[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24134-24144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1694. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
study on the reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater in the State 
of Hawaii; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduced S. 1694, the Hawaii 
Water Resources Reclamation Act of 1999. Senator Inouye joins me in 
sponsoring this legislation.
  My colleagues, rural Hawaii faces difficult economic times. The past 
decade has been especially challenging for agriculture in our state. 
Sugar has declined dramatically, from 180,000 acres of cane in 1989 to 
60,000 acres today, and with this decline has come tremendous economic 
disruption.
  120,000 acres may not seem like much to Senators from large states of 
the continental U.S., but in Hawaii the loss has huge implications. 
120,000 acres represents more than 45 percent of our cultivated farm 
land. Hawaii County, where the greatest impact of these losses is felt, 
faces double digit unemployment.
  As Carol Wilcox, author of the definitive history of irrigation in 
Hawaii noted in her recent book ``Sugar Water,'' the cultivation of 
sugarcane dominated Hawaii's agricultural landscape for the last 25 
years of the 19th century and for most of this century as well. ``Sugar 
was the greatest single force at work in Hawaii,'' she wrote, and water 
was essential to this development.
  The face of Hawaii agriculture is changing. During the past decade, 
95 sugar farms and plantations closed their doors. Today, many rural 
communities in Hawaii are struggling to define new roles in an era when 
sugar is no longer the king of crops. We have entered a period of 
rebirth. A new foundation for agriculture is being established.
  Diversified agriculture has become a bright spot in our economy. Farm 
receipts from diversified crops rose an average of 5.5 percent annually 
for the past three years, surpassing the $300 million mark for the 
first time. Hawaii still grows sugarcane, but diversified farming 
represents the future of Hawaii agriculture.
  The restructuring of agriculture has prompted new and shifting 
demands for agricultural water and a broad reevaluation of the use of 
Hawaii's fresh water resources. The outcome of these events will help 
define the economic future of rural Hawaii.
  While the Bureau of Reclamation played a modest role in Hawaii water 
resource development, sugar plantations and private irrigation 
companies were responsible for constructing, operating, and maintaining 
nearly all of Hawaii's agricultural irrigation systems. Over a period 
of 90 years, beginning in 1856, more than 75 ditches, reservoirs, and 
groundwater systems were constructed.
  Although Hawaii's irrigation systems are called ditches, the use of 
this term misrepresents their magnitude. Hawaii's largest ditch system, 
the East Maui Irrigation Company, operates a network of six ditches on 
the north flank of Haleakala Crater. The broad scope of East Maui 
irrigation is extensively chronicled in ``Sugar Water'':

       Among the water entities, none compares to EMI. It is the 
     largest privately owned water company in the United States, 
     perhaps in the world. The total delivery capacity is 445 mgd. 
     The average daily water delivery under median weather 
     conditions is 160 mgd . . . Its largest ditch, the Wailoa 
     Canal, has a greater median flow (170 mgd) than any river in 
     Hawaii . . . The [EMI] replacement cost is estimated to be at 
     $200 million.

  Most of Hawaii's irrigation systems--ditches as we know them--are in 
disrepair. Some have been abandoned. Those that no longer irrigate cane 
lands may not effectively serve the new generation of Hawaii farmers, 
either because little or no water reaches new farms or because the 
ditches have not been repaired or maintained. Thus, the wheel has 
turned full circle: the challenge that confronted six generations of 
cane farmers, access to water, has become the challenge for a new 
generation that farms diversified agriculture.
  In response to these changing events, the Hawaii Water Resources 
Reclamation Act authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to survey 
irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii, identify the cost of 
rehabilitating the systems, and evaluate demand for their future use. 
The bill also instructs the Bureau to identify new opportunities for

[[Page 24135]]

reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-
agricultural purposes. Finally, the bill authorizes the Bureau to 
conduct emergency drought relief in Hawaii. This is especially 
important for struggling farmers on the Big Island.
  While I hesitate to predict the findings of the Bureau's study, I 
expect we will learn that some of the ditch systems should be repaired 
or improved, while others should be abandoned. We may also learn that 
the changing face of Hawaii agriculture justifies entirely new systems 
or new components being added to existing ditches. Because the bill 
emphasizes water recycling and reuse, the report will identify 
opportunities to improve water conservation, enhance stream flows, 
improve fish and wildlife habitat, and rebuilding groundwater supplies. 
These important objectives will help ensure that any legislative 
response to the Bureau's report is ecologically appropriate.
  The process outlined in S. 1694 cannot advance unless sound 
environmental principles are observed. Those who are for Hawaii's 
rivers and streams, as I do, believe that water resource development 
should not adversely affect fresh water resources and the ecosystems 
that depend upon them. Hawaii's rivers support a number of rare native 
species that rely on undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable 
of these is the goby, which actually climbs waterfalls, reaching 
habitat that is inaccessible to other fish. As a young boy, my friends 
and I caught and ate o'opu, as the goby are known to Hawaiians, at 
Oahu's streams. I am determined to preserve this, and the other forms 
of rich biological heritage that inhabit our streams and watersheds.
  My remarks would not be complete without a review of the history of 
Federal reclamation initiatives in Hawaii. Hawaii's relationship with 
the Bureau of Reclamation dates from 1939, when the agency proposed 
developing an aqueduct on Molokai to serve 16,000 acres of federally 
managed Hawaiian Home Lands. While this project did not proceed, in 
1954 Congress directed the Bureau to investigate irrigation and 
reclamation needs for three of our islands: Oahu, Hawaii, and Molokai. 
A Federal reclamation project on the Island of Molokai was eventually 
constructed in response to this investigation. The project continues in 
operation today.
  In the first session of Congress following Hawaii's statehood, 
legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to develop 
reclamation projects in Hawaii under the Small Reclamation Projects Act 
was signed into law. The most recent interaction with the Bureau 
occurred in 1995 when Congress authorized the Secretary to allow Native 
Hawaiians the same favorable cost recovery for reclamation projects as 
Indians or Indian tribes.
  I will work closely with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to pass the Hawaii Water Resources 
Reclamation Act. I ask that a copy of S. 1694 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1694

       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 ``Hawaii Water Resources 
     Reclamation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Act of August 23, 1954 (68 Stat. 773, chapter 838) 
     authorized the Secretary of the Interior to investigate the 
     use of irrigation and reclamation resource needs for areas of 
     the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, and Molokai in the State of 
     Hawaii;
       (2) section 31 of the Hawaii Omnibus Act (43 U.S.C. 422l) 
     authorizes the Secretary to develop reclamation projects in 
     the State under the Act of August 6, 1956 (70 Stat. 1044, 
     chapter 972; 42 U.S.C. 422a et seq.) (commonly known as the 
     ``Small Reclamation Projects Act'');
       (3) the amendment made by section 207 of the Hawaiian Home 
     Lands Recovery Act (109 Stat. 364; 25 U.S.C. 386a) authorizes 
     the Secretary to assess charges against Native Hawaiians for 
     reclamation cost recovery in the same manner as charges are 
     assessed against Indians or Indian tribes;
       (4) there is a continuing need to manage, develop, and 
     protect water and water-related resources in the State; and
       (5) the Secretary should undertake studies to assess needs 
     for the reclamation of water resources in the State.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.

     SEC. 4. WATER RESOURCES RECLAMATION STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, shall conduct a study that 
     includes--
       (1) a survey of irrigation and water delivery systems in 
     the State;
       (2) an estimation of the cost of repair and rehabilitation 
     of the irrigation and water delivery systems;
       (3) an evaluation of options for future use of the 
     irrigation and water delivery systems (including alternatives 
     that would improve the use and conservation of water 
     resources); and
       (4) the identification and investigation of other 
     opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and 
     wastewater for agricultural and nonagricultural purposes.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     that describes the findings and recommendations of the study 
     described in subsection (a) to--
       (A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Additional reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees described in paragraph (1) any additional reports 
     concerning the study described in subsection (a) that the 
     Secretary considers to be necessary.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 5. WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.

       Section 1602(b) of the Reclamation Wastewater and 
     Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h(b)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and the State of Hawaii''.

     SEC. 6. DROUGHT RELIEF.

       Section 104 of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
     Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``Reclamation 
     State'' the following: ``and in the State of Hawaii''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``ten years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on September 
     30, 2005''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Roth and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1696. A bill to amend the Convention on Cultural Property 
Implementation Act to improve the procedures for restricting imports of 
archaeological and ethnological material; to the Committee on Finance.


              the cultural property procedural reform act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). 
This legislation improves the procedures for restricting imports of 
archaeological and ethnological materials. I am pleased that the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, joins 
me, as well as my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator 
Schumer.
  This legislation provides a necessary clarification of the Convention 
on Cultural Property Implementation Act. The CCPIA was reported by the 
Senate Finance Committee and passed in the waning days of the 97th 
Congress. The CCPIA implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means 
of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of 
Cultural Property. It sets forth our national policy concerning the 
importation of cultural property. As the last of the authors of the 
CCPIA remaining in the Senate, it falls to me to keep a close eye on 
its implementation.
  Central to our intention in drafting the CCPIA was the principle that 
the United States will act to bar the importation of particular 
antiquities, but only as part of a concerted international response to 
a specific, severe problem of pillage. The CCPIA established an 
elaborate process to ensure that the views of experts--archaeologists, 
ethnologists, art dealers, museums--and the public, are taken fully 
into account when foreign governments ask us to bar imports of 
antiquities. The Congress put these safeguards in place with the 
specific intent to provide due process.

[[Page 24136]]

  The need for this bill arises from the recent proliferation of import 
restrictions imposed on archaeological and ethnological artifacts from 
a number of countries, including Canada and Peru. Restrictions may soon 
be imposed on imports from Cambodia, and I am told that the Government 
of Italy has now requested that the United States impose a sweeping 
embargo on archaeological material dating from the 8th century B.C. to 
the 5th century A.D.
  My understanding is that the standards and procedures the Congress 
meant to introduce in the CCPIA are not being followed. The chief 
concerns are two-fold: (1) the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 
which reviews all requests for import restrictions, remains essentially 
closed to non-members despite the provisions of the 1983 Cultural 
Property Act--which I co-authored with Senators Dole and Matsunaga--
that call for open meetings and transparent procedures; and (2) the 
Committee lacks a knowledgeable art dealer--in large part because the 
Executive Branch has interpreted the statute--incorrectly, in my view--
to require that Committee members serve as ``special government 
employees'' rather than--as was intended--``representatives''--of 
dealers. Candidates have thus been subjected to insurmountable 
conflict-of-interest rules that have effectively prevented experts from 
serving on the Committee--the very individuals whose advice ought to be 
sought.
  The amendments I offer today would open up the proceedings of the 
Cultural Property Advisory Committee and the administering agency 
(formerly USIA, now an agency under the Department of State) to allow 
for meaningful public participation in the fact-finding phase of an 
investigation, i.e., the stage at which the Committee and the agency 
review the factual basis for a country's request for import 
restrictions. The bill would require that notice of such a request be 
published in the Federal Register, that interested parties be provided 
an opportunity to comment, and that the Committee issue a public report 
of its findings in each case. Once the evidence is gathered, the 
Committee would, as under current law, be permitted to conduct its 
deliberations behind closed doors so as not to jeopardize the 
government's negotiating objectives or disclose its bargaining 
position.
  The amendments would also clarify that Cultural Property Advisory 
Committee members are to serve only in a ``representative'' capacity--
as is the case with members of the President's trade advisory 
committees--and not as ``special government employees.'' It was my 
clear understanding, as one of the chief drafters of the law, that 
members of the Advisory Committee would be acting in a representative 
capacity. The CCPIA sought to ensure that there would be a ``fair 
representation of the various interests of the public sectors and the 
private sectors in the international exchange of archaeological and 
ethnological materials,'' by designating members to represent those 
various perspectives. The CCPIA reserves specific slots on the Advisory 
Committee for representatives of the affected interest groups, 
including as I mentioned earlier, art dealers. The special conflict-of-
interest provisions applicable to ``special government employees'' 
would probably prevent any active art dealer knowledgeable in the 
affected areas of trade from serving on the Committee, depriving the 
Committee of invaluable expertise.
  This bill, clarifying Congressional intent, is essential to 
successful implementation of the CCPIA. If I may ask the Senate's 
indulgence, I would like to summarize the key provisions of the bill:
  Procedural requirements.--The bill amends Section 303(f)(2) of the 
CCPIA to provide that a foreign nation's request for relief shall 
include a detailed description of the archaeological or ethnological 
material that a party to the 1970 Cultural Property Convention seeks to 
protect and a comprehensive description of the evidence submitted in 
support of the request. This information is to be included in the 
Federal Register notice required to initiate proceedings under the 
CCPIA.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide interested parties with 
adequate notice of the nature of a foreign nation's request and the 
evidence in support of an allegedly serious condition of pillage, which 
is evidence essential to any response under CCPIA. In the past, 
proceedings before the CPAC and the administering agency (formerly 
USIA, now an agency under the Department of State) have been conducted 
almost in total secrecy, thus denying interested parties the 
opportunity to prepare rebuttal and response to the evidence presented 
by a foreign nation on alleged pillage and with respect to the other 
statutory requirements that must be satisfied. The result is that the 
Committee is denied a full, unbiased record upon which to make its 
decisions.
  The bill also amends Section 303(f)(1)(C) of the CCPIA to provide 
that interested parties shall have an opportunity to provide comments 
to Executive Branch decision-makers on the findings and recommendations 
of the CPAC, which are to be made public under a separate provision of 
the bill. To date, interested parties have not had an effective 
opportunity to bring their perspectives to the attention of the 
statutory decision-maker.
  Proceedings before the committee.--The bill amends Section 306(f)(1) 
of the CCPIA to provide that the procedures before the Advisory 
Committee shall be conducted to afford full participation by interested 
parties in the fact-finding phase of the CPAC review.
  This provision draws a clear line between the fact-finding 
investigation and the deliberative review phases of the Committee's 
proceedings and provide for full public participation in the fact-
finding phase. It also responds to concerns that, under current 
procedures, the Committee is denied full information from interested 
parties relating to the foreign nation's request because there is no 
public information about the specific nature of a request nor of the 
data supporting it.
  Also, in an amendment to Section 306(f)(1) of the CCPIA, the 
Committee is directed to prepare, and then publish in the Federal 
Register, a report which includes, inter alia, its findings with 
respect to each of the criteria described in Section 301(a)(1) of the 
Act, which sets forth the requirements that must be met before import 
restrictions may be imposed. This amendment is essential to ensure that 
the Committee faithfully responds to each of the statutory criteria.
  Import restrictions.--Our bill amends Section 303(a)(1)(A) of the 
CCPIA, dealing with the authority to impose restrictions, to make clear 
that there must be evidence of pillage which supports the full range of 
any import restrictions under the CCPIA and that such evidence must 
reflect contemporary pillage. Evidence of contemporary pillage is 
essential to the working of the Act, which is based on the concept that 
a U.S. import restriction will have a meaningful effect on an ongoing 
situation of pillage.
  There is striking evidence that the Committee and the administering 
agency are now promulgating broad-scale import restrictions where there 
is no evidence of contemporary pillage that would justify the scope of 
those restrictions. Recent examples include omnibus import restrictions 
involving cultural property from Canada and Peru, extending over 
thousands of years. Vast portions of the Canadian restrictions were 
supported by no evidence whatsoever of contemporary pillage. Likewise, 
the Peruvian restrictions extend far beyond any evidence of current 
pillage contained in the administrative record. I am told that the 
Government of Italy has now requested that the United States impose a 
sweeping embargo on Italian archaeological materials dating from the 
8th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D.
  This provision also makes clear that an import embargo cannot be 
based on historical evidence of pillage; rather, there must be 
contemporary pillage. This amendment responds to recent instances where 
the committee has made recommendations, which the agency has accepted, 
based upon evidence of pillage that is many years old, and indeed, 
evidence of pillage that occurred

[[Page 24137]]

hundreds of years previously. It is quite obvious that an import 
restriction in 1999 cannot deter pillage that took place decades or 
even centuries ago. This provision is imperative to ensure that the 
administrative process under the act is faithful to the statutory goals 
of CCPIA.
  Continuing review.--Our bill amends section 306(g) of the act to make 
more specific the obligation of the committee to conduct reviews, on an 
annual basis, of existing agreements providing for import restrictions; 
to publish in the Federal Register the conclusions of such reviews; and 
to report on those agreements not reviewed during the preceding year 
and the reasons why such agreements were not reviewed. The amendment 
provides for full public participation in the fact-finding phase of the 
annual reviews. It is prompted by the committee's failure to undertake, 
with full public participation, a prompt review of existing import 
restrictions, particularly those relating to Canada, for which serious 
questions have been raised as to the claims of pillage made in support 
of the omnibus U.S. import restrictions.
  Multinational response.--These provisions deal with the action 
required by other art-importing nations in connection with non-
emergency import restrictions imposed under the act. The act requires 
that any import restriction under Section 303 of the act be 
accomplished by corresponding import restrictions by other nations 
having a significant trade in the cultural properties barred by the 
U.S. import restriction. The rationale for this requirement is that one 
cannot effectively deter a serious situation of pillage of cultural 
properties if the U.S. unilaterally closes its borders to the import of 
those properties, and they find their way, in an undiminished stream of 
commerce, to markets in London, Paris, Munich, Tokyo, or other air-
importing centers.
  Congress imposed a specific requirement of an actual multinational 
response. There is a concern that the committee is simply disregarding 
these requirements in its recent actions imposing far-reaching 
restrictions on cultural properties. Therefore, this subsection amends 
section 303(g)(2) of the act to require the administering agency to set 
forth in detail the reasons for its determination under this provision.
  Consultation by committee members.--These provisions relate to the 
appropriate activities of committee members. In order to provide that 
maximum information and insight be brought to bear upon the committee's 
fact-finding and deliberations, all members of the Committee will be 
free to consult with others in connection with non-confidential 
information in an effort to secure expert advice and information on the 
justification for a particular request, and to share non-confidential 
information received from a requesting country in support of its 
request. Any such consultation must be reported in the committee's 
records. In the past, committee members have been advised that they 
would face severe sanctions if they were to consult with experts on the 
extent of pillage or other pertinent facts in connection with a foreign 
nation's request.
  Cultural Property Advisory Committee membership.--Our bill clarifies 
that members of the CPAC serve in a representative capacity and not as 
officers or employees of the government or as special government 
employees (``SGEs''). This additional language is necessary because 
officials at the administering agency and elsewhere in the executive 
branch appear to have misconstrued congressional intent in this regard.
  Because CPAC members are expected to bring their particular 
institutional perspectives to CPAC deliberations, the CCPIA seeks to 
ensure a ``fair representation of the various interests of the public 
sectors and the private sectors in the international exchange of 
archaeological and ethnological material,'' by designating members to 
represent various perspectives. To accomplish this purpose, Congress 
reserved specific slots on the CPAC for representatives of the affected 
interest groups.
  Despite this language, the administering agency has asserted that 
CPAC members serve as SGE rather than in a representative capacity. As 
a result, certain experts have been prevented from serving on the CPAC. 
The proposed amendment would restate and clarify that all members of 
the CPAC serve in a representative capacity.
  Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Finally, the bill makes clear that 
the transparency provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(e.g., open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public 
availability of documents) apply to the fact-finding phase of the 
committee's actions. Those provisions shall not apply to the 
deliberative phase of the committee's action if there is an appropriate 
determination that open procedures would compromise the Government's 
negotiating objectives or bargaining position.
  This provision would open to the public the fact-gathering phase of 
the CPAC's work, while retaining discretion, consistent with section 
206(h) of the CCPIA, to close the deliberative phase where the 
government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions may be 
compromised.
  Mr. President, I urge the speedy passage of this legislation and ask 
unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record 
along with a brief section-by-section description of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1696

       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 ``Cultural Property Procedural 
     Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 303(f) of the Convention on 
     Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2602(f)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any request described in 
     subsection (a) made by a State Party or in the case of a 
     proposal by the President to extend any agreement under 
     subsection (e), the President shall--
       ``(A) publish notification of the request or proposal in 
     the Federal Register;
       ``(B) submit to the Committee such information regarding 
     the request or proposal (including, if applicable, 
     information from the State Party with respect to the 
     implementation of emergency action under section 304) as is 
     appropriate to enable the Committee to carry out its duties 
     under section 306;
       ``(C) provide interested parties an opportunity to comment 
     on the findings and recommendations of the Committee; and
       ``(D) consider, in taking action on the request or 
     proposal, the views and recommendations contained in any 
     Committee report--
       ``(i) required under section 306(f) (1) or (2); and
       ``(ii) submitted to the President before the close of the 
     150-day period beginning on the day on which the President 
     submitted information on the request or proposal to the 
     Committee under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Content of notice.--Each notice required by paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall include a statement of the relief sought by the 
     State Party, a detailed description of the archaeological or 
     ethnological material that the State Party seeks to protect, 
     and a comprehensive description of the evidence submitted in 
     support of the request.''.
       (b) Proceedings Before Committee.--Section 306(f)(1) of the 
     Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2605(f)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) The Committee shall, with respect to each request by 
     a State Party referred to in section 303(a), undertake a 
     fact-finding investigation and a deliberative review with 
     respect to matters referred to in section 303(a)(1) as the 
     matters relate to the State Party or the request. The 
     Committee shall provide notice and opportunity for comment to 
     all interested parties in the fact-finding phase of the 
     Committee's actions. The Committee shall prepare and publish 
     in the Federal Register a report setting forth--
       ``(A) the results of the investigation and review and its 
     findings with respect to each of the criteria described in 
     section 303(a)(1);
       ``(B) the Committee's findings as to the nations 
     individually having a significant import trade in the 
     relevant material; and
       ``(C) the Committee's recommendation, together with the 
     reasons therefore, as to whether an agreement should be 
     entered into under section 303(a) with respect to the State 
     Party.''.
       (c) Import Restrictions.--Section 303(a)(1) of such Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) that particular objects of the cultural patrimony of 
     the State Party are in jeopardy from pillaging of 
     archaeological or ethnological materials of the State 
     Party;''; and

[[Page 24138]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Historical 
     evidence of pillaging shall not be sufficient to make a 
     determination under subparagraph (A).''.
       (d) Continuing Review.--Section 306(g) of such Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2605(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a continuing'' and 
     inserting ``an annual'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Action by committee.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Committee finds, as a result of 
     such review, that--
       ``(i) cause exists under section 303(d) for suspending the 
     import restrictions imposed under an agreement,
       ``(ii) any agreement or emergency action is not achieving 
     the purposes for which the agreement or action was entered 
     into or implemented, or
       ``(iii) changes are required to this title in order to 
     implement fully the obligations of the United States under 
     the Convention,

     the Committee shall submit to Congress and the President and 
     publish in the Federal Register a report setting forth the 
     Committee's recommendations for suspending such import 
     restrictions or for improving the effectiveness of any such 
     agreement or emergency action or this title.
       ``(B) Agreements reviewed where no action proposed.--In any 
     case in which the Committee undertakes a review but concludes 
     that the agreement meets the applicable statutory criteria of 
     effectiveness, the Committee shall submit to Congress and the 
     President and publish in the Federal Register a report 
     setting forth the Committee's findings and conclusions as to 
     the effectiveness of the agreement.
       ``(C) Agreements not reviewed.--The report required by 
     subparagraph (A) shall contain a list of any agreement not 
     reviewed during the year preceding the submission of the 
     report and the reasons why such agreement was not 
     reviewed.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Requirements for review.--In each annual review 
     conducted under this subsection, the Committee shall--
       ``(A) undertake a fact-finding investigation and a 
     deliberative review with respect to the effectiveness of the 
     agreement under review;
       ``(B) provide notice and opportunity for comment to all 
     interested parties in the fact-finding phase of Committee's 
     action; and
       ``(C) publish notice of the review in the Federal Register 
     that includes a detailed description of the information 
     submitted to the Committee concerning the effectiveness of 
     the agreement.''.
       (e) Multinational Response.--Section 303(g)(2) of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2602(g)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) if the President determines that the application of 
     import restrictions by other nations, as required by 
     subsection (c)(1), is not essential to deter a serious 
     situation of pillage, the reasons for such determination.''.
       (f) Consultation by Committee Members.--Section 306(e) of 
     such Act (19 U.S.C. 2605(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Members of the Committee may consult with any person 
     to obtain expert advice and may, in such consultations, share 
     information obtained from a country in support of the request 
     filed under this title to the extent that the information is 
     otherwise publicly available. Any consultations conducted 
     pursuant to this paragraph shall be reported in the record of 
     the Committee's actions.''.

     SEC. 3. CULTURAL PROPERTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Section 306(b)(1) (B) and (C) of the 
     Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2605(b)(1) (B) and (C)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Three members who shall represent the fields of 
     archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, or related areas.
       ``(C) Three members who shall represent the international 
     sale of archaeological, ethnological, and other cultural 
     property.''.
       (b) Conflict of Interest Provisions.--Section 306(b) of the 
     Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2605(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Members of the Committee who are not otherwise 
     officers or employees of the Federal Government shall serve 
     in a representative capacity and shall not be considered 
     officers, employees, or special Government employees for any 
     purpose.''.
       (c) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 
     306(h) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2605(h)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--In order to provide 
     for open meetings and public participation, the provisions of 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 5 
     U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the fact-finding phase of the 
     Committee's actions including the requirements of subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 10 and section 11 (relating to open 
     meetings, public notice, public participation, and public 
     availability of documents). The requirements of subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 10 and section 11 shall not apply to 
     the deliberative phase of the Committee's actions if it is 
     determined by the President or the President's designee that 
     the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee's 
     deliberations would compromise the Government's negotiating 
     objectives or bargaining positions on the negotiation of any 
     agreement authorized by this title.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (1) Sections 306(e) (1) and (2), 306(i)(1)(A) and 306(i)(2) 
     of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2605(e) (1) and (2), 2605(i)(1)(A), and 2605(i)(2)) 
     are each amended by striking ``Director of the United States 
     Information Agency'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary of State''.
       (2) Section 305 of the Convention on Cultural Property 
     Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2604) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of State,'' after 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``archeological'' 
     and inserting ``archaeological''.
                                  ____


Cultural Property Procedural Reform Act--Section-by-Section Description

       The purpose of this legislation is to improve the 
     procedures for restricting imports of archaeological and 
     ethnological material under the Convention on Cultural 
     Property Implementation Act (``the CCPIA'' or ``Act''). It 
     also clarifies that members of the Cultural Property Advisory 
     Committee (``CPAC'' or ``Committee'') are appointed to act in 
     a representative capacity and are not special government 
     employees.


                         section 1. short title

       The title of the bill is the ``Cultural Property Procedural 
     Reform Act.''


                    sec. 2. procedural requirements

     (a) In general
       First, Section 303(f)(2) of the CCPIA is amended to provide 
     that a foreign nation's request for relief shall include a 
     detailed description of the archaeological or ethnological 
     material that a party to the 1970 Cultural Property 
     Convention seeks to protect and a comprehensive description 
     of the evidence submitted in support of the request. This 
     information is to be included in the Federal Register notice 
     required to initiate proceedings under the CCPIA.
       Second, Section 303(f)(1)(C) of the CCPIA is amended to 
     require that interested parties have an opportunity to 
     provide comments to the administering agency (formerly USIA, 
     now an agency under the Department of State) on the findings 
     and recommendations of the CPAC.
     (b) Proceedings before committee
       Section 306(f)(1) of the CCPIA is amended to draw a clear 
     distinction between the fact-finding phase of the Cultural 
     Property Advisory Committee's investigation and its 
     deliberative review of the evidence. The amendment requires 
     the Committee to provide interested parties both notice and 
     an opportunity to comment during the fact-finding phase of 
     the CPAC review.
       Section 2(b) of the bill amends Section 306(f)(1) of the 
     CCPIA to direct the Committee to publish in the Federal 
     Register its report, which is to include, inter alia, its 
     findings with respect to each of the criteria described in 
     Section 301(a)(1) of the Act, which sets forth the 
     requirements that must be met before import restrictions may 
     be imposed.
     (c) Import restrictions
       Section 303(a)(1)(A) of the CCPIA, dealing with the 
     authority to enter into import restrictions, is amended to 
     make clear that there must be evidence that particular 
     objects of the cultural patrimony of the country requesting 
     an embargo be in jeopardy of pillage. The legislation 
     clarifies that historical evidence of pillaging is not 
     sufficient to support the imposition of import restrictions; 
     rather the evidence must reflect contemporary pillage.
     (d) Continuing review
       Under current law, the Committee is required to review the 
     effectiveness of existing import restrictions on a continuing 
     basis. The legislation makes more specific the obligation of 
     the Committee to conduct such continuing reviews of 
     outstanding agreements. It clarifies that reviews will be 
     conducted on an annual basis, and requires the Committee to 
     publish in the Federal Register the conclusions of such 
     reviews, and to include in an annual report a description of 
     those agreements not reviewed during the preceding year and 
     the reasons why such agreements were not reviewed. This 
     provision requires that notice of the review be published in 
     the Federal Register and that interested parties be afforded 
     an opportunity to comment in the fact-finding phase of the 
     annual reviews.
     (e) Multinational response
       This subsection deals with the action required by other 
     art-importing nations in connection with non-emergency import 
     restrictions imposed under the Act. The Act

[[Page 24139]]

     requires that any import restriction under Section 303 of the 
     Act be accompanied by corresponding import restrictions by 
     other nations having a significant trade in the materials 
     barred by the U.S. import restriction. This subsection amends 
     Section 303(g)(2) of the Act to require the President to set 
     forth in detail the reasons for a determination that 
     multilateral action is not required.
     (f) Consultation by committee members
       This subsection provides that Committee members are free to 
     consult with experts and, in connection with such 
     consultations, to share non-confidential information receive 
     from a country in support of its request for an import 
     embargo. Any such consultations must be reported in the 
     records of the Committee.


              sec. 3. cultural property advisory committee

     (a) In general. (see (b), below)
     (b) Conflict of interest provisions
       These subsections clarify that members of the CPAC serve in 
     a representative capacity and not as officers or employees of 
     the government or as special government employees.
     (c) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act
       Subsection (c) of Section 3 of the bill makes clear that 
     the transparency provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (e.g., open meetings, public notice, public 
     participation, and public availability of documents) apply to 
     the fact-finding phase of the Committee's actions. Those 
     provisions shall not apply to the deliberative phase of the 
     Committee's action if the President or his designee 
     determines that open procedures would compromise the 
     Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining position.


                      sec. 4. technical amendments

       This section makes technical changes to the CCPIA in light 
     of the abolition of the United States Information Agency, and 
     consequent transfer of its functions to the Department of 
     State.

 Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues 
Senators Moynihan and Roth in introducing legislation today that I feel 
is long overdue.
  More than 20 years ago, in an attempt to end the looting and 
pillaging of important archaeological and cultural sites, and to 
protect the integrity of a country's cultural patrimony, Senator 
Moynihan and others labored to develop an international protocol that 
struck a balance between a country's desire to protect its heritage and 
the art world's desire to have a healthy trade in and exhibition of 
cultural artifacts. After years of deliberation, these efforts resulted 
in the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property--a delicately balanced 
set of rules and guidelines to protect countries from looting, but to 
allow a legitimate trade in historical objects and the showing of those 
objects in museums around the world.
  Congress later established the Cultural Property Advisory Committee 
(CPAC) to assist the President in making determinations under this 
convention about whether to restrict or allow the trade of 
archaeologically significant materials when another country claims 
harm. Once again, Senator Moynihan was the impetus and intellectual 
might behind this legislation.
  For years, this was a balanced process that weighed the claims of 
countries against the competing interests of museums, art dealers, and 
auction houses. The CPAC itself was comprised of individuals 
representing the interests of the museums, auction houses, dealers, 
archaeologists, and anthropologists. This committee, with the help of 
staff, made determinations based on fact (was there sufficient evidence 
of looting or pillaging?) and effectiveness (if the U.S. unilaterally 
banned the import of certain items, would it have a reasonable chance 
of reducing or ending the looting?). The original international 
protocol as well as the enacting legislation passed by the Congress, 
specifically discouraged unilateral or bilateral actions. The protocols 
and the legislation were designed to lead to a cohesive international 
response, not a country-by-country response to looting.
  Somewhere along the line, that delicate balance shifted. CPAC 
hearings that were once open became closed. Actions that were once 
multilateral became unilateral. A process that was once inclusive 
became exclusive. Decisions that in the past were based on a fair 
hearing on the merits became instead a foregone conclusion against the 
museums and the dealers. I would go as far as to say that for those 
representing museums and art dealers, the process became overtly 
hostile and secretive.
  More than a year ago, I convened a meeting with then-USIA director 
Joe Duffy, members of the art community, and the staff of Senator 
Moynihan. The meeting was called because of a sweeping action taken by 
the CPAC regarding Canadian Native American artifacts. Without dwelling 
on the details of the complaint by the Canadian government or the 
decision to bar any imports by the U.S. of thousands of artifacts--the 
meeting was extraordinary. Director Duffy, who as USIA head oversaw the 
CPAC, admitted that they were way out of line. He admitted that the 
process had become closed and hostile to dealers and the museums. And 
he suggested to me and by proxy to Senator Moynihan that we supply him 
with a name of a person to fill a vacancy on the CPAC to help restore 
the balance that once was the norm. We gave him the name of Andre 
Emmerich, a semi-retired dealer in artifacts and probably the most 
respected voice in the field of cultural property. Director Duffy said 
to me that Andre Emmerich was the perfect choice.
  More than one year later and unfortunately after Director Duffy 
retired, Andre Emmerich's nomination was rejected because, the CPAC 
claimed, as a dealer he had a conflict of interest. Let's face facts. 
The entire CPAC is designed to be a conflict of interest. The balance 
of the committee membership is supposed to reflect that conflict of 
interest. That conflict of interest is essential to the inner workings 
of the committee as the expertise supplied by those in various fields 
is also intended to edify the rest of the committee to help them make 
the right decision.
  That brings us to today. We are introducing legislation that is 
intended to clean up the CPAC--to make the process open, fair, 
transparent, and accountable. Among other provisions, the legislation 
forces CPAC to open meetings that have been absurdly secretive. The 
need for cloak and dagger, spy vs. spy, CIA level secrecy over the 
importation of Peruvian pottery escapes me.
  I am proud to be joining both Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth--two 
of the most respected leaders in the Senate--in introducing this 
legislation. I hope we can move this bill quickly, because this is a 
situation that needs a remedy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S. 1699. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving 
funds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


            clean water infrastructure financing act of 1999

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean 
Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 1999, legislation which will 
reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) Program administered by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an 
effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater 
collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987, to 
replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the 
landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or as it is known, 
the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the federal 
Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure 
financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where 
each state determines which projects get built.
  The performance of the SRF Program has been spectacular. Total 
federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-federal 
funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged bonds, and 
principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are 
participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects 
nationwide have been approved to date.
  Ohio has needs for public water system improvements which greatly 
exceed the current SRF appropriations

[[Page 24140]]

levels. According to the latest state figures, more than $7 billion of 
improvements have been identified as necessary. In recent years, Ohio 
cities and villages are spending more on maintaining and operating 
their systems than in the past, which is an indication their systems 
are aging and will soon need to be replaced. For example, the City of 
Columbus recently requested SRF assistance amounting to $725 million 
over the next five years.
  While the SRF program's track record is excellent, the condition of 
our Nation's environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year 
needs survey published by the EPA in 1997 documented $139 billion worth 
of wastewater capital needs nationwide. This past April, the national 
assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more 
accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies 
demonstrate that total needs are closer to $300 billion, when 
anticipated replacement costs are considered.
  Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal 
year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends 
an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a 
national priority. The longer we have an absence of authorization of 
this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's 
future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or in some cases 
prevent project financing.
  The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 
billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only 
would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding 
gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by 
protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and 
increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the 
bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, 
expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer 
disadvantaged communities extended loan repayment periods and principal 
subsidies.
  At the local level, there are numerous areas like the town of Glenn 
Robbins in Jefferson County, Ohio, which cannot afford a zero percent 
loan to build the cost-effective facilities they need. Estimates 
indicate that among towns of less than 3,500 population in Ohio, there 
are $1.5 billion in needs.
  The health and well-being of the American public depends on the 
condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. 
Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often 
taken for granted because they are invisible absent a crisis. Let me 
assure my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental 
infrastructure are simply intolerable. Recent flood disasters have been 
a stark reminder of the human costs that stem from the contamination of 
our Nation's water supply.
  The Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet 
their wastewater treatment needs. My legislation will help ensure that 
the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall 
development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge it's 
speedy consideration by the Senate.
  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. 1699

       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 ``Clean Water Infrastructure 
     Financing Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

       Section 601(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking ``(1) for 
     construction'' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end and inserting ``to accomplish the purposes of this 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 3. CAPITALIZATION GRANTS AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Requirements for Construction of Treatment Works.--
     Section 602(b)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
       (2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
     ``218,'' and inserting ``211,''.
       (b) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1382) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Guidance for Small Systems.--
       ``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall assist the States in establishing simplified procedures 
     for small systems to obtain assistance under this title.
       ``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, and after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator 
     shall publish a manual to assist small systems in obtaining 
     assistance under this title and publish in the Federal 
     Register notice of the availability of the manual.
       ``(3) Definition of small system.--In this title, the term 
     `small system' means a system for which a municipality or 
     intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency seeks assistance 
     under this title and that serves a population of 20,000 or 
     fewer inhabitants.''.

     SEC. 4. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS.

       (a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is 
     amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The water pollution control revolving 
     fund of a State shall be used only for providing financial 
     assistance for activities that have, as a principal benefit, 
     the improvement or protection of the water quality of 
     navigable waters to a municipality, intermunicipal, 
     interstate, or State agency, or other person, including 
     activities such as--
       ``(A) construction of a publicly owned treatment works;
       ``(B) implementation of lake protection programs and 
     projects under section 314;
       ``(C) implementation of a nonpoint source management 
     program under section 319;
       ``(D) implementation of a estuary conservation and 
     management plan under section 320;
       ``(E) restoration or protection of publicly or privately 
     owned riparian areas, including acquisition of property 
     rights;
       ``(F) implementation of measures to improve the efficiency 
     of public water use;
       ``(G) development and implementation of plans by a public 
     recipient to prevent water pollution; and
       ``(H) acquisition of land necessary to meet any mitigation 
     requirements related to construction of a publicly owned 
     treatment works.
       ``(2) Fund amounts.--
       ``(A) Repayments.--The water pollution control revolving 
     fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and 
     credited with repayments.
       ``(B) Availability.--The balance in the fund shall be 
     available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Fees.--Fees charged by a State to recipients of the 
     assistance may be deposited in the fund and may be used only 
     to pay the cost of administering this title.''.
       (b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged 
     Communities.--Section 603(d)(1) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``20 years'' 
     the following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged 
     community, the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the 
     project to be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not later than 20 
     years after project completion'' and inserting ``on the 
     expiration of the term of the loan''.
       (c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section 
     603(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (5) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
       ``(A) similar revolving funds established by municipalities 
     or intermunicipal agencies; and
       ``(B) developing and implementing innovative 
     technologies;''.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(7)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or the greater of $400,000 per year or an amount 
     equal to \1/2\ percent per year of the current valuation of 
     the fund, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State 
     under subsection (c)(2)(C)''.
       (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
     Section 603(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning 
     assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee 
     analysis,

[[Page 24141]]

     budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility operation 
     and maintenance, repair schedules, and other activities to 
     improve wastewater treatment plant operations, except that 
     the amounts used under this paragraph for a fiscal year shall 
     not exceed 2 percent of all grants provided to the fund for 
     the fiscal year under this title.''.
       (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(f)) is amended by striking ``is consistent'' and 
     inserting ``is not inconsistent''.
       (g) Construction Assistance.--Section 603 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is amended by 
     striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Construction Assistance.--
       ``(1) Priority list requirement.--The State may provide 
     financial assistance from the water pollution control 
     revolving fund of the State for a project for construction of 
     a publicly owned treatment works only if the project is on 
     the priority list of the State under section 216, without 
     regard to the rank of the project on the list.
       ``(2) Eligibility of certain treatment works.--A treatment 
     works shall be treated as a publicly owned treatment works 
     for purposes of subsection (c) if the treatment works, 
     without regard to ownership, would be considered a publicly 
     owned treatment works and is principally treating municipal 
     waste water or domestic sewage.''.
       (h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(i) Interest Rates.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any case in which a State makes a 
     loan under subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged community, 
     the State may charge a negative interest rate of not to 
     exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the loan.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of all negative 
     interest rate loans the State makes for a fiscal year under 
     paragraph (1) shall not exceed 20 percent of the aggregate 
     amount of all loans made by the State from the water 
     pollution control revolving fund for the fiscal year.
       ``(j) Definition of Disadvantaged Community.--In this 
     section, the term `disadvantaged community' means the service 
     area of a publicly owned treatment works with respect to 
     which the average annual residential sewage treatment charges 
     for a user of the treatment works meet affordability criteria 
     established by the State in which the treatment works is 
     located (after providing for public review and comment) in 
     accordance with guidelines established by the Administrator 
     in cooperation with the States.''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 607 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1387) is amended by striking ``the following sums:'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end of 
     paragraph (5) and inserting ``$3,000,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 1700. A bill to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to 
allow a defendant to make a motion for forensic testing not available 
at trial regarding actual innocence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the right to use technology in the hunt for truth

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the hallmark of our criminal justice 
system has always been the search for the truth. With this goal in 
mind, I am introducing legislation to ensure the quality of justice in 
our criminal courts through the use of DNA testing.
  In the last decade, the use of DNA evidence as a tool to assign guilt 
and acquit the innocent has produced dramatic results. The Innocence 
Project at the Cardozo School of Law has identified 62 cases in the 
United States since 1988 in which the use of DNA technology resulted in 
overturned convictions. In my home State of Illinois, 12 innocent men 
in the past 12 years have been released from Illinois' Death Row after 
DNA testing or other evidence proved their innocence.
  The bill I am introducing today, The Right to Use Technology in the 
Hunt for Truth (TRUTH) Act will amend the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure. Specifically, the bill will allow Federal defendants to file 
a motion to mandate DNA testing to support claims of actual innocence. 
Under current law, rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
imposes a 2-year time limitation for new trial motions based on newly 
discovered evidence. This time limitation can act as a carrier even in 
cases where the evidence of actual innocence is available. My bill will 
allow defendants to bring a motion for forensic DNA testing without 
regard to the 2-year time limitation. It will not waive the 2-year time 
limit for all new trial limitations. Only motions for forensic DNA 
testing under limited circumstances will not subject to the 2-year time 
limitation.
  This Federal rule change allows a defendants to utilize technology 
that was unavailable at the time of their conviction. The bill requires 
the defendant to show that identity was an issue in the trial which 
resulted in his conviction and that the evidence gathered by law 
enforcement was subject to a chain of custody sufficient to protect its 
integrity.
  DNA technology has undergone rapid change that has increased its 
ability to obtain meaningful results from old evidence through the use 
of smaller and smaller samples. In the World Trade Center bombing case, 
DNA was recovered from saliva on the back of a postage stamp.
  In the past, crime laboratories relied primarily on restriction 
fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) testing, a technique that requires 
a rather large quantity of DNA (100,000 or more cells). Most 
laboratories are now shifting to using a test based on the polymerase 
chain reaction (PCR) method that can generate reliable data from 
extremely small amounts of DNA in crime scene samples (50 to 100 
cells).
  Two States in the country, New York and Illinois, have laws mandating 
post-conviction DNA testing. The Illinois law has led to as many as six 
overturned sentences, including some murder charges.
  When the measure was debated in the Illinois Legislature, some 
lawmakers raised concerns that allowing DNA-based appeals would lead to 
an avalanche of prisoners' demands for such tests.
  But the response from experts is that such motions have not been 
excessive because prisoners who were justifiably convicted of crimes 
would have that DNA tests would only underscore their guilt.
  Recently, a high-level study of a commission appointed by Attorney 
General Janet Reno has encouraged prosecutors to be more amenable to 
reopening cases where convictions might be overturned because of the 
use of DNA testing. The Innocence Project in New York estimates that 60 
percent of the samples it sends out for testing come back in their 
clients' favor.
  Justice Robert Jackson wrote some 40 years ago, ``[i]t must prejudice 
the occasional meritorious application to be buried in a flood of 
worthless ones. He who must search a haystack for a needle is likely to 
end up with the attitude that the needle is not worth the search.'' 
This bill will help make the hay stack smaller by separating out 
motions for new trial based on scientific evidence of actual innocence.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the 
integrity of the criminal justice system by utilizing all that 
technology has to offer. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1700

       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 Right to Use Technology in 
     the Hunt for Truth Act'' or ``TRUTH Act''.

     SEC. 2. MOTION FOR FORENSIC TESTING NOT AVAILABLE AT TRIAL 
                   REGARDING ACTUAL INNOCENCE.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
     are amended by inserting after rule 33 the following:

     ``Rule 33.1. Motion for forensic testing not available at 
       trial regarding actual innocence

       ``(a) Motion by Defendant.--A court on a motion of a 
     defendant may order the performance of forensic DNA testing 
     on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial of that 
     defendant which resulted in the defendant's conviction, but 
     which was not subject to the testing which is now requested 
     because the technology for the testing was not available at 
     the time of trial. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be 
     served upon the Government.
       ``(b) Prima facie case.--The defendant shall present a 
     prima facie case that--
       ``(1) identity was an issue in the trial which resulted in 
     the conviction of the defendant; and

[[Page 24142]]

       ``(2) the evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain 
     of custody sufficient to establish that the evidence has not 
     been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any 
     material aspect.
       ``(c) Determination of the Court.--The court shall allow 
     the testing under reasonable conditions designed to protect 
     the interests of the Government in the evidence and the 
     testing process upon a determination that--
       ``(1) the result of the testing has the scientific 
     potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence materially 
     relevant to the defendant's assertion of actual innocence; 
     and
       ``(2) the testing requested employs a scientific method 
     generally accepted within the relevant scientific 
     community.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are amended by adding 
     after the item for rule 33 the following:

``33.1. Motion for forensic testing not available at trial regarding 
              actual innocence.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Biden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 1701. A bill to reform civil asset forfeiture, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     civil asset forfeiture reform

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
Sessions/Schumer Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999. This bill 
is the product of many months of work by a bipartisan group of 
Judiciary Committee Senators. It will make many needed reforms to the 
law of civil asset forfeiture. At the same time, our measures preserve 
forfeiture as a crucial tool for law enforcement.
  The Sessions/Schumer bill was drafted in close consultation and with 
the support of the Justice and Treasury Departments. It has the support 
of the FBI, the DEA, the INS, and the U.S. Marshall's Service.
  There are five major reforms in the Sessions/Schumer bill. First, we 
have raised the burden of proof on the government in forfeiture claims 
from probable cause to preponderance of the evidence, the same as other 
civil cases.
  Second, Sessions/Schumer requires that real property can only be 
seized through the court. It will be illegal for federal agents to 
physically seize real property until the property has been forfeited in 
court.
  For those who cannot afford the cost bond, our bill also adds a 
property bond alternative for contesting forfeiture. This provides 
potential claimants with more flexibility in choosing how to proceed 
with a claim against seized assets. It will no longer be necessary to 
provide cash up front to file a claim. Instead, a claimant can simply 
pledge an asset to cover the anticipated costs or, if the claimant 
cannot afford this, proceed without posting any bond.
  Sessions/Schumer also creates a uniform innocent owner defense; an 
innocent owner's interest in property cannot be forfeited by the 
government. An innocent owner includes one who had no knowledge that 
the property may have been used to commit a crime. And in cases where 
the property was acquired after the crime, the uniform innocent owner 
defense includes bona fide purchases who have no reason to know that 
the asset they have purchased may be tainted.
  The fifth major reform provides payment of attorney's fees. If a 
claimant receives a judgment in his favor, the Government will pay the 
claimant's reasonable attorney's fees.
  I am pleased to note that this bill has the support of a broad 
coalition of law enforcement groups. It has been endorsed by the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's 
Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association 
of Police Organizations, the National District Attorney's Association, 
the National Sheriff's Association, and the National Troopers' 
Coalition.
  As one who believes in justice and who spent many years as a federal 
prosecutor, I know how important asset forfeiture is in the war on 
drugs. We cannot allow exaggerated rhetoric and outdated examples to 
destroy asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. I believe that this 
bill will strike an appropriate balance between those on the front 
lines of the war on drugs and advocates for reform.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999. This important 
legislation makes needed reforms to Federal civil asset forfeiture 
while preserving Federal civil asset forfeiture and its important role 
in fighting crime.
  The government has had the authority to seize property connected to 
illegal activity since the founding days of the Republic. Forfeiture 
may involve seizing contraband, like drugs, or the tools of the trade 
that facilitate the crime.
  Further, forfeiture is critical to taking the profits out of the 
illegal activity. Profit is the motivation for many crimes like drug 
trafficking and racketeering, and it is from these enormous profits 
that the criminal activity thrives and sustains. The use of traditional 
criminal sanctions of fines and imprisonment are inadequate to fight 
the enormously profitable trade in illegal drugs, organized crime, and 
other such activity, because even if one offender is imprisoned the 
criminal activity continues.
  Asset forfeiture deters crime. It has been a major weapon in the war 
on drugs since the mid-1980s, when we expanded civil forfeiture to give 
it a more meaningful role.
  The Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight which I 
chair, held a hearing recently on this important issue. We heard from 
the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, the law 
enforcement community and others involved in this issue. The 
Departments and law enforcement expressed support for reform but 
concerns about going too far.
  As I stated at that time, many believe the government should have the 
burden of proving that it is more likely than not that the property was 
involved in the criminal activity, rather than the owner having to 
prove that the property was not involved. There is wide support for 
developing a more uniform innocent owner defense. Further, some are 
concerned that under current law the government is not liable when it 
negligently damages property in its possession, even when the property 
is later returned to its innocent owner.
  I believe we have addressed these concerns in this bill. We have 
raised the burden on the government to the preponderance of the 
evidence standard, which is the general burden of proof used in civil 
cases.
  We have developed a uniform innocent owner defense to protect an 
owner's interest in property when he did not have knowledge of the 
criminal activity or took reasonable steps to stop or prevent the 
illegal use of the property. The bill also protects the bonafide 
purchaser who purchased the property after the fact without knowledge 
of the criminal activity.
  As an additional reform provision, this legislation holds the 
government liable for the negligent damage to property as the result of 
unreasonable law enforcement actions while the property is in the 
government's possession.
  This bill requires the government to make seizures pursuant to a 
warrant, based on probable cause, and requires a timely notice to 
interested parties of the seizure. When a claim has been filed for the 
return of property, the government must conduct a judicial hearing 
within 90 days, and if the court enters a judgment for the claimant, 
the government must pay reasonable attorney fees to the claimant. This 
is a reasonable way to award attorney fees to the claimant after the 
court has determined that the claim was justified. This provision also 
protects the government from frivolous claims because it maintains the 
possibility of awarding cost to the government if the claim is 
determined to be frivolous.
  In this legislation, we encourage the government to use criminal 
forfeiture as an alternative to civil forfeiture. We also allow for the 
use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims by expanding 
the ability of the Attorney General to use property forfeited in a 
Federal civil case to pay restitution to victims of the underlying 
crime.
  This bill represents a compromise between the many interests involved 
in

[[Page 24143]]

this issue. I would like to commend my colleagues Senators Sessions, 
Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein for their work on this complex issue. 
After the hearing in my Subcommittee, we worked hard to create 
comprehensive, bipartisan legislation, and I believe we have succeeded.
  This bill has been endorsed by law enforcement organizations 
including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the National District Attorneys Association, the 
National Troopers Coalition, the National Sheriffs Association, and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  This is a balanced reform of Federal civil asset forfeiture laws. It 
does not tie the hands of law enforcement and does not give criminals 
the upper hand. It makes needed reforms of civil asset forfeiture while 
preserving civil asset forfeiture as an essential law enforcement tool.
  I hope our colleagues will join with us in supporting this important 
bipartisan legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1702. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to 
allow shareholder common stock to be transferred to adopted Alaska 
Native children and their descendants, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         alaska native claims technical amendments act of 1999

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation that would make technical changes to the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
  As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971 stimulated by the 
need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the 
way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby 
provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's 
North Slope. This landmark piece of legislation is a breathing, living, 
document that often needs to be attended for Alaska Natives to receive 
its full benefits. This body has amended the Act many times including 
this Congress.
  This bill has nine provisions. One provision would allow common stock 
to be willed to adopted-out descendants. Another provision would 
clarify the liability for contaminated lands in Alaska. The 
clarification of contaminated land would declare that no person 
acquiring interest in land under this Act shall be liable for the costs 
of removal or remedial action, any damages, or any third party 
liability arising out or as a result of any contamination on that land 
at the time the land was acquired.
  In 1917, the Norton Bay Reservation was established on 350,000 acres 
of land located on the north side of Norton Bay southeast of Nome, 
Alaska, for the benefit of Alaska Natives who now reside in the village 
of Elim, Alaska. The purpose of the establishment of the reservation 
included providing a land, economic, subsistence, and resources base 
for the people of that area.
  In 1929, through an Executive Order, 50,000 acres of land were 
deleted from the reservation with little consultation and certainly 
without the informed consent of the people who were to be most affected 
by such a deletion. After passage of ANCSA, only the remaining 300,000 
acres of the original reservation were conveyed to the Elim Native 
Corporation. This loss of land from the original reservation has become 
over the years a festering wound to the people of Elim. It now needs to 
be healed through the restoration or replacement of the deleted fifty 
thousand acres of land to the Native Village Corporation authorized by 
ANCSA to hold such land.
  Section 5 of the bill amends the Act further to allow equal access to 
Alaska Native veterans who served in the military or other armed 
services during the Vietnam War. I want to spend a moment speaking 
about this provision in particular, Mr. President, because I feel a 
great injustice has occurred and the current Administration has turned 
its back to these dedicated American veterans.
  Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska Natives were allowed to apply 
for lands which they traditionally used as fish camps, berry picking 
camps or hunting camps. However, many of our Alaska Natives answered 
the call to duty and served in the services during the Vietnam War and 
were unable to apply for their native allotment. This provision allows 
them to apply for their native allotments and would expand the dates to 
include the full years of the Vietnam War. The original dates 
recommended by the Administration only allowed the dates January 1, 
1969 to December 31, 1971. Our Alaska Native veterans should not be 
penalized for serving during the entire dates of the Vietnam conflict. 
This provision corrects that inequity by expanding the dates to reflect 
all the years of the Vietnam War--August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
  Mr. President, Alaska Natives have faithfully answered the call of 
duty when asked to serve in the armed services. In fact, American 
Indians and Alaska Natives generally have the highest record of 
answering the call to duty. Where their needs are concerned I believe 
we should be inclusive, not exclusive. What this Administration has 
done to deny them their rights is shameful. Unfortunately, their 
treatment of Alaska Native Veterans is reflective of their treatment of 
Alaska Natives in general.
  As I am sure my colleagues will agree, the history of our Nation 
reflects many examples of injustices to Native Americans. As hearings 
will confirm, this issue calls out to be sensibly remedied and can be 
with relative ease as outlined in this section of the bill.
  I plan on holding a hearing on this legislation at the earliest 
possible opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1703. A bill to establish America's education goals; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


            establish america's education goals legislation

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 1704. A bill to provide for college affordability and high 
standards; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                      access to high standards act

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
two education bills for consideration in the context of reauthorization 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (``ESEA''). Two weeks 
ago, I introduced two education bills related to raising standards and 
improving accountability for our public school teachers. Last week, I 
introduced three bills related to raising standards and accountability 
in our schools. The two bills that I introduce today focus on raising 
standards and accountability for student performance. One bill 
continues our commitment to provide support for the standards-based 
reform movement taking place in virtually every State by reauthorizing 
the National Education Goals Panel. The other bill, the Access to High 
Standards Act, which I introduce on behalf of myself and Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison, will provide our high school students with greater 
access to rigorous, college level courses through advanced placement 
programs.
  I think most people would agree that in order to compete and continue 
to prosper in our global economy, it is imperative that our students 
are provided with a world-class educational program. To that end, we 
owe it to our students to define high academic standards, monitor their 
progress and provide them with the resources they need to succeed. The 
National Education Goals Panel has played a crucial role in achieving 
these objectives by focusing attention on the need to raise standards 
and effective methods for achieving higher performance on the local 
level. As a founding and current member of the National Education Goal 
Panel, I am pleased to introduce a bill that would reauthorize the 
Panel so that it can continue its efforts to provide leadership and 
track progress for local efforts to raise standards for student 
performance.

[[Page 24144]]

  The Goals Panel is a bipartisan body of federal and state officials 
made up of eight governors, four members of Congress, four state 
legislators and two members appointed by the President. The Panel is 
charged with reporting national and state progress toward goals set 
initially by the nation's Governors during a National Education Summit 
meeting with President Bush and expanded during the 1994 ESEA 
reauthorization Summit meeting with President Bush and expanded during 
the 1994 ESEA reauthorization process in the Educate America Act. The 
Panel also identifies promising practices for improving education and 
helps to build a nationwide, bipartisan consensus to achieve the goals. 
The eight National Education Goals call for greater levels of: school 
readiness; student achievement and citizenship; high school completion; 
teacher education and professional development; parental participation 
in the schools; literacy and lifelong learning; and safe, disciplined 
and alcohol- and drug-free schools.
  We need to continue the Panel's work, because we are not yet where we 
need to be with respect to meeting the goals or with respect to 
supporting state and local efforts to put in place standards-based 
educational programs. Data collected by the Goals Panel has helped and 
can continue to help State and local officials to formulate 
comprehensive school improvement policies. The Goals Panel also has 
provided and can continue to provide guidance to federal, state and 
local policy-makers by providing a national picture for student 
performance. We have made good progress towards developing more 
competitive, high quality educational systems in our states and 
localities, but we must not leave the task incomplete. We must continue 
to focus attention and resources on incorporating high standards into 
public education. As Secretary Riley stated before the nation's 
governors and President Bush met in 1989, ``Significant educational 
improvements do not just happen. They are planned and pursued.'' I hope 
that my colleagues will support continuation of the Goals Panel so that 
we can continue to use the Panel as a tool for setting and achieving 
high standards for student performance.
  Building on the successful expansion of the Advanced Placement 
Incentive Program achieved in the last Congress, the Access to High 
Standards Act is intended to help foster the continued growth of 
advanced placement programs throughout the nation and to help ensure 
equal access to these programs for low income students. Advanced 
placement programs already provide rigorous academics and valuable 
college credits at half the high schools in the United States, serving 
over 1.5 million students last year. Many States that have advanced 
placement incentive programs have already shown tremendous success in 
increasing participation rates, raising achievement scores, and 
increasing the involvement of low-income and under-served students. 
Nevertheless students--particularly low-income students--continue to be 
denied or have limited access to this critical program.
  Despite recent growth in state initiatives and participation, AP 
programs are still often distributed unevenly among regions, states, 
and even high schools within the same districts. Just a few months ago, 
a group of students filed a complaint in federal court against the 
State of California seeking equal access to advance placement programs. 
Over forty percent of our nation's public schools still do not offer 
any Advanced Placement courses. The Access to High Standards Act is 
intended to take additional steps in fostering the continued growth of 
advanced placement programs throughout the nation and to help ensure 
equal access to these programs for low-income students. This bill 
creates a $25 million demonstration grant program to help states build 
and expand advanced placement incentive programs giving priority to 
districts with high concentrations of low-income students and to State 
programs targeting low-income students. In addition, the bill 
authorizes a pilot grant program for States seeking to provide advanced 
placement courses through Internet-based on-line curriculum to students 
in rural areas or areas where the lack of available advanced placement 
teachers make it impossible to provide traditional courses. The bill 
also make AP a part of other federal education programs such as the 
Technology for Education Act programs that I helped author in 1994. In 
this way, federal initiatives will be encouraged to incorporate the 
high standards and measurable results of the AP program.
  As many of my colleagues know, college costs have risen many times 
faster than inflation over the last decade, making attendance more 
difficult for high school graduates and creating tremendous financial 
burdens. Advanced placement programs address this issue by giving 
students an opportunity to earn college credit in high school by 
preparing for and passing AP exams. In fact, a single AP English test 
score of 3 or better is worth approximately $500 in tuition at the 
University of New Mexico, and the credits granted to students 
nationwide are worth billions each year.
  By promoting AP courses, we also address the need to raise academic 
standards. Many states and districts are struggling to develop and 
implement rigorous academic standards and concrete measures of 
achievement--an approach that is advocated by many experts, lawmakers, 
and the public. By implementing high academic standards and providing 
standardized measures for achievement through AP programs, we can help 
prepare students for college. This is clearly a necessary goal. Almost 
33 percent of all freshmen fail to pass to pass basic entrance exams 
and are required to take remedial courses. And, at least in part due to 
academic difficulties, over 25 percent of freshmen drop out before 
their second year.
  In addition, expanding AP programs improve students' academic 
performance in college. And because the vast majority of AP teachers 
teach several non-AP classes as well, AP programs also have a tendency 
of raising schoolwide standards and achievement among the 400 new 
schools adopting the program each year. As Secretary Riley has said, 
expanded AP will ``help fight the tyranny of low expectations, which 
tragically hold back so many of our students.''
  Of course, there is no single remedy or federal program that can hope 
to address all of the issues that public education must face in order 
to improve the achievement and preparation of our students. However, I 
believe that high college costs and low academic standards deserve our 
closest attention, and I am confident that expansion of advanced 
placement programs will help states address these issues effectively.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to incorporate the two 
bills I am introducing today, as well as, the education bills 
introduced in recent weeks into the ESEA. I believe that they will go a 
long way towards improving education in the United States by focusing 
on raising standards and ensuring accountability for teacher, school 
and student performance.

                          ____________________