the choice of entering into arbitration or mediation
or choosing to exercise their basic legal right of access to
the courts.
Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these
concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense
legislation to stop the abuse of mandatory arbitration
clauses in livestock and poultry contracts.
Sincerely,
Martha L. Noble,
Senior Policy Associate,
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
____
National Family Farm Coalition,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.
Senator Charles Grassley,
Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley. I am writing as president of the
National Family Farm Coalition to express our strong support
for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act, and to thank you for
your leadership in introducing this legislation. As you know,
the National Family Farm Coalition provides a voice for
grassroots groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic
issues to ensure fair prices for family farmers, safe and
healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural
communities here and around the world. Our organization is
committed to promoting food sovereignty, which is stymied by
current practices that give farmers unfair and unjust
difficulties when they wish to arbitrate a contract dispute.
Therefore, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very
timely. With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods
of agricultural production, farmers are increasingly
producing agricultural products under contract with large
processors. Under these contracts, it is common for farmers
and growers to be forced to sign mandatory arbitration
clauses, as part of a take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable
contract with a large, vertically integrated processing firm.
In doing so, the farmer is forced to give up their basic
constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must accept
an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely limits
their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. These
clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving farmers
little if any ability to seek justice if they become the
victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived
in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or
grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has
control of the information needed for a grower to argue their
case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available
to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration
proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to
this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an
extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are
waived through arbitration are access to mediation and
appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the
decision.
In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less
costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for
the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of
arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers.
The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the
magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required
to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the
arbitration process.
Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute
resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by
two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant
party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these
concerns, and your willingness to introduce common sense
legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the
livestock and poultry contracts.
Sincerely,
George Naylor,
President,
National Family Farm Coalition.
____
Campaign for Contract
Agriculture Reform,
November 18, 2005.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of the Campaign for
Contract Agriculture Reform, I would like to thank you for
your leadership in introducing the Fair Contracts for Growers
Act.
With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of
agricultural production, farmers are increasingly producing
agricultural products under contract with large processors.
In many cases, particularly in the livestock and poultry
sector, the farmer never actually owns the product they
produce, but instead makes large capital investments on their
own land to build the facilities necessary to raise animals
for an ``integrator.''
Under such contract arrangements, farmers and growers are
often given take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable contracts,
with language drafted by the integrator in a manner designed
to maximize the company's profits and shift risk to the
grower. In many cases, the farmer has little choice but to
sign the contract presented to them, or accept bankruptcy.
The legal term for such contracts is ``contract of
adhesion.'' As contracts of adhesion become more commonplace
in agriculture, the abuses that often characterize such
contracts are also becoming more commonplace and more
egregious.
One practice that has become common in livestock and
poultry production contracts is the use of mandatory
arbitration clauses, where growers are forced to sign away
their constitutional rights to jury trial upon signing a
contract with an integrator, and instead accept a dispute
resolution forum that denies their basic legal rights and is
too costly for most growers to pursue.
Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived
in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or
grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has
control of the information needed for a grower to argue their
case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available
to a grower's attorney through discovery. In an arbitration
proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to
this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an
extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are
waived through arbitration are access to mediation and
appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the
decision.
In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less
costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for
the farmer,
[[Page S13797]]
the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is
often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front
filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of
the dispute itself. For example, in one Mississippi case,
filing fees for a poultry grower to begin an arbitration
proceeding were $11,000. In contrast, filing fees for a civil
court case are $150 to $250. Lawyer fees in a civil case are
often paid on a contingent-fee basis.
In addition, the potential for mandatory arbitration
clauses to be used abusively by a dominant party in a
contract has also been recognized by Congress with regard to
other sectors of our economy. In 2002, legislation was
enacted with broad bipartisan support that prohibits the use
of pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
between car dealers and car manufacturers and distributors.
The Fair Contract for Growers Act is nearly identical in
structure to the ``car dealer'' arbitration bill passed by
Congress in 2002.
Thank you again for introducing the Fair Contracts for
Growers Act, to assure that arbitration in livestock and
poultry contracts is truly voluntary, after mutual agreement
of both parties after a dispute arises. If used, arbitration
should be a tool for honest dispute resolution, not a weapon
used to limit a farmer's right to seek justice for abusive
trade practices.
I look forward to working with you toward enactment of this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Etka,
Legislative Coordinator.
____
S. 2131
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 Contracts for Growers
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning
given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock
or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing
agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or
poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or
poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of
raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance
with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock
or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given
the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act,
1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry
contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a
controversy under the livestock or poultry contract,
arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if,
after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing
to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is
elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry
contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the
contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis
for the award.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``17. Livestock and poultry contracts''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract
entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or
extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Burns and Mr. Craig):
S. 2132. A bill to Include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for
purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
(42 U.S.C. 2210 note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf
of myself, Senator Burns of Montana and my Colleague Senator Craig
that would include the States of Idaho and Montana as affected areas
under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA.
Since our goals of giving affected citizens in our States the
opportunity to receive compensation under RECA, and the challenges
faced by our constituents are the same, it is appropriate to combine
our efforts toward rectifying the problem.
Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released
radiation into the atmosphere that settled in States far away from the
original test site. Certain elements of this radiation such as the
radioactive isotope Iodine-131 settled in States such as Idaho and
Montana and found their way into the milk supply. After time, in some
cases 25 to 50 years after the fact, this contamination manifested
itself as various forms of cancer, leukemia and other illnesses,
particularly thyroid cancer. Those affected in this way are often
referred to as ``downwinders,'' to denote their location downwind from
the fallout.
In 1990, Congress recognized the need for the Federal Government to
make amends for the harm caused to innocent citizens by nuclear testing
and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed into law.
Unfortunately, the science at the time did not recognize that
radioactive fallout did not restrict itself by State lines.
This was highlighted in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by
Senator Hatch, amended the law to include additional counties in
Arizona. During debate on this legislation, Senator Hatch said, ``Our
current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more
accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to
radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we
are considering today.'' Since that time, even greater advances in
science have been made in the area of radiation exposure.
When the RECA disparity was first brought to my attention by the
Idaho downwinders, I met with them to discuss ways to help them. The
National Academy of Sciences staff came to Idaho in 2004 to hear
testimony from those affected and ensure that their concerns and
comments were included in the process.
Their voices were heard; the NAS report released in April of 2005
recognized that, among the 25 counties with the highest per capita
dosage of radiation, 20 of those counties are in Idaho and Montana. In
fact, Idaho is home to four of the top five counties in this regard.
The report also stated that, ``To be equitable, any compensation
program needs to be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must
be treated alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on
the latest science.'' Understanding these facts, it is of prime
importance that we rectify the problem quickly.
The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs to be updated
and that affected Idahoans and Montanans deserve equal treatment with
those in other States. The report makes several specific
recommendations, chief among them that Congress should establish a new
process for reviewing individual claims, based on probability of
causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used in the courts
and for other radiation compensation programs. I am currently working
with my colleagues to legislatively address the suggestions made by the
NAS report and work out a long-term solution for the challenges
currently posed by RECA.
We all recognize that this problem requires a two-part solution--
expanding the current RECA program to include those left behind while
at the same time working on the long-term fixes recommended by the NAS.
These efforts must happen simultaneously and I am pleased that my
colleagues are partnering with me on this course.
Tragically, for some, it is already too late. A long-time advocate
for the downwinders, and personal friend, Sheri Garmon, passed away
from cancer this summer. Others preceded her and some are sick right
now. There are still a number of those affected who are still waiting
for the Government to do the right thing and make them eligible for
compensation for their injuries. The facts are in and the science shows
that they should not have to wait any longer for their rightful
opportunity to seek appropriate redress. Let's fix this while we still
have some of those who are sick because of Government actions with us.
I would exhort my colleagues to join with me and Senators Burns and
Craig to take up this legislation we have introduced today and bring
needed fairness to those in Idaho and Montana and extend them
eligibility under the current Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
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:
[[Page S13798]]
S. 2132
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF IDAHO AND MONTANA IN RADIATION
EXPOSURE COMPENSATION.
Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
(42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) the State of Idaho; and
``(E) the State of Montana; and''.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2133. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to include foreseeable catastrophic events as
major disasters, to permit States affected by an event occurring
elsewhere to receive assistance, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the massive devastation inflicted
upon our southern States by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
reminded all Americans how important it is that the Federal Government
be able to respond quickly and effectively when disaster strikes. We
also learned from those tragedies that we must assist in ways few of us
had imagined--for example, to meet the needs of evacuees who were
dispersed far from the disaster.
Other events of the past few years, both here at home and abroad,
have taught us that we must prepare for more than just natural
disasters. Accidents, acts of terrorism, and pandemic illnesses also
threaten us with death, injury, and destruction. And while we work to
minimize the threats, we must assume that such disasters will really
happen.
I have concluded that the President's current statuary authority to
respond to disasters is not sufficient to meet the threats that we all
now recognize as real, though once they were unimaginable. Today, I am
introducing the Disaster Relief Act 2005 to modernize our disaster
response capability for the 21st century.
One of the principal authorities we have given the President for
disaster management is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act. This is the law that authorizes the
President, at the request of a Governor, to declare an ``Emergency'' or
a ``Major Disaster,'' which then enables various types of Federal
assistance. Emergency is the lower level declaration. The President is
given great latitude in the types of events that can be declared
emergencies, but relief is generally limited to $5 million per
declaration. A major disaster declaration allows much greater
assistance, but can be made only for natural disasters or, from any
cause, fire, flood, or explosion.
The Department of Homeland Security uses 15 disaster scenarios to
guide planning for the types of catastrophes it has concluded threaten
our country. Besides natural disasters, the list includes various types
of terrorist attacks--chemical, biological, radiological, cyber--as
well as major health disasters. Though the President could respond to
any of these scenarios by issuing an Emergency declaration, only seven
of the fifteen would currently qualify under the Stafford Act to be
declared a major disaster.
This bill will modify the definition of a major disaster in the
Stafford Act to direct the President to focus on the impacts of an
event in determining whether to issue a declaration. It is indeed the
suffering--deaths, injuries, destruction--and not the cause of that
suffering, which should determine our response. Catastrophic events,
foreseeable and yet unimagined, will be covered if the suffering
exceeds the capacity of the State to respond.
Furthermore, under the Stafford Act it is not clear whether States
affected indirectly by a disaster occurring elsewhere--for example, by
receiving evacuees or by the spread of nuclear, toxic, or infectious
agents--could receive a major disaster declaration. It became clear in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that meeting the needs of evacuees
can be a difficult challenge. Four States received major disaster
declarations following Katrina. Forty-four others received emergency
declarations to assist evacuees, but not even Texas, which hosted over
200,000 evacuees, received a major disaster declaration to assist them.
Even if it were possible to declare a major disaster in a State
receiving evacuees, assistance to meet some of their needs--education,
healthcare, long-term housing and resettlement--is not adequately
authorized under the Stafford Act.
Being able to meet the needs of evacuees is an important issue for
West Virginia. We hosted several hundred evacuees from Hurricane
Katrina, just enough to understand the special needs of people who have
lost their homes and livelihoods, have been moved to unfamiliar places
without resources, have been separated from their families, and
suffered in many other ways. A disaster in the Washington-Baltimore
region, or in Pennsylvania or Ohio, could bring far more evacuees to
West Virginia than we could assist with presently available resources.
This bill acknowledges the fact that the impacts of a major disaster
can extend far beyond the location of the event, and enables the
President to make major disaster declarations in affected States,
wherever they may be located. Additional forms of assistance to
evacuees, found necessary after hurricane Katrina--for education,
healthcare, long-term housing, and resettlement--will be made
available.
Several other aspects of the Stafford Act require our attention, and
are addressed in the bill. Authorization for Predisaster Hazard
Mitigation under Title II, set to expire at the end of this year, will
be extended to 2010. The modest levels of direct assistance to
individuals, though indexed to inflation, will be increased because of
rapid increases in housing costs in recent years. The duration of
assistance that can be provided by the Department of Defense, for the
preservation of life and property, will be increased from 10 to 30
days, to meet needs following extreme disasters. It will be clarified
that events occurring within the waters surrounding the United States
are eligible for emergency and major disaster declarations, Efforts to
recover costs of assistance when emergencies or major disasters are
caused by gross negligence will be authorized. The process for
appropriating funds for disaster relief will be improved. And other
minor improvements will be made.
I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me to pass this bill and
improve our preparedness for disasters in the 21st century.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2133
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 ``Disaster Relief Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the current definition of a major disaster in section
102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is insufficient to enable the
President to respond quickly and efficiently to foreseeable
catastrophic events, including many types of potential
terrorists attacks, accidents, and health emergencies;
(2) more than \1/2\ of the disaster planning scenarios used
by the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate
preparedness would not be covered by that present definition;
(3) States affected by a event occurring elsewhere, such as
through mass evacuations, the propagation of radioactive or
toxic substances, or the transmission of infectious agents,
may not be eligible for the declaration of a major disaster
or for certain types of assistance;
(4) emergency declarations, widely used to provide
assistance to evacuees following Hurricane Katrina, may not
adequate;
(5) some types of assistance found to be necessary
following the evacuations associated with Hurricane Katrina,
notably assistance for providing public services such as
education, healthcare, long-term housing, and resettlement,
are not authorized to be provided under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
(6) the process for appropriating funds for disaster
assistance is inefficient and often requires supplemental
appropriations and certain assistance programs have been
delayed by insufficient funds;
(7) authorization for the Predisaster Hazard Mitigation
program, under title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.)
will expire on December 31, 2005;
[[Page S13799]]
(8) while the Federal Government is authorized to recover
the cost of providing assistance in the event of major
disasters or emergencies caused by deliberate actions, costs
resulting from negligent actions cannot be recovered;
(9) limits on assistance provided to individuals for repair
or replacement of housing and total assistance, though
indexed for inflation, do not adequately reflect increases in
the costs of housing that have occurred in recent years; and
(10) the duration of assistance by the Department of
Defense authorized under section 403(c) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170b(c)) for activities ``essential for the
preservation of life and property'' may be insufficient to
meet needs following major disasters that are particularly
severe or for which the period of recovery is lengthy.
(b) Purposes.--
(1) In general.--The purpose of this Act is to expand and
enhance the authority and capacity of the President of the
United States to alleviate suffering and loss resulting from
large catastrophic events by appropriately amending the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) Major disasters.--In amending the definition of the
term major disaster in section 102(2) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(2)), Congress intends to expand the types of
events that constitute a major disaster and does not intend
to exclude any type of event that would have constituted a
major disaster prior to the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Major Disaster.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)
is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) Major disaster.--The term `major disaster' means a
catastrophic event that--
``(A) involves or results in--
``(i) a large number of human deaths, injuries, or
illnesses;
``(ii) substantial property damage or loss; or
``(iii) extensive disruption of public services; and
``(B) in the determination of the President, is of such
severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the affected State or local government.''.
(b) United States.--Section 102(3) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ```United States''' and inserting the
following:
``(3) United states.--The term `United States' '';
(2) by striking ``and'' after ``Samoa,''; and
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, and the exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf (as those terms are defined in the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay
December 10, 1982) surrounding those areas.''.
(c) Affected State.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Affected state.--The term `affected State' means any
State--
``(A) that suffers damage, loss, or hardship as a result of
an occasion or instance satisfying the criteria of paragraph
(1) or a catastrophic event satisfying the criteria of
paragraph (2);
``(B) regardless of location, that suffers indirect
consequences due to an emergency or major disaster declared
in another part of the United States, to the extent that, in
the determination of the President, assistance provided for
under this Act is required; or
``(C) that is included in a Presidential declaration of an
Incident of National Significance under the National Response
Plan (developed under Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 5).''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM.
Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(m)) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
SEC. 5. COORDINATING OFFICERS.
Section 302(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5143(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Immediately''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In the event the President declares an emergency or
major disaster in more than 1 State as a result of an
occasion, instance, or catastrophic event, the President may,
as appropriate and efficient, appoint 1 or more regional
coordinating officers, without regard to State borders. A
regional coordinating officer shall report to the Federal
coordinating officer appointed under paragraph (1) and the
Principal Federal Official for the emergency or major
disaster designated under the National Response Plan
(developed under Homeland Security Presidential Directive
5).''.
SEC. 6. RECOVERY OF ASSISTANCE.
Section 317 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5160) is amended by
inserting ``, or through gross negligence,'' after ``Any
person who intentionally''.
SEC. 7. UTILIZATION OF DOD RESOURCES.
Section 403(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``an incident which may ultimately qualify
for assistance under this title or title V of this Act'' and
inserting the following: ``a catastrophic event that the
President has declared a major disaster''; and
(B) by striking ``the State in which such incident
occurred'' and inserting the following: ``any State in the
area for which the President has declared a major disaster'';
and
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``10 days'' and
inserting ``30 days''.
SEC. 8. HAZARD MITIGATION.
Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is amended
in the first sentence, by striking ``any area affected by a
major disaster'' and inserting ``any area in which the
President has declared a major disaster''.
SEC. 9. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.
Section 406(a)(4) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(4) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Committee on
Environment and Public Works'' and inserting ``Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and the Committee
on Homeland Security'' after ``Infrastructure''
SEC. 10. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``in the State who,
as a direct result of a major disaster,'' and inserting the
following: ``in an area in which the President has declared a
major disaster who'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000''; and
(3) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``$25,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000''.
SEC. 11. EMERGENCY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
Section 419 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5186) is amended by
striking ``an area affected by a major disaster to meet
emergency needs'' and inserting the following: ``an area in
which the President has declared a major disaster to meet
emergency needs, including evacuation,''.
SEC. 12. EVACUEES.
Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 425. ASSISTANCE IN AREAS RECEIVING EVACUEES.
``If the President determines that other statutory
authorities are insufficient, the President may award grants
or other assistance to an affected State or local government
to be used to meet the temporary health, education, food, and
housing needs of evacuees.''.
SEC. 13. DISASTER RELIEF FUND.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 326. DISASTER RELIEF FUND.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States, under the Office of the Secretary of
the Treasury, a Disaster Relief Fund (referred to in this
section as the `Fund'). The Fund shall be available to
provide financial resources to respond to domestic disasters
and emergencies described in subsection (c).
``(b) Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--The Fund shall consist of such sums as
are appropriated in accordance with this subsection and such
sums as are transferred from the Department of Homeland
Security Disaster Relief Fund.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `operating expenditures' means an amount equal to the
average amount expended from the Fund, or any predecessor of
the Fund, for the preceding 5 years, excluding the years
during that 5-year period in which the greatest amount and
least amount were expended from the Fund.
``(3) Deposits into fund.--On October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make a cash deposit
into the Fund of an amount sufficient to bring the Fund
balance up the amount of operating expenditures as of that
date.
``(4) Replenishment.--There shall be appropriated, for each
fiscal year, sufficient amounts to restore the Fund to
balance required under paragraph (3).
``(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts in the Fund shall only be
available to meet the emergency funding requirements for--
``(1) particular domestic disasters and security
emergencies designated by a Joint Resolution of Congress; or
``(2) an emergency or major disaster declared by the
President under this Act.
``(d) Reporting.--Not later than November 30, 2006, and
annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall submit to Congress a report that lists the
amounts expended from the Fund for the prior fiscal year for
each disaster or emergency under subsection (c).''.
(b) Abolition of Existing Fund.--
[[Page S13800]]
(1) Transfer of funds.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall transfer any funds in Department of Homeland Security
Disaster Relief Fund to the Disaster Relief Fund established
in the Treasury of the United States by section 326 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (as added by this Act).
(2) Abolition.--After all funds are transferred to the
Disaster Relief Fund in the Treasury of the United States
under paragraph (1), the Department of Homeland Security
Disaster Relief Fund is abolished.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Permanent appropriation.--Section 1305 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Emergency reserve fund.--To make payments into the
Disaster Relief Fund established by section 326 of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
(d) Congressional Budget Process.--Section 301(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8) respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) total new budget authority and total budget outlays
for emergency funding requirements for domestic disasters and
emergencies, which shall be transferred to the Disaster
Relief Fund established by section 326 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
______
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 2134. A bill to strengthen existing programs to assist
manufacturing innovation and education, to expand outreach programs for
small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kohl and DeWine
to introduce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
The manufacturing sector is a critical component of our economy and
an engine of job creation for millions of Americans. Investment and
continued growth in this industry is vital in order to strengthen
manufacturing in the United States and increase our global
competitiveness.
Through a number of measures, my legislation is aimed at further
improving productivity, advancing technology and increasing the
competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing industry.
My bill authorizes funding through fiscal year 2008 for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
MEP is a nationwide network with centers in all 50 states that
provide assistance to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers
succeed by providing expertise and services customized to meet their
critical needs.
Small and medium sized manufacturers in my home State of Oregon have
benefited from the efforts of the Oregon MEP resulting in increased
jobs, investment and overall productivity. In 2004, the Oregon MEP
helped manufacturers generate new or retain sales of $6,835,400 and a
save costs of $18,736,000. MEP's assistance has yielded similar success
for countless manufacturers in states across the country.
In addition to authorizing funding for MEP, this bill will amend
partnership to include a mechanism for review and re-competition of MEP
Centers and establish an additional competitive grant program from
which these centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-
related projects.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology with its expertise
in technology, measurement and standards helps U.S. industry
manufacture leading products and deliver high quality services. NIST
has aided U.S. companies in competing in domestic and foreign markets
through technology-based innovations in areas such as biotechnology,
information technology and advanced manufacturing. NIST's capabilities
will allow them to make further valuable contributions with emerging
technologies in the future.
My bill establishes programs aimed at enhancing research and
advancements in the manufacturing industry including a fellowship
program and a manufacturing research pilot program, which involves
cost-sharing collaborations aimed at developing new processes and
materials to improve manufacturing performance and productivity.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) which supports research and
development of high-risk, cutting edge technologies is authorized
funding in this legislation. ATP partners with private sector entities
to invest in early stage, innovative technologies that enable U.S.
companies to develop next generation products and services that improve
the quality of life for all of us. These public-private partnerships
lead to innovations that otherwise could not be developed by a single
entity.
I urge my colleagues to support the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act of 2005 and 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. 2134
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 ``Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the first section 32 (15 U.S.C. 271
note; as redesignated by Public Law 105-309) as section 34;
and
(2) by inserting before the section redesignated by
paragraph (1) the following:
``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.
``(a) Authority.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a
Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants program to make awards to
partnerships consisting of participants described in
paragraph (2) for the purposes described in paragraph (3).
Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
``(2) Participants.--The partnerships described in this
paragraph shall include at least--
``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program established
under this section is to foster cost-shared collaborations
among firms, educational institutions, research institutions,
State agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the
development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing
technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this
section shall conduct applied research to develop new
manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and the
manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, and build
lasting alliances among collaborators.
``(b) Program Contribution.--An award made under this
section shall provide for not more than one-third of the
costs of the partnership. Not more than an additional one-
third of such costs may be obtained directly or indirectly
from other Federal sources.
``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and
containing such information as the Director shall require.
Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and
carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
``(2) the research that the grant will fund; and
``(3) how the research to be funded with the award will
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and the
manufacturing competitiveness of the United States.
``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for
awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a
minimum--
``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact
on manufacturing;
``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the
proposed projects; and
``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to
successfully carry out the proposed research.
``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this
section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable,
a distribution of overall awards among a variety of
manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director
shall conduct a single pilot competition to solicit and make
awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.
SEC. 3. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.
Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Director is authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a
robust research community working at the leading edge of
manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a
program to award--
``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute
for research activities related to manufacturing sciences;
and
``(B) senior research fellowships to established
researchers in industry or at institutions of higher
education who wish to pursue studies related to the
manufacturing sciences at the Institute.
[[Page S13801]]
``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this
subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may require.
``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this section, the Director
shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships
at a level consistent with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent
with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical
position.''.
SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION.
(a) Manufacturing Center Evaluation.--Section 25(c)(5) of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``A Center that
has not received a positive evaluation by the evaluation
panel shall be notified by the panel of the deficiencies in
its performance and may be placed on probation for one year,
after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. If the
Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the
panel, or shown a significant improvement in its performance,
the Director may conduct a new competition to select an
operator for the Center or may close the Center.'' after
``sixth year at declining levels.''.
(b) Federal Share.--Section 25(d) of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may
be appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the
Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept
funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under
section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of
strengthening United States manufacturing. Such funds, if
allocated to a Center, shall not be considered in the
calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual
operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).''.
(c) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant
Program.--Section 25 of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsections:
``(e) Competitive Grant Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this
section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive
awards among participants described in paragraph (2) for the
purposes described in paragraph (3).
``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under
this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such
Centers.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this
subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging
manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in
consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
National Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized
manufacturers. One or more themes for the competition may be
identified, which may vary from year to year, depending on
the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous
competitions. These themes shall be related to projects
associated with manufacturing extension activities, including
supply chain integration and quality management, or extend
beyond the traditional areas.
``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time,
and containing such information as the Director shall
require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership National Advisory Board.
``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be
peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall
select proposals to receive awards--
``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches
to solving the problem described in the competition;
``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries
in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic
stability of that region.
``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under
this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching
contribution.
``(f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this
section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
133 and shall make such audits available to the public on
request.''.
(d) Programmatic and Operational Plan.--Not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a 3-year programmatic and
operational plan for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program under sections 25 and 26 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l). The
plan shall include comments on the plan from the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership State partners and the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING
SUPPORT PROGRAMS.
(a) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce,
or other appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278k and 278l)--
(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
(2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more
than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
(3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more
than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).
(b) Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants
Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Commerce for the Collaborative Manufacturing
Research Pilot Grants program under section 33 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(c) Fellowships.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology under
section 18(b) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act, as added by section 3 of this Act--
(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Director of the National Science Foundation, from sums
otherwise authorized to be appropriated, for the programs
established under section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-
Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i)--
(A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 of which
may be used to support the education and preparation of
manufacturing technicians for certification;
(B) $57,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000 of which
may be used to support the education and preparation of
manufacturing technicians for certification; and
(C) $60,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 of which
may be used to support the education and preparation of
manufacturing technicians for certification.
(2) Distribution.--Funds appropriated under this subsection
shall be made available, to the maximum extent practicable,
to diverse institutions, including historically Black
colleges and universities and other minority-serving
institutions.
(b) Amendments.--Section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-
Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i) is amended--
(1) in subsections (a)(1) and (c)(2), by inserting ``,
including manufacturing,'' after ``advanced-technology
fields''; and
(2) by inserting ``, including manufacturing'' after
``advanced-technology fields'' each place the term appears,
other than in subsections (a)(1) and (c)(2).
SEC. 7. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.
(a) Laboratory Activities.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific
and technical research and services laboratory activities of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $426,267,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which--
(A) $50,833,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical
Engineering;
(B) $28,023,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
(C) $52,433,000 shall be for Chemical Science and
Technology;
(D) $46,706,000 shall be for Physics;
(E) $33,500,000 shall be for Material Science and
Engineering;
(F) $24,321,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
(G) $68,423,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics;
(H) $20,134,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
(I) $48,326,000 shall be for Research Support Activities;
(J) $29,369,000 shall be for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research; and
(K) $18,543,000 shall be for the National Nanomanufacturing
and Nanometrology Facility;
(2) $447,580,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $456,979,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
(1) $5,654,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $5,795,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $5,939,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(c) Construction and Maintenance.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction
and maintenance of facilities of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology--
(1) $58,898,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $61,843,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $63,389,000 for fiscal year 2008.
[[Page S13802]]
SEC. 8. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the
Advanced Technology Program under section 28 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n)
$140,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
(b) Report on Elimination.--Not later than 3 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report detailing the impacts of the possible
elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on the
laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards
Technology.
(c) Loss of Funding.--At the time of the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2007, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on how the Department of Commerce plans to
absorb the loss of Advanced Technology Program funds to the
laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this
loss on its programs and personnel.
SEC. 9. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--(1) As part of the Teacher Science
and Technology Enhancement Institute Program, the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
carry out a Standards Education program to award grants to
institutions of higher education to support efforts by such
institutions to develop curricula on the role of standards in
the fields of engineering, business, science, and economics.
The curricula should address topics such as--
(A) development of technical standards;
(B) demonstrating conformity to standards;
(C) intellectual property and antitrust issues;
(D) standardization as a key element of business strategy;
(E) survey of organizations that develop standards;
(F) the standards life cycle;
(G) case studies in effective standardization;
(H) managing standardization activities; and
(I) managing organizations that develop standards.
(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost-
sharing from non-Federal sources.
(b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher
education seeking funding under this section shall submit an
application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Director may require. The
application shall include at a minimum--
(A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption
of the proposed curricula in the courses of study offered by
the applicant; and
(B) a description of the source and amount of cost-sharing
to be provided.
(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under
paragraph (1) the Director shall consider, at a minimum--
(A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant
in carrying out and sustaining lasting curricula changes in
accordance with subsection (a)(1); and
(B) the amount of cost-sharing provided.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the
Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute program
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $773,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $820,000 for fiscal year 2008.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2137. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make
all uninsured children eligible for the State children's health
insurance program, to encourage States to increase the number of
children enrolled in the medicaid and State children's health insurance
programs by simplifying the enrollment and renewal procedures for those
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. 2137
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 ``All Kids Health Insurance
Coverage Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Senate finds the following:
(1) There are more than 9,000,000 children in the United
States with no health insurance coverage.
(2) Uninsured children, when compared to privately insured
children, are --
(A) 3.5 times more likely to have gone without needed
medical, dental, or other health care;
(B) 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical
care;
(C) 5 times more likely to go without needed prescription
drugs; and
(D) 6.5 times less likely to have a regular source of care.
(3) Children without health insurance coverage are at a
disadvantage in the classroom, as shown by the following
studies:
(A) The Florida Healthy Kids Annual Report published in
1997, found that children who do not have health care
coverage are 25 percent more likely to miss school.
(B) A study of the California Health Families program found
that children enrolled in public health coverage experienced
a 68 percent improvement in school performance and school
attendance.
(C) A 2002 Building Bridges to Healthy Kids and Better
Students study conducted by the Council of Chief State School
Officers in Vermont concluded that children who started out
without health insurance saw their reading scores more than
double after obtaining health care coverage.
(4) More than half of uninsured children in the United
States are eligible for coverage under either the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or Medicaid, but
are not enrolled in those safety net programs.
(5) Some States, seeing that the Federal Government is not
providing assistance to middle class families who are unable
to afford health insurance, are trying to extend health care
coverage to some or all children in the State.
(6) State efforts to cover all children may not be
successful without financial assistance from the Federal
Government.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN FOR SCHIP.
(a) In General.--Section 2110(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``include'' and all that follows through
``a child who is an'' and inserting ``include a child who is
an''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon and all that follows through
the period and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraph (4).
(b) No Exclusion of Children With Access to High-Cost
Coverage.--Section 2110(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``rule'' and
inserting ``rules'';
(2) by striking ``A child shall not be considered to be
described in paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Certain non federally funded coverage.--A child shall
not be considered to be described in paragraph (1)(C)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) No exclusion of children with access to high-cost
coverage.--A State may include a child as a targeted
vulnerable child if the child has access to coverage under a
group health plan or health insurance coverage and the total
annual aggregate cost for premiums, deductibles, cost
sharing, and similar charges imposed under the group health
plan or health insurance coverage with respect to all
targeted vulnerable children in the child's family exceeds 5
percent of such family's income for the year involved.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.; 1397aa et. seq.) are amended by striking
``targeted low-income'' each place it appears and inserting
``targeted vulnerable''.
(2) Section 2101(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa(a)) is
amended by striking ``uninsured, low-income'' and inserting
``low-income''.
(3) Section 2102(b)(3)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397bb(b)(3)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, particularly
with respect to children whose family income exceeds 200
percent of the poverty line'' before the semicolon.
(4) Section 2102(b)(3)(E), section 2105(a)(1)(D)(ii),
paragraphs (1)(C) and (2) of section 2107, and subsections
(a)(1) and (d)(1)(B) of section 2108 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397bb(b)(3)(E); 1397ee(a)(1)(D)(ii); 1397gg; 1397hh) are
amended by striking ``low-income'' each place it appears.
(5) Section 2110(a)(27) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397jj(a)(27)) is amended by striking ``eligible low-income
individuals'' and inserting ``targeted vulnerable
individuals''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2006.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION UNDER
SCHIP AND MEDICAID FOR STATES WITH SIMPLIFIED
ENROLLMENT AND RENEWAL PROCEDURES FOR CHILDREN.
(a) SCHIP.--Section 2105(c)(2) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Nonapplication of limitation and increase in federal
payment for states with simplified enrollment and renewal
procedures.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) and
subparagraph (A)--
``(I) the limitation under subparagraph (A) on expenditures
for items described in subsection (a)(1)(D) shall not apply
with respect to expenditures incurred to carry out any of the
outreach strategies described in clause (ii), but only if the
State carries out the same outreach strategies for children
under title XIX; and
[[Page S13803]]
``(II) the enhanced FMAP for a State for a fiscal year
otherwise determined under subsection (b) shall be increased
by 5 percentage points (without regard to the application of
the 85 percent limitation under that subsection) with respect
to such expenditures.
``(ii) Outreach strategies described.--For purposes of
clause (i), the outreach strategies described in this clause
are the following:
``(I) Presumptive eligibility.--The State provides for
presumptive eligibility for children under this title and
under title XIX.
``(II) Adoption of 12-month continuous eligibility.--The
State provides that eligibility for children shall not be
redetermined more often than once every year under this title
or under title XIX.
``(III) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not
apply any asset test for eligibility under this title or
title XIX with respect to children.
``(IV) Passive renewal.--The State provides for the
automatic renewal of the eligibility of children for
assistance under this title and under title XIX if the family
of which such a child is a member does not report any changes
to family income or other relevant circumstances, subject to
verification of information from State databases.''.
(b) Medicaid.--
(1) In general.--Section 1902(l) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``subject to paragraph
(5)'', after ``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(17),''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section
1905(b), with respect to expenditures incurred to carry out
any of the outreach strategies described in subparagraph (B)
for individuals under 19 years of age who are eligible for
medical assistance under subsection (a)(10)(A), the Federal
medical assistance percentage is equal to the enhanced FMAP
described in section 2105(b) and increased under section
2105(c)(2)(C)(i)(II), but only if the State carries out the
same outreach strategies for children under title XXI.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the outreach
strategies described in this subparagraph are the following:
``(i) Presumptive eligibility.--The State provides for
presumptive eligibility for such individuals under this title
and title XXI.
``(ii) Adoption of 12-month continuous eligibility.--The
State provides that eligibility for such individuals shall
not be redetermined more often than once every year under
this title or under title XXI.
``(iii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not
apply any asset test for eligibility under this title or
title XXI with respect to such individuals.
``(iv) Passive renewal.--The State provides for the
automatic renewal of the eligibility of such individuals for
assistance under this title and under title XXI if the family
of which such an individual is a member does not report any
changes to family income or other relevant circumstances,
subject to verification of information from State
databases.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The first sentence of section
1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is
amended by striking ``section 1933(d)'' and inserting
``sections 1902(l)(5) and 1933(d)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2006.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES THAT HAVE AN
ENROLLMENT CAP BUT HAVE NOT EXHAUSTED THE
STATE'S AVAILABLE ALLOTMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2105 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Limitation on Payments to States That Have an
Enrollment Cap but Have Not Exhausted the State's Available
Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, payment shall not be made to a State under this
section if the State has an enrollment freeze, enrollment
cap, procedures to delay consideration of, or not to
consider, submitted applications for child health assistance,
or a waiting list for the submission or consideration of such
applications or for such assistance, and the State has not
fully expended the amount of all allotments available with
respect to a fiscal year for expenditure by the State,
including allotments for prior fiscal years that remain
available for expenditure during the fiscal year under
subsection (c) or (g) of section 2104 or that were
redistributed to the State under subsection (f) or (g) of
section 2104.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be
construed as prohibiting a State from establishing regular
open enrollment periods for the submission of applications
for child health assistance.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2006.
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO FMAP TO PROMOTE EXPANSION
OF COVERAGE TO ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN UNDER
MEDICAID AND SCHIP.
(a) In General.--Title XXI (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2111. ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO FMAP TO PROMOTE
EXPANSION OF COVERAGE TO ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN
UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of
section 2105 (and without regard to the application of the 85
percent limitation under that subsection), the enhanced FMAP
with respect to expenditures in a quarter for providing child
health assistance to uninsured children whose family income
exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line, shall be increased
by 5 percentage points.
``(b) Uninsured Child Defined.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), subject
to paragraph (2), the term `uninsured child' means an
uncovered child who has been without creditable coverage for
a period determined by the Secretary, except that such period
shall not be less than 6 months.
``(2) Special rule for newborn children.--In the case of a
child 12 months old or younger, the period determined under
paragraph (1) shall be 0 months and such child shall be
considered uninsured upon birth.
``(3) Special rule for children losing medicaid or schip
coverage due to increased family income.--In the case of a
child who, due to an increase in family income, becomes
ineligible for coverage under title XIX or this title during
the period beginning on the date that is 12 months prior to
the date of enactment of the All Kids Health Insurance
Coverage Act of 2005 and ending on the date of enactment of
such Act, the period determined under paragraph (1) shall be
0 months and such child shall be considered uninsured upon
the date of enactment of the All Kids Health Insurance
Coverage Act of 2005.
``(4) Monitoring and adjustment of period required to be
uninsured.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) monitor the availability and retention of employer-
sponsored health insurance coverage of dependent children;
and
``(B) adjust the period determined under paragraph (1) as
needed for the purpose of promoting the retention of private
or employer-sponsored health insurance coverage of dependent
children and timely access to health care services for such
children.''.
(b) Cost-Sharing for Children in Families With High Family
Income.--Section 2103(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397cc(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Children in families with high family income.--
``(i) In general.--For children not described in
subparagraph (A) whose family income exceeds 400 percent of
the poverty line for a family of the size involved, subject
to paragraphs (1)(B) and (2), the State shall impose a
premium that is not less than the cost of providing child
health assistance to children in such families, and
deductibles, cost sharing, or similar charges shall be
imposed under the State child health plan (without regard to
a sliding scale based on income), except that the total
annual aggregate cost-sharing with respect to all such
children in a family under this title may not exceed 5
percent of such family's income for the year involved.
``(ii) Inflation adjustment.--The dollar amount specified
in clause (i) shall be increased, beginning with fiscal year
2008, from year to year based on the percentage increase in
the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all items;
United States city average). Any dollar amount established
under this clause that is not a multiple of $100 shall be
rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
(c) Additional Allotments for States Providing Coverage to
All Uninsured Children in the State.--
(1) In general.--Section 2104 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by inserting after subsection
(c) the following:
``(d) Additional Allotments for States Providing Coverage
to All Uninsured Children in the State.--
``(1) Appropriation; total allotment.--For the purpose of
providing additional allotments to States to provide coverage
of all uninsured children (as defined in section 2111(b)) in
the State under the State child health plan, there is
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated--
``(A) for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009,
$3,000,000,000;
``(B) for fiscal year 2010, $5,000,000,000; and
``(C) for fiscal year 2011, $7,000,000,000.
``(2) State and territorial allotments.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the allotments provided
under subsections (b) and (c), subject to subparagraph (B)
and paragraphs (3) and (4), of the amount available for the
additional allotments under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall allot to each State with a State child
health plan that provides coverage of all uninsured children
(as so defined) in the State approved under this title--
``(i) in the case of such a State other than a commonwealth
or territory described in subsection (ii), the same
proportion as the proportion of the State's allotment under
subsection (b) (determined without regard to subsection (f))
to 98.95 percent of the total amount of the allotments under
such section for such States eligible for an allotment under
this subparagraph for such fiscal year; and
``(ii) in the case of a commonwealth or territory described
in subsection (c)(3), the same proportion as the proportion
of the commonwealth's or territory's allotment
[[Page S13804]]
under subsection (c) (determined without regard to subsection
(f)) to 1.05 percent of the total amount of the allotments
under such section for commonwealths and territories eligible
for an allotment under this subparagraph for such fiscal
year.
``(B) Minimum allotment.--
``(i) In general.--No allotment to a State for a fiscal
year under this subsection shall be less than 50 percent of
the amount of the allotment to the State determined under
subsections (b) and (c) for the preceding fiscal year.
``(ii) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make such
pro rata reductions to the allotments determined under this
subsection as are necessary to comply with the requirements
of clause (i).
``(C) Availability and redistribution of unused
allotments.--In applying subsections (e) and (f) with respect
to additional allotments made available under this
subsection, the procedures established under such subsections
shall ensure such additional allotments are only made
available to States which have elected to provide coverage
under section 2111.
``(3) Use of additional allotment.--Additional allotments
provided under this subsection are not available for amounts
expended before October 1, 2005. Such amounts are available
for amounts expended on or after such date for child health
assistance for uninsured children (as defined in section
2111(b)).
``(4) Requiring election to provide coverage.--No payments
may be made to a State under this title from an allotment
provided under this subsection unless the State has made an
election to provide child health assistance for all uninsured
children (as so defined) in the State, including such
children whose family income exceeds 200 percent of the
poverty line.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 2104 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``subject to subsection
(d),'' after ``under this section,'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``and subsection
(d)'' after ``Subject to paragraph (4)''; and
(C) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``subject to
subsection (d),'' after ``for a fiscal year,''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2006.
SEC. 7. REPEAL OF THE SCHEDULED PHASEOUT OF THE LIMITATIONS
ON PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS AND ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(1) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section
151(d)(3), and
(2) by striking subsections (f) and (g) of section 68.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
(c) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--The amendments made by
this section shall be subject to title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same
extent and in the same manner as the provision of such Act to
which such amendment relates.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Ms.
Cantwell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2138. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial
Profiling Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined again by my friend from
New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and a number of other cosponsors. It is
fitting that this bill will be introduced in one of the final days of
Senator Corzine's service in this body. He has been a major force in
efforts to advance this legislation from the day he joined the Senate 4
years ago.
Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for
many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on racial
profiling. In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President
Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we
will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a
policy to end racial profiling.
The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance
addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is
wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in
our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end
racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately,
more than 4 years after the President's ringing endorsement of our
goal, racial profiling has not ended in this country.
I am proud today, therefore, to introduce the End Racial Profiling
Act of 2005. This bill will do what the President promised; it will
help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling.
This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State and local
law enforcement officers to take steps to end it.
Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents
routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab
Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national
origin, or perceived religion. Reports in States from New Jersey to
Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans,
Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are being stopped by
some police far more often than their share of the population and the
crime rates for those racial categories.
Passing this bill is even more urgent after September 11, as we have
seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or
Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The September 11 attacks were
horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding
those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's
top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet.
But we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making
assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not
protect our nation from crime and future terrorist attacks.
Numerous Government studies have shown that racial profiling is
entirely ineffective. Some police departments around the country have
recognized the many problems with racial profiling. In response, those
departments have developed programs and policies to prevent racial
profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance.
In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken
steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish
model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with
our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law
enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread
recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ
policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind
them. The Federal Government must step up, as President Bush promised.
The Government must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and
acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.
Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste
precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating
discriminatory practices. It is past time for Congress and the
President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end
racial profiling once and for all.
In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2005 bans racial
profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent
with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does
more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law
enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the
harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2005
is a pro-law enforcement bill.
This bill will allow the Justice Department or individuals the
ability to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive
relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling,
implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor
programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in
the practice, and collect data on stops. In addition, it requires the
Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American
people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent
and end racial profiling have been effective.
Like the bills introduced in past Congresses, this bill also
authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law
enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to
conduct training of police officers or purchase in-car video cameras.
This year's bill makes one significant improvement to ERPA. In past
proposals, DOJ grants for State, local, and
[[Page S13805]]
tribal law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some
kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. This
year, at the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill requires law
enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint
procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ
grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out
the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We
believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many
local law enforcement agencies. And such programs have proven to be an
effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, under this year's
bill, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year
demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data
collection.
Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement
agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and
protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law
enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and
without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and
dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of
those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us every day.
Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or
national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic
stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong
and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking
persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin
to a crime.
The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and
confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to
serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in
stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act
of 2005 is good for law enforcement and good for America.
I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial
profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End
Racial Profiling Act of 2005.
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. 2138
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``End Racial
Profiling Act of 2005'' or ``ERPA''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and intent.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND
INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor
program required for grants.
Sec. 303. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 304. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 305. Best practices development grants.
Sec. 306. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION
Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 402. Publication of data.
Sec. 403. Limitations on publication of data.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES
Sec. 501. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Savings clause.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND INTENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement agents play a
vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting
the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law
enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties
professionally and without bias.
(2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, national
origin, or religion in deciding which persons should be
subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning,
searches, and seizures is improper.
(3) In his address to a joint session of Congress on
February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that
``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.''.
He directed the Attorney General to implement this policy.
(4) In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued a Policy
Guidance regarding racial profiling by Federal law
enforcement agencies which stated: ``Racial profiling in law
enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-
based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative
racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse
democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a
fair and just society.''.
(5) The Department of Justice Guidance is a useful first
step, but does not achieve the President's stated goal of
ending racial profiling in America, as--
(A) it does not apply to State and local law enforcement
agencies;
(B) it does not contain a meaningful enforcement mechanism;
(C) it does not require data collection; and
(D) it contains an overbroad exception for immigration and
national security matters.
(6) Current efforts by State and local governments to
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes,
while also laudable, have been limited in scope and
insufficient to address this national problem. Therefore,
Federal legislation is needed.
(7) Statistical evidence from across the country
demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable
phenomenon.
(8) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had
14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice
investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and
had filed 5 pattern or practice lawsuits involving
allegations of racial profiling, with 4 of those cases
resolved through consent decrees.
(9) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and
other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity,
national origin, or religion are found to be law abiding and
therefore racial profiling is not an effective means to
uncover criminal activity.
(10) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police
contacts that occurred in 1999, found that, although Blacks
and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched,
they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On
average, searches and seizures of Black drivers yielded
evidence only 8 percent of the time, searches and seizures of
Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent of the
time, and searches and seizures of White drivers yielded
evidence 17 percent of the time.
(11) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the
activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal
year 1998 found that--
(A) Black women who were United States citizens were 9
times more likely than White women who were United States
citizens to be x-rayed after being frisked or patted down;
(B) Black women who were United States citizens were less
than half as likely as White women who were United States
citizens to be found carrying contraband; and
(C) in general, the patterns used to select passengers for
more intrusive searches resulted in women and minorities
being selected at rates that were not consistent with the
rates of finding contraband.
(12) A 2005 report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of
the Department of Justice on citizen-police contacts that
occurred in 2002, found that, although Whites, Blacks, and
Hispanics were stopped by the police at the same rate--
(A) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be
arrested than Whites;
(B) Hispanics were much more likely to be ticketed than
Blacks or Whites;
(C) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to report
the use or threatened use of force by a police officer;
(D) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be
handcuffed than Whites; and
(E) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to have
their vehicles searched than Whites.
(13) In some jurisdictions, local law enforcement
practices, such as ticket and arrest quotas and similar
management practices, may have the unintended effect of
encouraging law enforcement agents to engage in racial
profiling.
(14) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it
because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger,
resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated
as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from
traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate
and intrastate commerce.
(15) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the
criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public
confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the
criminal law.
(16) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, many Arabs, Muslims, Central and South Asians, and
Sikhs, as well as other immigrants and Americans of foreign
descent, were treated with generalized
[[Page S13806]]
suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon
religion and national origin, without trustworthy information
linking specific individuals to criminal conduct. Such
profiling has failed to produce tangible benefits, yet has
created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies in
these communities.
(17) Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause
of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. Using race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin
as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the constitutional
requirement that police and other government officials accord
to all citizens the equal protection of the law. Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429
(1984).
(18) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through
suppression motions in criminal cases for 2 reasons. First,
the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a
police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does
not warrant the suppression of evidence under the fourth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Second,
since most stops do not result in the discovery of
contraband, there is no criminal prosecution and no evidence
to suppress.
(19) A comprehensive national solution is needed to address
racial profiling at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Federal support is needed to combat racial profiling through
specialized training of law enforcement agents, improved
management systems, and the acquisition of technology such as
in-car video cameras.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection
of the laws, pursuant to the fifth amendment and section 5 of
the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States;
(2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States;
(3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate
travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the
Constitution of the United States; and
(4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3
of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States.
(c) Intent.--This Act is not intended to and should not
impede the ability of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement to protect the country and its people from any
threat, be it foreign or domestic.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means
any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds
made available under--
(A) the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Program (part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3750 et seq.));
(B) the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program, as described in appropriations Acts; and
(C) the ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program,
project, or other activity specified in section 1701(d)(8) of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)(8)).
(2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body''
means any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian
tribal government.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the same
meaning as in section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603)).
(4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal
public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or
investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or
customs laws.
(5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement
agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal
official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or
customs laws, including police officers and other agents of a
law enforcement agency.
(6) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means
the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to
any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion
in selecting which individual to subject to routine or
spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the
scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the
initial investigatory procedure, except when there is
trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and
timeframe, that links a person of a particular race,
ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified
criminal incident or scheme.
(7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The
term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities''
means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
(A) Interviews.
(B) Traffic stops.
(C) Pedestrian stops.
(D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
(E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons or
possessions (including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians.
(F) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United
States that are more extensive than those customarily carried
out.
(G) Immigration related workplace investigations.
(H) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice
Departments Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request''
means all requests for information, except for those that--
(A) are immaterial to the investigation;
(B) would result in the unnecessary exposure of personal
information; or
(C) would place a severe burden on the resources of the law
enforcement agency given its size.
(9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' means--
(A) any city, county, township, town, borough, parish,
village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a
State;
(B) any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement
district that--
(i) is established under applicable State law; and
(ii) has the authority to, in a manner independent of other
State entities, establish a budget and impose taxes;
(C) any Indian tribe that performs law enforcement
functions, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or
(D) for the purposes of assistance eligibility, any agency
of the government of the District of Columbia or the Federal
Government that performs law enforcement functions in and
for--
(i) the District of Columbia; or
(ii) any Trust Territory of the United States.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall
engage in racial profiling.
SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by
racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action
for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State
court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the
United States.
(b) Parties.--In any action brought under this title,
relief may be obtained against--
(1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement
agent who engaged in racial profiling;
(2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling;
and
(3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous
investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a
jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on racial, ethnic,
or religious minorities shall constitute prima facie evidence
of a violation of this title.
(d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to
enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court
may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United
States, reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include--
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal
law enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the
regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
(4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law
enforcement agents;
(5) policies requiring that appropriate action be taken
when law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in
racial profiling; and
(6) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND
INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--An application by a State, a unit of local
government, or a State, local, or Indian tribal law
enforcement agency for funding under a covered program shall
include a certification that such State, unit of local
government, or law enforcement agency, and any law
enforcement agency to which it will distribute funds--
(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) does not engage in any existing practices that permit
racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include--
[[Page S13807]]
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law
enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the
regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
(4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law
enforcement agents, including procedures that allow a
complaint to be made through any of the methods described in
section 302(b)(2);
(5) mechanisms for providing information to the public
relating to the administrative complaint procedure or
independent auditor program established under section 302;
(6) policies requiring that appropriate action be taken
when law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in
racial profiling; and
(7) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OR INDEPENDENT
AUDITOR PROGRAM REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) Establishment of Administrative Complaint Procedure or
Independent Auditor Program.--An application by a State or
unit of local government for funding under a covered program
shall include a certification that the applicant has
established and is maintaining, for each law enforcement
agency of the applicant, either--
(1) an administrative complaint procedure that meets the
requirements of subsection (b); or
(2) an independent auditor program that meets the
requirements of subsection (c).
(b) Requirements for Administrative Complaint Procedure.--
To meet the requirements of this subsection, an
administrative complaint procedure shall--
(1) allow any person who believes there has been a
violation of section 101 to file a complaint;
(2) allow a complaint to be made--
(A) in writing or orally;
(B) in person or by mail, telephone, facsimile, or
electronic mail; and
(C) anonymously or through a third party;
(3) require that the complaint be investigated and heard by
an independent review board that--
(A) is located outside of any law enforcement agency or the
law office of the State or unit of local government;
(B) includes, as at least a majority of its members,
individuals who are not employees of the State or unit of
local government;
(C) does not include as a member any individual who is then
serving as a law enforcement agent;
(D) possesses the power to request all relevant information
from a law enforcement agency; and
(E) possesses staff and resources sufficient to perform the
duties assigned to the independent review board under this
subsection;
(4) provide that the law enforcement agency shall comply
with all reasonable requests for information in a timely
manner;
(5) require the review board to inform the Attorney General
when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a request
for information under this subsection;
(6) provide that a hearing be held, on the record, at the
request of the complainant;
(7) provide for an appropriate remedy, and publication of
the results of the inquiry by the review board, if the review
board determines that a violation of section 101 has
occurred;
(8) provide that the review board shall dismiss the
complaint and publish the results of the inquiry by the
review board, if the review board determines that no
violation has occurred;
(9) provide that the review board shall make a final
determination with respect to a complaint in a reasonably
timely manner;
(10) provide that a record of all complaints and
proceedings be sent to the Civil Rights Division and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
(11) provide that no published information shall reveal the
identity of the law enforcement officer, the complainant, or
any other individual who is involved in a detention; and
(12) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with
regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section
303.
(c) Requirements for Independent Auditor Program.--To meet
the requirements of this subsection, an independent auditor
program shall--
(1) provide for the appointment of an independent auditor
who is not a sworn officer or employee of a law enforcement
agency;
(2) provide that the independent auditor be given staff and
resources sufficient to perform the duties of the independent
auditor program under this section;
(3) provide that the independent auditor be given full
access to all relevant documents and data of a law
enforcement agency;
(4) require the independent auditor to inform the Attorney
General when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a
request for information under this subsection;
(5) require the independent auditor to issue a public
report each year that--
(A) addresses the efforts of each law enforcement agency of
the State or unit of local government to combat racial
profiling; and
(B) recommends any necessary changes to the policies and
procedures of any law enforcement agency;
(6) require that each law enforcement agency issue a public
response to each report issued by the auditor under paragraph
(5);
(7) provide that the independent auditor, upon determining
that a law enforcement agency is not in compliance with this
Act, shall forward the public report directly to the Attorney
General;
(8) provide that the independent auditor shall engage in
community outreach on racial profiling issues; and
(9) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with
regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section
303.
(d) Local Use of State Complaint Procedure or Independent
Auditor Program.--
(1) In general.--A State shall permit a unit of local
government within its borders to use the administrative
complaint procedure or independent auditor program it
establishes under this section.
(2) Effect of use.--A unit of local government shall be
deemed to have established and maintained an administrative
complaint procedure or independent auditor program for
purposes of this section if the unit of local government uses
the administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor
program of either the State in which it is located, or
another unit of local government in the State in which it is
located.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall go into effect 12
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 303. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders,
including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
and community, professional, research, and civil rights
organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations
for the operation of the administrative complaint procedures
and independent auditor programs required under subsections
(b) and (c) of section 302.
(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1)
shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness,
effectiveness, and independence of the administrative
complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.
(b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that
the recipient of any covered grant is not in compliance with
the requirements of section 301 or 302 or the regulations
issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall
withhold, in whole or in part, funds for 1 or more covered
grants, until the grantee establishes compliance.
(c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide
notice and an opportunity for private parties to present
evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is not in
compliance with the requirements of this title.
SEC. 304. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, through
competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year
demonstration project for the purpose of developing and
implementing data collection on hit rates for stops and
searches. The data shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
national origin, and religion.
(b) Competitive Awards.--The Attorney General shall provide
not more than 5 grants or contracts to police departments
that--
(1) are not already collecting data voluntarily or
otherwise; and
(2) serve communities where there is a significant
concentration of racial or ethnic minorities.
(c) Required Activities.--Activities carried out under
subsection (b) shall include--
(1) developing a data collection tool;
(2) training of law enforcement personnel on data
collection;
(3) collecting data on hit rates for stops and searches;
and
(4) reporting the compiled data to the Attorney General.
(d) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into
a contract with an institution of higher education to analyze
the data collected by each of the 5 sites funded under this
section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out activities under this
section--
(1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period for a demonstration
project on 5 sites; and
(2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation in subsection (d).
SEC. 305. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General, through the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, may make grants to States, law
enforcement agencies, and units of local government to
develop and implement best practice devices and systems to
eliminate racial profiling.
(b) Use of Funds.--The funds provided under subsection (a)
may be used for--
(1) the development and implementation of training to
prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful
interaction with the public;
(2) the acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the
collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities
sufficient to permit an analysis of these activities by race,
ethnicity, national origin, and religion;
(3) the analysis of data collected by law enforcement
agencies to determine whether
[[Page S13808]]
the data indicate the existence of racial profiling;
(4) the acquisition and use of technology to verify the
accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras
and portable computer systems;
(5) the development and acquisition of early warning
systems and other feedback systems that help identify
officers or units of officers engaged in, or at risk of
engaging in, racial profiling or other misconduct, including
the technology to support such systems;
(6) the establishment or improvement of systems and
procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
meaningfully to complaints alleging racial, ethnic, or
religious bias by law enforcement agents;
(7) the establishment or improvement of management systems
to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the
conduct of their subordinates; and
(8) the establishment and maintenance of an administrative
complaint procedure or independent auditor program under
section 302.
(c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner
that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and
rural law enforcement agencies.
(d) Application.--Each State, local law enforcement agency,
or unit of local government desiring a grant under this
section shall submit an application to the Attorney General
at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.
TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION
SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.
(a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies and community, professional, research,
and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for
the collection and compilation of data under sections 201 and
301.
(b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) provide for the collection of data on all routine or
spontaneous investigatory activities;
(2) provide that the data collected shall--
(A) be collected by race, ethnicity, national origin,
gender, and religion, as perceived by the law enforcement
officer;
(B) include the date, time, and location of the
investigatory activities; and
(C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of
whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial
profiling;
(3) provide that a standardized form shall be made
available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of
collected data to the Department of Justice;
(4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile
data on the standardized form created under paragraph (3),
and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
(5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain
all data collected under this Act for not less than 4 years;
(6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks,
consistent with best practices, against which collected data
shall be measured; and
(7) provide that the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall--
(A) analyze the data for any statistically significant
disparities, including--
(i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians
stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing
through the neighborhood;
(ii) disparities in the percentage of false stops relative
to the percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped; and
(iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on
minority drivers and the frequency of searches performed on
non-minority drivers; and
(B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare a report regarding
the findings of the analysis conducted under subparagraph (A)
and provide the report to Congress and make the report
available to the public, including on a website of the
Department of Justice.
SEC. 402. PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics shall provide to Congress
and make available to the public, together with each annual
report described in section 401, the data collected pursuant
to this Act.
SEC. 403. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The name or identifying information of a law enforcement
officer, complainant, or any other individual involved in any
activity for which data is collected and compiled under this
Act shall not be--
(1) released to the public;
(2) disclosed to any person, except for such disclosures as
are necessary to comply with this Act;
(3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (commonly know as the Freedom of
Information Act).
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 501. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.
(a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required
under sections 303 and 401, the Attorney General shall issue
such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are
necessary to implement this Act.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling
by law enforcement agencies.
(2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a summary of data collected under sections 201(b)(3)
and 301(b)(1)(C) and from any other reliable source of
information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
(B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report
prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics under section
401(a)(8);
(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies
under section 201;
(D) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement
agencies under sections 301 and 302; and
(E) a description of any other policies and procedures that
the Attorney General believes would facilitate the
elimination of racial profiling.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the
application of the provisions of this Act to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 602. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or
administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section
210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to in support of the End Racial
Profiling Act a bill being introduced today by Senators Feingold, Obama
and myself. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to the people
of my home State of New Jersey and to all Americans.
I start by recognizing two of my colleagues with whom I have been
working to address the problem of racial profiling. Senator Russ
Feingold has been a tremendous leader on this issue he held the first
Senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001, and he and his staff have
worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter
of civil rights. I also want to recognize Senator Obama he has been a
constant champion of efforts to combat racial profiling. Senator Obama
took the lead in writing one of the Nation's most innovative pieces of
legislation on the collection of racial profiling data when he was in
the Illinois State Senate, and he has been equally committed to the
issue since joining the U.S. Senate. Both Senators Feingold and Obama
have worked tirelessly to make the bill we are introducing today a
reality.
Racial profiling is anathema to the principles on which our Nation
was founded, sowing division within our communities and striking at the
heart of our democratic values.
Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders
because of the color of their skin is simply wrong, and it is
incompatible with the fundamental American belief in fairness, justice,
and equal protection under the law.
Every American is entitled to equal protection under the law. Our
Constitution tolerates nothing less, and we should demand nothing less.
There is no equal protection there is no equal justice if law
enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised
on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after minorities on the
hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.
Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not
an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping
people of color adds up to catching the ``bad guys.''
In fact, empirical evidence shows that singling out Black motorists
or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher
percentage of arrests because minority motorists are no more likely to
break the law than white motorists.
What is more, the practice of racial profiling actually undermines
public
[[Page S13809]]
safety, by contributing to the perception in minority neighborhoods
that the criminal justice system is unfair, and eroding the trust
between communities and the police that is so essential to effective
law enforcement.
Nonetheless, racial profiling persists.
Unfortunately, the practice is real and widespread throughout the
Nation.
A 2005 report of the Department of Justice found that Blacks and
Hispanics throughout the Nation were much more likely to be handcuffed
and have their cars searched by law enforcement during traffic stops,
even though they were less likely to be harboring contraband.
A Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Customs Service
released in March 2000 found that Black, Asian, and Hispanic women were
four to nine times more likely than White women to be subjected to
xrays after being frisked or patted down.
But on the basis of the xray results, Black women were less than half
as likely as White women to be found carrying contraband.
This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.
And what is the hunch based on?
Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion plain and simple. And
that is plain wrong.
Now--we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from
my home state, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have
taken steps to combat it. I commend them for their efforts.
That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires
a Federal response applicable to all.
Our legislation is a strong but measured response to the destructive
problem of racial profiling.
First, it defines racial profiling and bans it.
Racial profiling is defined in the bill to include routine or
spontaneous investigatory stops based on race, ethnicity, national
origin, or religion. This conduct is wrong and must be stopped. The
President and the Attorney General have said just that. The legislation
would be the first Federal statute to prohibit this practice at the
Federal, State, and local level.
To guarantee that the statute does not impede legitimate and
responsible policing, the statute is careful to exclude from the ban on
racial profiling those cases where there is trustworthy information
that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin,
or religion to a particular crime.
Our bill also gives the ban on racial profiling teeth by allowing the
Department of Justice or an individual harmed by racial profiling to
obtain declaratory or injunctive relief from a court if the Government
does not take steps to end racial profiling.
Next, the statute will require the collection of statistical data to
measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data we will
get a fair and honest picture of law enforcement at work. And we will
provide law enforcement agencies with the information they need to
detect problems early on.
Our bill directs the Attorney General to develop standards for data
collection and instructs the Attorney General to consult with law
enforcement and other stakeholders in developing those standards. It
also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards
for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be
measured so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law
enforcement rightly fear. Finally, we will require the Bureau of
Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice to analyze these
statistics on an annual basis so that the Nation can gauge the success
of its efforts to combat this corrosive practice.
Finally, we will encourage a change in law enforcement culture
through the use of the carrot and the stick.
First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be
expected to do this alone. So this bill says that if you do the job
right fairly and equitably you are eligible to receive development
grants to help pay for the following: Advanced training programs;
computer technology to help collect data and statistics; video cameras
and recorders for patrol cars; establishing or improving systems for
handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling; and
establishing management systems to ensure that supervisors are held
accountable for the conduct of subordinates.
Further, we will direct the Attorney General to conduct a
demonstration project that will give grants to police departments to
help them collect racial profiling data and then work with an
institution of higher learning to analyze the collect data.
But if law enforcement agencies don't do the job right, there is also
the stick. Our bill will require law enforcement agencies to put in
place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial
profiling. The bill gives the law enforcement agencies the flexibility
and the options to adopt the procedures that best fit the needs of
their local communities. Further, the bill permits localities to
cooperate with other communities and with the State in which they are
located to develop shared procedures to invest racial profiling
problems in the community.
If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement
procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss
of Federal law enforcement funds.
Let me be clear this bill is not about blaming law enforcement. Most
law enforcement officers discharge their duties responsibly. But
stopping people based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or
religion will be outlawed.
We have introduced two bills in the last 5 years to eliminate racial
profiling. The President of the United States has condemned racial
profiling in his State of the Union address. There is a broad and
bipartisan consensus that it is an unfair and destructive practice. And
yet we have failed to act.
In the meantime, racial profiling has continued to breed humiliation,
anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country.
It has weakened respect for the law by everyone, not just those
offended.
Simply put it is wrong and we must finally end it. Today we pledge to
do just that to define it, to ban it, and to enforce this ban.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2139. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
simplify the earned income tax credit eligibility requirements
regarding filing status, presence of children, investment income, and
work and immigrant status; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act. This legislation will
greatly improve one of our Nation's most important antipoverty programs
and streamline one of the most complicated sections of our income tax
code. And I am extremely pleased that my good friend from Maine,
Senator Olympia Snowe, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this
bill. I look forward to working with her, as members of the Senate
Finance Committee, to enact this important tax simplification proposal.
In 2003, almost 21 million hard-working Americans benefited from the
earned income tax credit, including 141,707 in my own State of West
Virginia. Many of those serving in our Armed Forces benefit from the
EITC. The EITC rewards hard work and helps these families make ends
meet. However, the eligibility criteria for claiming the credit are so
complicated that many people legitimately entitled to benefit from the
credit do not even realize it. And unfortunately, too many erroneous
claims occur. The tax credit should not be so complicated that cash-
strapped families need the help of an accountant to file their taxes.
The Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act would make four
important changes to the eligibility requirements of the credit. First,
it would simplify the ``abandoned spouse'' rule so that custodial
parents who are separated but not divorced would be able to claim the
credit. Second, it would allow a taxpayer living in the same house with
a qualifying child but not claiming that child for the EITC benefit to
qualify for EITC benefits available to taxpayers without children.
Third, the bill would eliminate the qualifying investment income test
for EITC claimants. Finally, the bill would make sure that only
immigrants who comply with all of the immigration rules would qualify
for the EITC, preventing people who are not allowed to
[[Page S13810]]
work in the United States from claiming the credit.
These are commonsense reforms based on recommendations in the budget
submitted to Congress by the Bush administration. I hope that they can
be enacted quickly so that taxpayers whom Congress intended to help
with the EITC will be able to claim the benefits without unnecessary
and intimidating paperwork. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to enact this legislation.
______
BY Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 2140. A bill to enhance protection of children from sexual
exploitation by strengthening section 2257 of title 18, United States
Code, requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep and
permit inspection of records regarding the age of performers, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, joined by my friend from Kansas, Senator
Brownback, I am today introducing the Protecting Children from Sexual
Exploitation Act of 2005.
This bill will strengthen an important tool for protecting children
from the exploitation of child pornography.
Pornography is devastating communities, families, and individual
lives.
On November 10, the Senator from Kansas chaired a hearing in the
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution titled ``Why the Government
Should Care About Pornography.''
Witnesses at that hearing included authors and researchers
documenting the devastation wrought by pornography.
Children are pornography's most vulnerable and most devastated
victims.
Abusing children through early exposure to pornography has lifelong
effects.
Even worse, however, is the actual use of children to make sexually
explicit material.
This is perhaps the worst form of sexual exploitation because the
abuse only begins with its production.
Children lack the maturity to choose participation in that activity
and to accept its aftermath.
Everyone who intentionally copies, distributes, advertises,
purchases, or consumes sexually explicit material involving children
should be held responsible as part of the ongoing chain of
exploitation.
For this compelling reason, Federal law prohibits using children to
produce visual depictions of either actual or simulated sexually
explicit conduct.
As an additional deterrent to this abhorrent practice, Federal law
also requires those who produce sexually explicit material to keep
records regarding the age of performers and to make those records
available for inspection.
That recordkeeping statute is found in the United States Code in
section 2257 of title 18.
Section 2257 is inadequate for its crucial task and the bill I
introduce today strengthens it in four ways.
First, section 2257 defines actual sexually explicit conduct too
narrowly, incorporating only four of the five. part definition found
right next door in the definitional section 2256.
Our bill makes these definitions consistent.
Second, and more importantly, while Federal law prohibits using
children to make depictions of either actual or simulated sexually
explicit conduct, section 2257 applies only to those who produce
depictions of actual conduct.
Our bill applies the same recordkeeping requirements to those who
produce depictions of simulated conduct.
The purpose is obvious.
If you produce sexually explicit material, you have to keep age-
related records.
Period.
Third, while section 2257 requires maintaining records and making
them available for inspection, it only makes unlawful failure to
maintain the records.
This implies that while making these important records available for
inspection is a duty, refusing to do so is not a crime.
Our bill corrects that error by explicitly stating that refusal to
permit inspection of these records is also a crime.
Eliminating such ambiguity is very important.
Maintaining records is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that
children are not being exploited.
Because inspection of those records makes the circle of protection
complete, we must make crystal clear that refusal to permit inspections
is a crime.
Fourth, the definition in section 2257 of what it means to produce
sexually explicit material is inadequate.
That definition must be guided by the nature of the harm that flows
from this kind of sexual exploitation.
Filming or taking a picture of a child engaged in sexually explicit
conduct is certainly sexual exploitation by itself.
But the abuse does not end there.
Those whose actions constitute links in the chain of exploitation
must be covered by this recordkeeping statute if it is to be an
effective tool to protect children.
My friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, graciously allowed me to
participate in the latest hearing in his subcommittee on the effects of
pornography.
Witnesses highlighted how new technology can magnify those effects.
While the Internet can be a powerful tool for good, it can also be an
insidious tool for evil.
It can compound the sexual exploitation of children by disseminating
and commercializing child pornography.
And while we all know how difficult it is for sound public policy to
keep pace with developing and changing technology, failing to do so in
this area leaves children even more exposed to ongoing victimization
and exploitation.
For that reason, our bill provides both a substantive definition of
that important term, ``produces,'' and lists five targeted exceptions,
five specific categories of those who are not included in this
definition.
The definition includes obvious activities such as filming or
photographing someone but also activities such as duplicating or
reissuing images for commercial distribution.
It also includes managing the sexually explicit content of a computer
site.
At the same time, our bill does not include in the definition of the
term ``produces'' activities that do not involve the hiring, managing,
or arranging for the performers' participation.
It exempts provision of Web-hosting services when the provider does
not manage sexually explicit content.
In strengthening section 2257, the bill we are introducing today
meets three important objectives.
First and foremost, this bill will make the recordkeeping statute a
more effective tool for protecting children from sexual exploitation.
Second, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute while
minimizing unintended consequences.
I mentioned the care with which our bill defines key terms such as
``produces.''
Our bill also places the extension of recordkeeping requirements
regarding depictions of simulated material in a separate section 2257A.
This step responded to a legitimate concern by the motion picture
industry.
Third, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute in ways that
make it a more workable and practical tool for the prosecutors who have
to use it.
I believe that as the Congress deals with this difficult issue, we
must keep all three of these objectives in mind.
Some might want to create a draconian statute that sweeps too
broadly.
Others may want to water down the statute in ways that create
obstacles for prosecutors and make the statute ineffective.
My bill strengthens this important tool for protecting children
without sweeping too broadly and without needlessly hobbling
prosecutors.
Finally, let me say just a few things about the process leading up to
introduction of this bill today.
Two versions of this bill have been introduced in the other body,
most recently last week as title VI of H.R.4472, the Children's Safety
and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005.
Representatives of the motion picture industry and Internet companies
have been working with us to refine this legislation.
I also commend my colleagues in the House, Representative Mike Pence
and Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this issue.
In addition, the Department of Justice has provided valuable input in
this
[[Page S13811]]
process. I applaud Attorney General Gonzales for making the prosecution
of obscenity, child pornography, and other forms of child exploitation
a real priority.
I understand that the Attorney General today announced arrests in
several States as part of its Innocence Lost initiative against child
prostitution.
I want to be very clear here.
Those who produce either actual or simulated sexually explicit
material are breaking the law if that material depicts children.
The primary goal of protecting those children from such exploitation
requires that all producers of sexually explicit material must keep
age-related records, make those records available for inspection, and
face criminal penalties if they refuse.
We have taken several concrete steps to respond to legitimate
concerns from the motion picture industry and Internet companies.
We have already modified our bill several times and in several ways
as a response to our meetings with the Department of Justice and
affected parties.
We remain open to making further refinements in this language if it
will strengthen the bill.
But that process of compromise must stop if it undermines the primary
objective of protecting children from sexual exploitation or begins to
make the statute unenforceable or feckless.
I hope that those who are affected by this legislation and have
participated in helping us craft this bill will demonstrate their
concern for protecting children by supporting this straighforward and
commonsense bill.
Again, I want to thank my friend from Kansas for joining me in
cosponsoring this bill and for his efforts in this area.
I hope all my colleagues will join us in strengthening this tool for
protecting children.
____
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Utah for
helping lead the fight against child pornography. This is an issue upon
which all Senators can unite, and it is a battle we must not lose.
Pornography is no longer isolated to a small segment of society. It
has pervaded our culture. As we learned in a recent hearing I chaired
in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Property Rights, pornography has infiltrated homes and families and is
having devastating effects. According to recent reports, 1 in 5
children between the ages of 10 and 17 have received a sexual
solicitation over the Internet, and 9 out of 10 children between the
ages of 8 and 16 who have Internet access have viewed porn Web sites,
usually in the course of looking up information for homework.
Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the pornography epidemic is child
pornography. Children as young as 5 years old are being used for profit
in this fast-growing industry. We have a duty to protect the weakest
members of our society from exploitation and abuse. I believe this bill
is the first step in that fight.
First, this bill will expand recordkeeping requirements to those who
produce soft-core, or simulated, pornography. Current law only requires
that records be kept by producers of hardcore, or actual, pornography.
Under this language, producers will now be required to verify the ages
of their actors and keep records of such information, regardless of
whether the material they produce contains actual sexual activity or
only a simulation of such activity. Further, this bill will require
producers of such materials to disclose such records to the Attorney
General for inspection. It will make refusal to permit inspection of
such records a crime. This will be effective not only as a tool in
prosecutions as a means of deterrence. Producers will be less likely to
use child actors if they know they may be required to disclose the ages
of their actors.
Today, recordkeeping requirements apply only to ``actual'' sexual
conduct, leaving a loophole for soft-core pornography. Such material is
no less damaging to children than hardcore pornography and
recordkeeping and disclosure requirements must apply to this material
as well. This bill will close the current loophole.
Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch, and I hope my
colleagues will join us passing this legislation to protect children
from victimization and abuse.
____________________