[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 119 (Monday, July 21, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6973-S6976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 3291. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
certain income and gains relating to fuels as qualifying income for 
publicly traded partnerships; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN, Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lugar in 
introducing the Biofuels Pipeline Act of 2008. This bill provides that 
the movement of biofuels by pipeline will receive the same tax 
treatment as petroleum-based fuels.
  Earlier this session, Congress adopted a Renewable Fuels Standard 
that will require us to consume 15.2 billion gallons by 2012, and 36 
billion gallons by 2022. Biodiesel and ethanol already have the 
capacity to meet a substantial share of our energy needs. In future 
years, second-generation ethanol from switch grass and other cellulosic 
feedstocks will further increase our liquid fuel supply.
  But it is not enough to establish renewable fuels standards and 
mandates in order to spur production. We also need to clear the way for 
development of the infrastructure for storing, transporting, and 
marketing vast new quantities of renewable fuels.
  In this regard, we have a problem. The lion's share of our renewable 
fuels are produced in the Midwest and in the Plains states, and we 
currently do not have the most efficient infrastructure in place to 
transport these liquid fuels to population centers in the East and 
elsewhere.
  Currently, biodiesel and ethanol are transported by barge, rail, or 
truck. But these forms of transportation are far more expensive than 
the pipeline alternative. Simply stated, there aren't enough barges, 
rail cars, and trucks to move renewable liquid fuels from where they 
are produced to where they will be consumed.
  While the most efficient mode for transporting liquid fuels is by 
pipeline, there are multiple obstacles--both technical and man-made--
that have to be overcome.
  The industry is overcoming the technical challenges associated with 
transporting so-called ``neat'' renewable fuels by pipeline, and is 
actively studying the prospect of transporting gasoline/ethanol blends 
via pipeline.
  Since the rate of return on the transportation of oil and gas is 
highly regulated and limited, oil and natural gas companies have been 
selling their pipelines to companies that operate as Publicly Traded 
Partnerships--PTPs--whose core business is the transportation, storage 
and marketing of oil and gas.
  However, by law, Publicly Traded Partnerships must earn 90 percent of 
their income from ``qualifying income,'' which is defined under the tax 
code as income from the exploration, transportation, storage, or 
marketing of depletable natural resources, including oil, gas, and 
coal.
  By their very nature, renewable liquid fuels are not a depletable 
natural resource. And that means that the income produced from the 
transportation, storage, and marketing of these fuels is not qualifying 
income.
  Since the penalty for PTPs that earn more than 10 percent of their 
income from a non-qualifying source is loss of PTP status, they cannot, 
and will not, invest in pipelines designed to transport renewable 
liquid fuels.
  We simply have to remove this obstacle. Publicly Traded Partnerships 
now own and operate 50 percent of America's liquids pipelines. Some 
would argue that there are also others who would be willing to step in 
and meet the need with regard to renewable liquid fuels.
  However, vertically integrated energy companies that own pipelines 
may not view the opportunity associated with renewable fuel pipelines 
in the same manner as a PTP. In fact, since the mid-1980s, when the PTP 
structure was originally codified, several major oil companies have 
been divesting themselves of pipelines, which they have been selling to 
Publicly Traded Partnerships.
  As a result, since the PTP pipeline industry's core business is the 
transportation, storage, and marketing of liquid fuels, these PTP's are 
the most likely industry to build the pipeline infrastructure that we 
will need to transport alternative liquid fuels from the Midwest to 
far-flung parts of the country.
  Bear in mind, too, that PTPs have crucial right of way that would 
make

[[Page S6974]]

the construction of renewable fuel pipelines more likely.
  To this end, we need to expand the definition of ``qualifying 
income'' to include any renewable liquid fuel. This bill does just 
that--to any fuel approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for 
transport in pipelines. Effectively, the modification adds one category 
of fuels that currently do not receive the favorable qualified income 
status: biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel.
  This is entirely consistent with Congress's original intent in 
codifying Publicly Traded Partnerships. At that time, both the Treasury 
Department and Congress recognized that partnerships were the 
traditional manner in which oil and gas exploration, refining, 
marketing and transport were financed.
  Clearly, transportation of liquid fuels was an integral part of what 
Congress intended to cover. However, back in the mid-1980s, few people 
thought that alternative fuels would become a significant source of 
liquid energy.
  It's time to bring the law up to date. Our current dependence on 
imported oil--including oil from some of the most unstable parts of the 
world--is a clear and present danger to America's national security. At 
the same time, our dependence on the burning of fossil fuels--a primary 
source of carbon dioxide emissions, and a primary cause of global 
warming--presents a clear and present, danger to the Earth as we know 
it.
  The price of a barrel of imported oil has shot up nearly five fold 
during the last eight years--from $27.39 a barrel in 2000 to about $130 
a barrel today. During the same time, the cost of a gallon of gasoline 
has risen more than 250 percent, from $1.50 to $4.11. In the future, 
price increases will be driven by an explosion of demand from China, 
India, and other rapidly developing countries.
  We need to seize control of our energy future. We need to rapidly 
shift to clean, renewable, home-grown sources of energy, including 
ethanol and other renewable fuels.
  This legislation is one step, but an important step, in moving us to 
considerably expand our efficient use of renewable fuels, thereby 
expanding our alternatives to gasoline and diesel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. 
        Dodd):
  S. 3292. A bill to provide emergency energy assistance, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Energy 
Assistance Act of 2008, which will provide emergency relief to families 
in Massachusetts and around the country who are suffering from record 
energy costs. I am joined by Senators Kennedy, Lieberman, Cardin, 
Menendez, Whitehouse, Cantwell and Dodd in introducing this important 
and timely piece of legislation. This legislation will help some of the 
85 percent of American families who are eligible for assistance from 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, but have been unable to obtain 
it due to budget restrictions.
  Consumers around the country are facing skyrocketing prices for 
transportation and heating fuels. Heating oil prices in the Northeast 
averaged $3.40 in the first quarter of 2008, compared to just $2.52 in 
2007, putting severe strains on the approximately 960,000 Massachusetts 
families who simply cannot afford these skyrocketing prices. Today, 
100,000 Massachusetts households are still behind on their energy bills 
from last winter and remain at risk of shut-offs of vital energy 
services.
  These high costs are expected to continue through this year's heating 
season. Home heating oil prices in Massachusetts are already averaging 
$4.60/gallon. The typical family uses approximately 1,000 gallons of 
heating oil during the course of the winter--Massachusetts households 
could realistically be looking at heating bills approaching $5,000--an 
impossible sum for thousands of families around the state. When coupled 
with the escalating costs of transportation fuels, the burden is simply 
too much to bear.
  The primary Federal energy assistance program for low-income 
households is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program LIHEAP. As 
energy costs rise, the demand for LIHEAP funds grows. 5.8 million 
families received LIHEAP funds in 2008, the highest participation 
levels in 16 years. In Massachusetts, over 145,000 families receive 
LIHEAP funds. However, as energy costs rise and demand for LIHEAP 
grows, the program's budget has not kept pace and we just can't cover 
all the people that need help. In fact, only 15 percent of eligible 
households nationally are receiving funding. Even in those households 
that do receive LIHEAP funds, the money isn't going very far--the 
average LIHEAP grant only pays for 18 percent of the total cost of 
heating a home with heating oil.
  I have been a long-time, strong supporter of legislation introduced 
by Senator Sanders--the Warm in Winter, Cool in Summer Act that would 
fund the LIHEAP program for 2008 at the fully-authorized level of $5.1 
billion, and I have incorporated that essential provision into the 
legislation I am introducing today.
  In addition, the Emergency Energy Assistance Act of 2008 includes 
critical emergency funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program at 
the U.S. Department of Energy. This program enables service providers 
to install energy efficiency measures in the homes of qualifying 
homeowners free of charge, and it provides real, short-term 
opportunities for homeowners to bring down their energy bills. My 
legislation would fund the program at $750 million, the fully-
authorized level for 2008.
  Finally, this legislation would provide a temporary increase in the 
Earned Income Tax Credit EITC for 2008 to help families pay their 
increasing energy bills. The EITC is a refundable tax credit for low-
income working families. These households are bearing the burden of 
escalating energy costs, yet many of these beneficiaries did not 
receive the full rebates provided through the Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008.
  This legislation would increase the maximum EITC credit amount by 
$300 for 2008. By increasing the credit amount, more families will be 
eligible for the credit than under current law. Beneficiaries will 
receive the increased EITC when they file their 2008 tax returns. This 
$300 will help working families with rising heating and transportation 
costs.
  In the face of skyrocketing energy prices, we must take serious and 
immediate measures to assist low-income working families. We cannot 
stand idly by as American families are forced to make impossible 
decisions about whether to heat their homes or put food on their 
tables. This is a crisis of tremendous proportions, and it is incumbent 
upon us to take steps now to ensure that millions of households are not 
literally left out in the cold this winter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, and 
        Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 3293. A bill to provide financial aid to local law enforcement 
officials along the Nation's borders, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing an important 
measure that will provide local, State, and Tribal law enforcement 
agencies along our Nation's borders with critical assistance in 
addressing border-related criminal activity. I am pleased that Senators 
Hutchison and Domenici are joining me in introducing this bipartisan 
legislation.
  By virtue of their proximity to an international border, law 
enforcement agencies operating along the border face a variety of 
unique challenges. Criminal enterprises are able take advantage of 
weaknesses in security to traffic drugs and other illicit contraband 
into the country, as well as smuggle weapons and stolen vehicles out of 
the country. This creates a nexus of criminal activity that requires 
substantial resources to address.
  While Congress has dramatically increased funding to hire additional 
Border Patrol agents and to build tactical infrastructure--such as 
surveillance cameras and barriers--we haven't done enough in terms of 
helping local law enforcement. The reality is that although we are 
making some progress in securing the borders, local law enforcement 
agencies still have to pick up

[[Page S6975]]

much of the burden in tackling the criminal activity throughout the 
region.
  Many of these police departments are ill-suited to cover these costs 
without financial assistance. Many are responsible for large, rural 
areas of land and lack the personnel and equipment to adequately patrol 
these areas. If we are going to be successful in bringing real security 
to the border region, we need to have Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies doing their respective parts to fight criminal 
activity. But to do this, we also need to ensure that local law 
enforcement have the resources necessary to play a constructive role, 
and to recognize the substantial costs they are incurring.
  The Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008 would do just that.
  Specifically, the legislation would: establish a new competitive 
grant program within the Department of Justice to assist local law 
enforcement operating within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico 
and Canada; authorize the Attorney General to designate areas outside 
of the 100-mile limit as ``High Impact Areas'' to permit additional 
police departments impacted by border-related criminal activity, such 
as drug smuggling, to access grant funding; and authorize $100 million 
each year for the next 5 years to implement this program.
  Let me also be clear about what this legislation would not do. It 
does not confer local law enforcement with authority to enforce Federal 
immigration law. The purpose of this bill is to help these agencies 
cover some of the costs they incur in addressing border-related 
criminal activity, not to shift another burden to them.
  The U.S.-Mexico border region is a vibrant area, economically and 
culturally. International trade with our southern neighbor continues to 
increase and communities on both sides of the border maintain strong 
ties. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half we have seen a 
dramatic increase in the level of violence in Mexico as the government 
steps up efforts to tackle drug cartels--over 4,000 people have been 
killed. This violence has had a negative impact on both sides of the 
border, and Congress recently provided $400 million in assistance for 
Mexican law enforcement to address this problem. But we also need to be 
aware of the fact that local law enforcement within the United States 
also need additional resources to prevent this violence from spreading 
and to fight these drug gangs in a comprehensive manner.
  I strongly believe this legislation will provide this essential 
assistance and I hope my colleagues will support this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3293

       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 ``Border Law Enforcement 
     Relief Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. BORDER RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     award grants to an eligible law enforcement agency to provide 
     assistance to such agency to address border-related criminal 
     activity that occurs in the jurisdiction of such agency.
       (2) Competitive basis.--The Attorney General shall award 
     grants under this subsection on a competitive basis.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded pursuant to subsection 
     (a) may only be used to provide additional resources for an 
     eligible law enforcement agency, including resources to--
       (1) obtain equipment;
       (2) hire additional personnel;
       (3) upgrade and maintain law enforcement technology;
       (4) cover the operational costs, including overtime and 
     transportation costs; and
       (5) assist that agency in responding to border-related 
     criminal activity.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible law enforcement agency 
     seeking 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.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) describe the activities for which assistance under this 
     section is sought; and
       (B) provide such additional assurances as the Attorney 
     General determines to be essential to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements under this section.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible law enforcement agency.--The term ``eligible 
     law enforcement agency'' means a tribal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency located or performing duties in--
       (A) a county that is not more than 100 miles from a United 
     States border with--
       (i) Canada; or
       (ii) Mexico; or
       (B) a county that is more than 100 miles from each of the 
     borders described in subparagraph (A), if such county has 
     been certified by the Attorney General as a High Impact Area.
       (2) High impact area.--The term ``High Impact Area'' means 
     any county designated by the Attorney General as a High 
     Impact Area, taking into consideration--
       (A) whether an eligible law enforcement agency in that 
     county has the resources to protect the lives, property, 
     safety, or welfare of the residents of that county;
       (B) whether the county has been designated as a ``High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Area'' by the National Drug 
     Control Program under section 707 of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 
     1706);
       (C) the relationship between any lack of security along the 
     United States border and the rise, if any, of criminal 
     activity in that county; and
       (D) any other unique challenges that eligible law 
     enforcement agencies face due to a lack of security along the 
     United States border.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 
     to carry out the provisions of this section.
       (2) Allocation of authorized funds.--Of the amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1), 33 percent shall be 
     set aside for areas designated as High Impact Areas under 
     subsection (d)(2).
       (f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts appropriated for 
     grants under this section shall be used to supplement and not 
     supplant other tribal, State, and local public funds 
     obligated for the purposes provided under this title.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize tribal, 
     State, or local law enforcement agencies or their officers to 
     exercise Federal immigration law enforcement authority.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border 
Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008.
  This legislation will address one of the most serious threats facing 
our communities--drug trafficking. The magnitude of narcotics 
trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border is staggering.
  According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 alone, Mexico, with 
close cooperation from U.S. and regional law enforcement, confiscated 
48.5 metric tons of cocaine, 2,171 metric tons of marijuana, and 25.7 
tons of precursor chemicals for methamphetamines.
  On the American side of the border, in fiscal year 2007, on a typical 
day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated 2,250 pounds of 
narcotics in 69 seizures at ports of entry and 5,138 pounds of 
narcotics in 29 seizures between ports of entry and conducted 70 
criminal arrests.
  While new funding for the Merida Initiative in the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill will help the Mexican government attack the 
problem, the funding is currently unbalanced, as it does not address 
the U.S. side of the border and the battle that our hometown law 
enforcement officials are waging against the exact same threat.
  We should not fail to recognize that the narco-terrorists in Mexico 
have grown increasingly violent, killing 300 policemen last year and 
the head of the Mexican federal police force in May.
  However, the violence is not confined to Mexico. In 2007, a 
councilman from Acuna was killed on U.S. soil in Del Rio, TX, and seven 
border patrol agents were killed on the frontlines. Two agents have 
been killed so far this year. The total number of assaults against 
officers has increased from 335 in 2001 to 987 in 2007. We must take a 
balanced approach to this growing problem, which is why I am 
introducing the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act today.
  This bill would create a grant program to help certain local law 
enforcement agencies obtain equipment, upgrade technology, hire 
additional personnel and cover transportation costs associated with 
criminal activity along the border. Both northern and southern border 
law enforcement agencies would be eligible, as well as counties that 
the

[[Page S6976]]

Attorney General designates as ``High Impact Areas'' for drug 
trafficking.
  While we have taken steps to provide our Federal officials with 
necessary resources, we have not done enough to sufficiently arm our 
local law enforcement officials with the equipment and resources they 
need to address an increasingly sophisticated and lethal enemy.
  Our local law enforcement across the country serve as a front-line 
defense, and Congress must ensure they have the necessary resources to 
stay ahead of the cartels and protect our communities from narcotics 
trafficking and associated violence.
  I ask my colleagues to signal their support for our local law 
enforcement in their fight against narco-terrorism by supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 3295. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, and the 
Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of Commerce, in 
consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office, shall appoint administrative patent judges and 
administrative trademark judges, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3295

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

     SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES AND 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE TRADEMARK JUDGES.

       (a) Administrative Patent Judges.--Section 6 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``Deputy 
     Commissioner'' and inserting ``Deputy Director''; and
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking ``Director'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the 
     Director''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce may, in his or her discretion, deem the appointment 
     of an administrative patent judge who, before the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, held office pursuant to an 
     appointment by the Director to take effect on the date on 
     which the Director initially appointed the administrative 
     patent judge.
       ``(d) Defense to Challenge of Appointment.--It shall be a 
     defense to a challenge to the appointment of an 
     administrative patent judge on the basis of the judge's 
     having been originally appointed by the Director that the 
     administrative patent judge so appointed was acting as a de 
     facto officer.''.
       (b) Administrative Trademark Judges.--Section 17 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for the registration and 
     protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the 
     provisions of certain international conventions, and for 
     other purposes'', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to 
     as the ``Trademark Act of 1946''; 15 U.S.C. 1067), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``Deputy Director of the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office'', after ``Director,''; and
       (B) by striking ``appointed by the Director'' and inserting 
     ``appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with the Director''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce may, in his or her discretion, deem the appointment 
     of an administrative trademark judge who, before the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, held office pursuant to an 
     appointment by the Director to take effect on the date on 
     which the Director initially appointed the administrative 
     trademark judge.
       ``(d) Defense to Challenge of Appointment.--It shall be a 
     defense to a challenge to the appointment of an 
     administrative trademark judge on the basis of the judge's 
     having been originally appointed by the Director that the 
     administrative trademark judge so appointed was acting as a 
     de facto officer.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 3296. A bill to extend the authority of the United States Supreme 
Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court Grounds 
and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief 
Justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation cosponsored 
by Senator Specter that would extend for 5 years the authority of the 
United States Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices 
when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. In January of this year, 
after months of compromise, the Court Security Improvement Act was 
signed into law to authorize additional resources to protect Federal 
judges, personnel, and courthouses. The bill that we are introducing 
today would extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to 
protect the Supreme Court Justices on and off Court grounds. It would 
also change the title of the Chief Justice's senior advisor from 
``Administrative Assistant'' to ``Counselor.'' The administrative 
assistant position was created by statute in 1972.
  We have extended the U.S. Supreme Court Police's authority to protect 
Justices before, the last time in 2004. This authority expires at the 
end of this year. I urge Senators to pass this legislation quickly so 
we can provide Supreme Court Justices the protection that they need as 
they serve our country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3296

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

     SECTION 1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE AND COUNSELOR 
                   TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

       (a) Extension of Authority of the United States Supreme 
     Court Police To Protect Court Officials Off the Supreme Court 
     Grounds.--Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.
       (b) Counselor to the Chief Justice.--
       (1) Office of federal judicial administration.--Section 
     133(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``administrative assistant'' and inserting 
     ``Counselor''.
       (2) Judicial official.--Section 376(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ``an administrative 
     assistant'' and inserting ``a Counselor''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ``an administrative 
     assistant'' and inserting ``a Counselor''.
       (3) Administrative assistant to the chief justice.--
       (A) In general.--Section 677 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (i) in the section heading, by striking ``Administrative 
     Assistant'' and inserting ``Counselor'';
       (ii) in subsection (a)--

       (I) in the first sentence, by striking ``an Administrative 
     Assistant'' and inserting ``a Counselor''; and
       (II) in the second and third sentences, by striking 
     ``Administrative Assistant'' each place that term appears and 
     inserting ``Counselor''; and

       (iii) in subsections (b) and (c), by striking 
     ``Administrative Assistant'' each place that term appears and 
     inserting ``Counselor''.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 677 and inserting the following:

``677. Counselor to the Chief Justice.''.

                          ____________________