[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 20847-21221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 20847]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.
October 5, 2000
October 5, 2000
SENATE--Thursday, October 5, 2000
(Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000)
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was
called to order by the President pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Today's prayer will be offered by our
guest Chaplain, Rev. Claude Pomerleau, CSC, University of Portland,
Oregon.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain, Rev. Claude Pomerleau, offered the following
prayer:
Let us pray:
Lord and Master of the universe, we dare to name You Mother and
Father because You are the Source of all that we are, all that we have,
and all that we do. You have also sent us Your Spirit, and so we call
ourselves Your children. We know that You love us, and that this gift
goes beyond our greatest expectations.
O God, bless all the Members of the Senate, this day and always. May
they act in accordance with Your Spirit as they serve this Nation and
work for a more peaceful and secure world. May they be just and
compassionate in their work as You are just and compassionate with Your
creation, and may they be a sign of Your presence for this Nation and
the world.
We pray that we may always be instruments of Your peace, even in the
midst of unresolved problems and constant human conflicts. And, as a
result, may we strive to be a mosaic of Your renewing presence in this
world, through which we have a brief but glorious passage. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Mike Crapo, a Senator from the State of Idaho, led the
Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo.) The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have been
asked to announce today that the Senate will resume consideration of
H.J. Res. 110, the continuing resolution. Under the order, the time
until 10 a.m. will be equally divided with a vote scheduled to occur at
10 a.m. Following the vote, the Senate is expected to resume debate on
the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior
appropriations bill. Cloture was filed on the conference report and it
is hoped an agreement can be reached to have the cloture vote during
today's session. The Senate may also begin consideration of any other
conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for
their attention.
Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont would like to
make a very special introduction. It will be my intention then to
speak, and take the time of Senator Stevens, leaving him about 5
minutes remaining on our side.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I didn't understand. Is that a unanimous
consent request for something?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No unanimous consent request was made.
The Senator from Vermont.
____________________
THE GUEST CHAPLAIN
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for his usual
courtesies. I will take time on our side briefly.
I thank the Senate Chaplain, Dr. Ogilvie, for his courtesy in
inviting today's visiting Chaplain, Father Claude Pomerleau. Father
Pomerleau is very special to me; he is my brother-in-law. He is the
chairman of the department of history and political science at the
University of Portland. He has a distinguished career, a doctorate from
the University of Denver, where actually one of his lead professors was
Dr. Madeleine Albright's father. He speaks many, many languages. He is
seen as a leading authority on Latin America. He teaches in Chile as
well as at the University of Portland--in fact, he just came back from
there.
I could go through all these things about him, but from a personal
point of view he is very special to me. His sister, Marcelle, and I
have been married now for 38 years, and he was present when we were
married, as were his brother Rene and his father and mother, Phil and
Cecile Pomerleau. Phil and Cecile are no longer with us, but I have a
feeling they look down in pride at their son this morning, as we all
do. He is a teacher, he is a mentor, a brother, a son, a beloved
uncle--in our family he has been all of those and more.
He has been a very dear friend to me. I think of what Edward Everett
Hale, a former distinguished Senate Chaplain, once said. He was asked:
Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?
And he said:
No, I look at the Senators and I pray for the country.
I am privileged to have a brother who not only prays for the country,
but prays for this Senator. I consider it, in my 26 years here, one of
the rarest privileges I have had to be able to see him on the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a comment about Senator Leahy?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before Senator Leahy and his brother-in-law
leave, I want the good Father to know how much the Senate cares about
you and Marcelle. You have expressed so well your feelings about your
brother-in-law, but we want you to know how much the entire Senate on
both sides of the aisle respects Senator Leahy and your lovely sister.
____________________
MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time circumstance on this
bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes a side. The time is
evenly divided.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the 12 minutes on this side to the Senator from
Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
[[Page 20848]]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important to note the
situation escalating in the Mideast as a consequence of the tensions.
It is unfortunate it would be at a time when we had hoped there would
be an effort to get a
firm peace agreement. As a consequence of that, I think it is important
to bring to the attention of my colleagues a reality relative to the
release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the recommendation of
Vice President Gore to our President.
As you know, the President did release 30 million barrels of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This was the largest single release of
crude oil from SPR in the 25-year history of the reserve. The
administration has claimed this has been a successful effort because
the price of oil has dropped. Notwithstanding that, using SPR to
manipulate prices is contrary to the law because we have not
reauthorized SPR, and of course the success of this is determined in
the long term, not the short term.
But I wish to bring to the attention of each and every Member some
facts. Since the President made his announcement, there has been no new
heating oil placed into the market and no measurable rise in
inventories. It may surprise some of you, particularly those in the
Northeast, to know that American consumers may, under the current
arrangement, never see any of the product refined from the crude oil
that we released from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let me explain
why because this is important.
In the arrangement, there was absolutely no requirement that those
who successfully bid on crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
needed to refine it into heating oil. They may decide to make gasoline
or some other product.
Second, there is absolutely nothing that prevents this product from
being shipped to foreign markets, either in its crude form or as a
refined product such as heating oil.
Guess what. That is just what is happening. We are shipping heating
oil to Europe. Look at the Wall Street Journal this morning. Let me
quote:
Europe's market for heating oil is 50 percent bigger than
the U.S. heating oil market. Europe's stocks are even tighter
and prices there are a few cents a gallon higher, so U.S.
refiners have renewed incentive to ship heating oil across
the Atlantic. . . . U.S. exports of heating oil to Europe
have ballooned nearly six times, in the first 7 months of
this year. . . .
That tells the story of the arrangement that the administration made
to take the oil out of SPR and increase our heating oil supply. What
has happened with it is it is going to Europe. I am not surprised by
this, in the sense of the market going to the highest price where it
can generate a return. But I am astonished about the claim of the
administration and those who support the movement of SPR, and the
release, that it was done because of concerns over supply for the
benefit of the American consumer. The American consumer has not
benefited. This is a spin being put on by the pundits.
I asked the Secretary of Energy pointblank at a hearing last week:
Is it possible as a result of oil being released from SPR
that prices could fall but no new heating oil would find its
way into the U.S. heating market?
Do you know what the answer was? It could happen. The irony is that
we are going to release oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to
provide product to a European market. That should not be lost on the
American consumer or Members of this body.
Finally, SPR was created for one specific purpose: as a reserve in
case our supply, our dependence on OPEC and other countries, is
disrupted. We are 58-percent dependent on imported oil. We have a
situation in the Mideast. Iraq is claiming Kuwait is stealing its oil,
the same claim it made prior to the Persian Gulf war. Kuwait is now
claiming Iraq stole oil during the gulf war. The entire Israeli-
Palestinian peace process appears, unfortunately, to have fallen apart.
All this leads to a reminder that we should not use our petroleum
reserve for political purposes, and that appears to be what we have
done in this arrangement.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 4 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the focus on energy
between our two Presidential candidates, it is very appropriate that we
identify differences.
The Vice President has said he has an energy plan that focuses not
only on increasing the supply but also on working on the consumption
side, but the real facts are the Vice President does not practice what
he preaches. Let's look at the record over the last 7\1/2\ years.
The administration has opposed domestic oil exploration and
production. We have had 17 percent less production since Clinton-Gore
took office, and the facts are it decreased the number of oil wells
from 136,000 and the number of gas wells has decreased by 57,000. These
are wells that have actually been closed since 1992. There has been
absolutely no utilization of American coal in coal-fired electric
generating plants. We have not built a new plant since 1990.
The difficulty is the Environmental Protection Agency has made it so
uneconomic that the industry simply cannot get the permits. We force
the nuclear energy to choke on its own waste. We were one vote short in
the Senate to pass a veto override. Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals has
given the industry a liability case in the Court of Claims, with a
liability to the taxpayers of somewhere between $40 billion and $80
billion.
The administration threatens to tear down hydroelectric dams out
West. What are we going to do there? We are going to take the traffic
off the rivers and put it on the highways. We have ignored electric
reliability and supply concerns. Go out to California, particularly San
Diego, where they have seen price spikes and brownouts, no new
generation, no new transmission. This has happened on the Vice
President's watch.
Natural gas prices in the last 10 months have gone from $2.60 to
$5.40 for delivery. That is the problem we are facing, and that is the
record under this administration.
Let's not forget one more thing. The Vice President talks about
cutting taxes. The Vice President himself cast the vote in 1993 to
raise the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon. He did not just cast the vote; he
broke the tie, and that is the significance of the record with regard
to a contribution to increase domestic energy in this country. Instead
of doing something to increase domestic oil supply, the Vice President
and the administration would rather blame big oil profiteering, and
that is ironic. Where was big oil a year ago when oil was selling for
$10 a barrel? Who was profiteering then, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Who sets the price of oil? OPEC.
I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time for Senator
Stevens, who wants to claim that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems to me the majority is crying
because the price of oil has dropped. The President made a decisive
step and said we are going to pump oil from our reserve. Immediately,
the price of oil dropped. Today it is below $30 a barrel. The majority
seems so concerned that what the President has done has helped--the
price of oil has dropped.
I suggest my friends in the majority talk to the Governor of Texas or
maybe the man running for Vice President. They have connections with
the oil industry. Maybe they could talk him into not shipping oil
overseas if that is, in fact, what is happening. They are crying
crocodile tears because what is happening here is good. We laid out in
great detail yesterday what this administration has done to lower the
price of oil to make sure the economy was in good shape.
I am also continually amazed at what the majority says about the Vice
President: He broke the tie, so there is a 4-cent-per-gallon increase
in gas; isn't that too bad?
Let's look at the history. Remember, the majority was saying all
kinds of bad things would happen. The Republicans were saying all kinds
of bad
[[Page 20849]]
things would happen if, in fact, the Clinton and Gore budget deficit
reduction plan passed. It passed.
Prior to passing, listen to what the Republicans had to say.
Conrad Burns:
So we're still going to pile up some more debt. But most of
all, we're going to cost jobs in this country.
He was wrong on both counts. There are 22 million new jobs and, of
course, the debt is gone.
Orrin Hatch said:
Make no mistake, this will cost jobs.
Wrong again.
Phil Gramm, the Senator from Texas:
I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill,
the American economy is going to get weaker, not stronger,
and the deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is
today, and not lower. When it is all said and done, people
will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs,
Government will spend more money, and the American people
will be worse off.
I am not going to go into detail, but we have 300,000 fewer Federal
employees than in 1992. We have the lowest unemployment in some 40
years. We have created 22 million jobs. We have a Federal Government
today that is smaller than when President Kennedy was President. I
think those on the other side should realize, yes, the Vice President
did cast a decisive vote, but it was so decisive that it put this
country on the road to economic recovery.
I also suggest my friends should stop talking about nuclear waste. We
know there is not going to be another nuclear powerplant built in
America, but we also recognize that rather than spending time on
nuclear waste, why don't they talk about alternative energy--solar,
wind, and geothermal?
My friend from Alaska continually talks about energy policy. I
respect his opinion, but I continue to believe he is absolutely wrong.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from California from
the time we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for setting the record
straight and for doing such a good job because we do have to remember
where we were when the Clinton-Gore administration took office.
In my State, there was suffering; there was no hope; people's dreams
were set aside; the economy was in the tank; and there was double-digit
unemployment. Today we are in the midst of the greatest economic
recovery ever. It dates back to the vote Al Gore cast because he was
the deciding vote on that budget. The Republicans predicted gloom and
doom, deficits and debt, unemployment and the rest. Let's face it; they
were wrong. We do not want to go back to those days of high deficits.
Violence Against Women Act
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistant Democratic
leader yielding me time because I want to talk briefly about the
Violence Against Women Act, and then I am going to make a unanimous
consent request, of which I believe the other side has been made aware.
The Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law that was passed in
1994, has now expired. We have to reauthorize it. It is crucial. It has
expired.
Is this an important and worthy act? Yes, it is. Both sides of the
aisle agree. We have seen a 21-percent reduction in violence against
women. We have seen shelters for battered women and their families
built. They have gone up from 1,200 to about 2,000. We see doctors
trained to recognize domestic abuse and police men and women trained to
recognize domestic abuse. So we are seeing, in the figures, a decrease
in the violence.
But we cannot allow this law to die. The point is, it passed the
House overwhelmingly. It is a clean bill. But there are political games
going on over here. People want to attach all kinds of different things
to the Violence Against Women Act. It can stand alone on its own two
feet. Senator Biden wrote that act a long time ago. When I was in the
House, he asked me to carry it. He has been joined by Senator Hatch.
They have worked together now on this new reauthorization.
The last point I want to make before making my unanimous consent
request is this: It may be called the Violence Against Women Act, but
this act directly attacks the problem of children in these homes. We
have to realize that children under the age of 12 live in approximately
4 out of 10 homes that experience domestic violence.
We look at Hollywood--and we are critical of what they are doing in
terms of the R-rated films shown to kids--but the fact is, there is
only one reliable predictor of future violence. If a male child sees
one parent beat another parent, he is twice as likely to abuse his own
wife as the son of nonviolent parents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remaining.
Mr. REID. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. We have a situation where we know if a child sees
violence in the home, that child is very likely to repeat that
violence. We have to protect these children by stopping the violence.
Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 1248
At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 834, H. 1248, an
act to prevent violence against women, that the bill be considered read
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator, under my
reservation, this bill which has done so much good in the country, has
it lapsed?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization has
expired. We can't permit this to continue any longer. The House acted,
and well over 400 Members voted to reauthorize it.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator telling me that right now the law is not in
effect in our country?
Mrs. BOXER. In essence, the authorization has definitely expired. My
friend is right. That is why I make this request in a most urgent
fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, I rise on behalf of the
leader, who is working now with Members on the other side. I do not
know of anyone who disagrees with what the Senator from California has
said. No one I know of disagrees with the bill. I certainly do not.
However, there is a process underway. I object to the unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time?
Time runs equally against both sides.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. How much time is remaining on the minority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes on the minority side.
Mr. REID. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Reid, once more, for yielding me some
time.
I understand the Republican side of the aisle wants to attach
different pieces of legislation to the Violence Against Women Act, and
that is what is slowing it down. I know they want to see this act go
forward. But I have to say to them, there is an easy way to do it.
I am very disappointed we had this objection this morning. We had a
beautiful prayer--a beautiful prayer--given by Senator Leahy's brother-
in-law. If you heard what he said, he prayed that we in the Senate
could work to do good works--to do good works. I know that
[[Page 20850]]
is what we all strive to do every single day we get up in the morning.
But it seems to me that good work such as the Violence Against Women
Act is easy to do. We do not have to use it as a train to which we
attach different pieces of legislation.
I see Senator Wellstone on the floor. He has worked so hard in the
area of the trafficking of women worldwide. Yes, we have no objection
if we marry these two, if you will, pieces of legislation together
because they make sense. One is talking about violence at home; one is
talking about taking girls and putting them into sex trafficking. And
it is a sin upon the world that this happens. We agreed to do this. It
could have been done in a minute. We do not need to come on the floor
and have a long period of time to discuss this. I am sure the Senator
would agree; we could have a few comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very disappointed this morning that we haven't been
able to do at least one good thing for the women and children of this
country, and that is to pass the House bill, the Violence Against Women
Act, to get it done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Time runs equally against both sides.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of my friend
from California in the minute we have remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. REID. With all this compassionate conservatism around, do you
think it would be good if the Governor of Texas interceded in this
matter?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would call on the Governor to intercede with our
friends on the other side. He was asked about the Violence Against
Women Act on the campaign trail. He was unaware of it. He said he had
not heard of it, although Texas has received about $75 million, and
they have built battered women shelters. Then when he studied it, he
said he supported it, for which I am very grateful. But this is a
golden moment for him.
Since we have passed the bill, I want to say to my friend from
Nevada, intimate-partner violence has decreased by 21 percent. Again,
we have seen the number of battered women shelters increase by 60
percent. Before there were more animal shelters than there were for
women and children. So we should act. I hope my friends will
reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time of the minority has expired.
Who yields time?
Time will run on the majority side.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we are getting prepared, within a
couple minutes now, to have a vote on the continuing resolution. I
simply want to rise again to say I do not disagree at all with what the
Senator from California is saying. But the fact is, there is a plan.
There is a plan to operate under here. The Senate does not simply react
because someone gets up and says it is time to do this. There are
negotiations going on between the leader and Senators on the other
side.
I am sure this will indeed be done. We have a lot of things that need
to be done. I would suggest that we ought to get the whole thing
planned a little bit. I am a little surprised that this Senator is
talking about objecting to moving forward because I think there have
been quite a few objections coming from that side that has gotten us to
where we are now. That is not really the point. The point is, we will
handle this bill. The leader has prepared to do that.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope we can now proceed to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for
the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Leahy
NOT VOTING--4
Feinstein
Helms
Jeffords
Lieberman
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) was passed.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, an act making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senate Agenda
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the situation we are in right now is
interesting. It is different from any similar period I can recall in
nearly 26 years in the Senate. We are at the end of the fiscal year--we
have actually gone beyond the end of the fiscal year--and nothing seems
to be happening. I voted against the continuing resolution, not because
I do not think we should keep the Government going--of course we
should; it is unfortunate to close down the Government--but more to
express my concern that we are not doing our business.
[[Page 20851]]
We have not passed our appropriations bills as we should. We all talk
about how we make Government more efficient or how we make Government
better. But imagine if you are running one of these Agencies or one of
these Departments and you have to make the decisions for the year, and
Congress, which has a mandate under law to pass the appropriations
bills by September 30, we are here on October 5 and are nowhere near
completing the bills.
Yet in a Congress that spends more time investigating than
legislating, we are perfectly willing to have investigations and
actually bring a lot of these Departments to a halt while we ask them
question after question, even if the questions have already been asked,
and yet we are unwilling to do our own work on time. It is not the way
it can be done, and it is not the way it should be done.
I strongly urge Senators to consider next year when we come back, no
matter who wins the Presidency, no matter who wins seats in the Senate
or in the other body, that we spend more time trying to do things that
actually help the country, that we set aside some of the partisanship
and bitterness that has marked this Senate actually since impeachment
time, which in itself was marked by partisanship when impeachment was
rushed through in a lame duck House of Representatives and then passed
over to this body. It appears in many ways we lost our footing at that
time and never got back on course.
There are bills that have bipartisan support. There was one I was
discussing on the floor a few minutes ago with the distinguished
Senator from Colorado, the Campbell-Leahy bulletproof vest bill. This
is a bill that provides money for bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers.
Senator Campbell and I served in law enforcement before we came to
Congress. We served at a time when much of law enforcement did not face
the danger it does now, but we kept enough of our ties to law
enforcement and so we know how difficult it is. We know that the men
and women we send out to protect all of us are themselves so often the
victims of the same criminals from whom they try to protect us.
Bulletproof vests are a $500 or $600 item. They wear out in 5 years.
A lot of departments, especially small departments in States such as
Vermont or rural areas like Texas, cannot afford these vests. I have
letters from hundreds of law enforcement people from around the country
who tell me that under the original Campbell-Leahy bill, they finally
have a sense of security because they have bulletproof vests. We want
to extend that for a couple more years. Yet we cannot even get a vote
on it.
This is a bill which, if it is brought to a vote in this Chamber, I
am willing to bet virtually every Senator, Republican and Democrat,
will vote for. How can one vote against it? Yet there has been one hold
on the Republican side of the aisle, and we cannot bring up this vital
law enforcement piece of legislation.
I wanted to be sure--I am hearing from law enforcement agencies all
across the country: Why can't you pass it?--so I actually made the
point of checking with all 46 Democratic Senators: Do any of you have
any objection to voting on this on a second's notice? They said: No,
pass it by unanimous consent, if you want.
I ask whoever is holding it up on the other side not to continue to
hold it up.
Mr. President, I return to ask the Republican leadership what is
holding up enactment of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
2000? This is a bill I introduced with Senator Campbell and others last
April. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered and and reported the
bill unanimously to the full Senate back in June. I have since been
working to get Senate consideration, knowing that it will pass
overwhelmingly if not unanimously.
Unfortunately, an anonymous ``hold'' on the Republican side prevented
enactment before the Senate recessed in July. I have been unable to
discover which Republican Senator opposes the bill or why, and that
remains true today.
We have been working for several months to pass the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000. It has been cleared by all Democratic
Senators.
That it has still not passed the full Senate is very disappointing to
me, as I am sure that it is to our nation's law enforcement officers,
who need life-saving bulletproof vests to protect themselves.
Protecting and supporting our law enforcement community should not be a
partisan issue.
Senator Campbell and I worked together closely and successfully in
the last Congress to pass the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
1998 into law. This year's bill reauthorizes and extends the successful
program that we helped create and that the Department of Justice has
done such a good job implementing.
I have charts here that show how successful the Bulletproof Vests
Grant Program has been for individual states. In its first year of
operation in 1999, the program funded the purchase of 167,497 vests
with $23 million in federal grant funds.
For the State of Alabama, the program funded the purchase of 2,287
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of California, the program funded the purchase of 28,106 bulletproof
vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Colorado,
the program funded the purchase of 1,844 bulletproof vests for police
officers in 1999.
For the State of Idaho, the program funded the purchase of 711
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of Michigan, the program funded the purchase of 2,932 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Minnesota, the
program funded the purchase of 1,052 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Mississippi, the program
funded the purchase of 1,283 bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers in 1999. For the State of Missouri, the program funded the
purchase of 2,919 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
1999.
For the State of New York, the program funded the purchase of 13,004
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of Oklahoma, the program funded the purchase of 3,042 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Rhode Island,
the program funded the purchase of 792 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Utah, the program funded
the purchase of 1,326 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
1999. For my home State of Vermont, the program funded the purchase of
361 bulletproof vests for police officers in 1999. For big and small
states, the program was a success in its first year.
I have a second chart that shows how successful the Bulletproof Vests
Grant Program has been for individual states in its second year of
operation. In 2000, the program funded the purchase of 158,396 vests
with $24 million in federal grant funds.
For the State of Alabama, the program funded the purchase of 2,498
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of California, the program funded the purchase of 27,477 bulletproof
vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Colorado,
the program funded the purchase of 2,288 bulletproof vests for police
officers in 2000.
For the State of Idaho, the program funded the purchase of 477
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of Michigan, the program funded the purchase of 3,427 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Minnesota, the
program funded the purchase of 709 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Mississippi, the program
funded the purchase of 1,364 bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers in 2000. For the State of Missouri, the program funded the
purchase of 1,221 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
2000.
[[Page 20852]]
For the State of New York, the program funded the purchase of 11,969
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of Oklahoma, the program funded the purchase of 3,389 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Rhode Island,
the program funded the purchase of 313 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Utah, the program funded
the purchase of 1,326 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
2000. For my home State of Vermont, the program funded the purchase of
175 bulletproof vests for police officers in 2000. For the second year
in a row, the program was a great success.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two charts listing
the number of bulletproof vests purchased and the Federal grant amounts
for each state in 1999 and 2000 under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds
on the success of this program by doubling its annual funding to $50
million for fiscal years 2002-2004. It also improves the program by
guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receiving
the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these
smaller communities and by making the purchase of stab-proof vests
eligible for grant awards to protect corrections officers in close
quarters in local and county jails.
We have 20 cosponsors on the new bill, including a number of
Democrats and Republicans. This is a bipartisan bill that is not being
treated in a bipartisan way. For some unknown reason a Republican
Senator has a hold on this bill and has chosen to exercise that right
anonymously.
More than ever before, police officers in Vermont and around the
country face deadly threats that can strike at any time, even during
routine traffic stops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It is essential
the we update this law so that many more of our officers who are
risking their lives everyday are able to protect themselves.
I hope that the mysterious ``hold'' on the bill from the other side
of the aisle will disappear. The Senate should pass without delay the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 and send to the
President for his signature into law.
Before we recessed last July, I informed the Republican leadership
that the House of Representatives had passed the companion bill, H.R.
4033, by an overwhelming vote of 413-3. I expressed my hope that the
Senate would quickly follow suit and pass the House-passed bill and
send it to the President. President Clinton has already endorsed this
legislation to support our Nation's law enforcement officers and is
eager to sign it into law.
I find it ironic that the Senate in July passed the Federal Law
Enforcement Animal Protection Act, H.R. 1791. That bill increased the
penalties for harming dogs and horses used by federal law enforcement
officers. President Clinton signed that bill into law on August 2nd.
The majority acted quickly to protect dogs and horses used by law
enforcement officers but has stalled action on legislation to provide
life-saving protection for law enforcement officers themselves. The
Senate should have moved as quickly in July to pass the Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 and sent it to the President for his
signature into law.
Several more months have come and gone. Unfortunately, nothing has
changed. Not knowing what the misunderstanding of our bill is, I find
it is impossible to overcome an anonymous, unstated objection. I,
again, ask whoever it is on the Republican side who has a concern about
this program to please come talk to me and to Senator Campbell. I hope
that the Senate will do the right thing and pass this important
legislation without further unnecessary delay.
Exhibit 1
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT--YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Total vests Approved amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................. 2,287 $230,343.84
Alaska................................... 395 90,309.65
Arizona.................................. 1,705 334,099.97
Arkansas................................. 778 180,830.13
California............................... 28,106 2,843,427.56
Colorado................................. 1,844 303,622.83
Connecticut.............................. 3,637 547,507.96
Delaware................................. 1,526 69,533.76
District of Columbia..................... 844 44,899.70
Florida.................................. 9,641 985,708.59
Georgia.................................. 4,067 528,480.98
Guam..................................... 145 6,000.00
Hawaii................................... 330 100,865.57
Idaho.................................... 711 101,673.49
Illinois................................. 9,035 1,337,252.98
Indiana.................................. 5,375 774,582.31
Iowa..................................... 1,954 441,262.08
Kansas................................... 1,257 195,605.72
Kentucky................................. 1,510 234,990.82
Louisiana................................ 3,112 330,409.06
Maine.................................... 626 161,374.59
Maryland................................. 3,772 329,998.45
Massachusetts............................ 2,255 274,032.76
Michigan................................. 2,932 658,931.12
Minnesota................................ 1,052 146,378.98
Mississippi.............................. 1,283 201,931.59
Missouri................................. 2,919 478,933.33
Montana.................................. 435 101,647.37
Nebraska................................. 905 127,329.90
Nevada................................... 394 84,441.26
New Hampshire............................ 450 143,632.09
New Jersey............................... 5,336 838,439.10
New Mexico............................... 1,388 321,910.87
New York................................. 13,004 1,240,481.60
North Carolina........................... 5,974 750,998.79
North Dakota............................. 397 81,443.98
Northern Mariana Islands................. 375 38,000.00
Ohio..................................... 5,506 1,084,863.95
Oklahoma................................. 3,042 348,374.03
Oregon................................... 1,847 342,712.74
Pennsylvania............................. 8,360 1,018,781.60
Puerto Rico.............................. 1,496 212,091.20
Rhode Island............................. 792 192,873.46
South Carolina........................... 2,286 451,685.53
South Dakota............................. 228 57,206.42
Tennessee................................ 2,576 331,638.90
Texas.................................... 9,245 1,350,816.23
Utah..................................... 1,326 325,181.42
U.S. Virgin Island....................... 356 6,000.00
Vermont.................................. 361 96,386.81
Virginia................................. 3,559 426,197.77
Washington............................... 1,840 387,177.81
West Virginia............................ 645 128,878.93
Wisconsin................................ 2,065 441,721.01
Wyoming.................................. 221 49,814.46
------------------------------
Total.................................. 167,497 22,913,725.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT--YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Number vests BVP funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ 2,498 333,476.91
Alaska................................. 202 38,435.26
Arizona................................ 2,569 474,444.89
Arkansas............................... 408 164,433.89
California............................. 27,477 2,983,332.71
Colorado............................... 2,288 388,322.15
Connecticut............................ 1,904 308,881.86
Delaware............................... 2,214 216,210.35
District of Columbia................... 1,580 171,768.76
Florida................................ 11,769 1,433,916.06
Georgia................................ 4,780 749,046.97
Guam................................... .............. ...............
Hawaii................................. 2,331 388,037.21
Idaho.................................. 477 120,627.95
Illinois............................... 6,761 923,328.88
Indiana................................ 3,842 513,415.07
Iowa................................... 1,011 210,632.67
Kansas................................. 1,048 201,192.38
Kentucky............................... 1,363 241,682.86
Louisiana.............................. 3,510 421,933.86
Maine.................................. 576 120,651.83
Maryland............................... 2,782 265,643.15
Massachusetts.......................... 3,582 754,073.82
Michigan............................... 3,427 622,564.00
Minnesota.............................. 709 234,776.23
Mississippi............................ 1,364 239,899.81
Missouri............................... 1,221 224,177.96
Montana................................ 271 80,877.76
Nebraska............................... 622 90,276.24
Nevada................................. 1,176 141,612.32
New Hampshire.......................... 489 118,470.26
New Jersey............................. 5,579 1,227,933.41
New Mexico............................. 1,195 200,141.76
New York............................... 11,969 1,817,314.92
North Carolina......................... 3,183 530,987.91
North Dakota........................... 352 43,284.36
Northern Mariana Islands............... 355 107,033.50
Ohio................................... 5,015 950,198.19
Oklahoma............................... 3,389 562,865.11
Oregon................................. 2,456 416,464.24
Pennsylvania........................... 8,260 1,577,238.20
Puerto Rico............................ 1,337 147,861.47
Rhode Island........................... 313 84,417.94
South Carolina......................... 1,727 256,551.50
South Dakota........................... 157 27,845.87
Tennessee.............................. 2,154 286,436.37
Texas.................................. 5,962 802,886.82
U.S. Virgin Island..................... 341 45,361.11
Utah................................... 837 171,546.50
Vermont................................ 175 43,806.27
Virginia............................... 3,415 446,645.52
Washington............................. 2,690 525,935.54
West Virginia.......................... 512 75,650.56
Wisconsin.............................. 2,418 437,207.69
Wyoming................................ 159 44,134.89
--------------------------------
Total................................ 158,396 24,005,803.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Nominations
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is October 5, the first anniversary
of an event I hope I will not see again in the Senate. I have spoken
many times about the Senate being the conscience of the Nation, and it
should be. A year ago today, I believe the country was harmed by a
party-line vote. That party-line vote defeated the nomination of
Justice Ronnie White to the Federal district court in Missouri. Justice
White, on the Missouri Supreme Court, had the highest qualifications.
He passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had the highest
ABA ratings. He is a distinguished African American jurist. Yet when it
came to a vote, every Democrat voted for him and every Republican voted
against him. I believe that was a mistake and one we will regret. I
spoke on
[[Page 20853]]
this nomination on October 15 and 21 of last year and more recently
this year.
Fifty-one years ago this month--I was 9 years old--the Senate
confirmed President Truman's nomination of William Henry Hastings to
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That was actually the first
Senate confirmation of an African American to our Federal courts--only
51 years ago. Thirty-one years ago, the Senate confirmed President
Johnson's nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
When we rejected Ronnie White, I wonder if we went backward or we moved
forward.
This year, the Judiciary Committee has even refused to move forward
with a hearing on Roger Gregory or Judge James Wynn to the Fourth
Circuit. It is interesting--talk about bipartisanship--one of these men
is a distinguished African American, a legal scholar, strongly
supported by both the Republican and Democratic Senators from his
State. Senator Warner, a distinguished and respected Member of this
body and a Republican, strongly supports him. Senator Robb, an equally
distinguished and respected Member of this body and a Democrat, a
decorated war hero, also supports him, and the President nominated him.
We cannot even get a vote.
I hope this does not continue. I suggest, again, whoever wins the
Presidency, whoever wins seats or loses seats in the Senate, that we
not do this next year.
This year, the Judiciary Committee reported only three nominees to
the Court of Appeals all year. We denied a committee vote to two
outstanding nominees who succeeded in getting hearings. I understand
the frustration of Senators who know Roger Gregory, Judge James Wynn,
Kathleen McCree Lewis, Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell, and others
should have been considered and voted on.
There are multiple vacancies on the Third, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits; 23 current vacancies.
Our appellate courts have nearly half of the judicial vacancies in the
Federal court system. That has to change. I hope it will.
I see my distinguished colleague and friend from Texas on the floor.
I want to assure her I will yield the floor very soon.
But I hope we can look again and ask ourselves objectively, without
any partisanship, can we not do better on judges?
I quoted Gov. George Bush on the floor a couple days ago. I said I
agreed with him. On nominations, he said we should vote them up or down
within 60 days. If you don't want the person, vote against them. The
Republican Party should have no fear of that. They have the majority in
this body. They can vote against them if they want, but have the vote.
Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people such as
Helene White and Bonnie Campbell--people such as this--just hanging
forever without even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not
a responsible way and besmirches the Senate, this body that I love so
much.
I consider it a privilege to serve here. This is a nation of a
quarter of a billion people; and only 100 of us can serve at any one
time to represent this wonderful Nation. It is a privilege that our
States give us. We should use the privilege in the most responsible way
to benefit all of us.
When Senators do not vote their conscience, they risk the debacle
that we witnessed last October 5th, when a partisan political caucus
vote resulted in a fine man and highly qualified nominee being rejected
by all Republican Senators on a party-line vote. The Senate will never
remove the blot that occurred last October when the Republican Senators
emerged from a Republican Caucus to vote lockstep against Justice
White. At a Missouri Bar Association forum last week, Justice White
expressed concern that the rejection of his nominations to a Federal
judgeship will have a ``chilling effect'' on the desire of other young
African American lawyers to seek to serve on our judiciary.
President Clinton has tried to make progress on bringing greater
diversity to our federal courts. He has been successful to some extent.
With our help, we could have done so much more. We will end this
Congress without having acted on any of the African American nominees,
Judge James Wynn or Roger Gregory, sent to us to fill vacancies on the
Fourth Circuit and finally integrate the Circuit with the highest
percentage of African American population in the country, but the one
Circuit that has never had an African American judge. We could have
acted on the nomination of Kathleen McCree Lewis and confirmed her to
the Sixth Circuit to be the first African American woman to sit on that
Court. Instead, we will end the year without having acted on any of the
three outstanding nominees to the Sixth Circuit pending before us.
This Judiciary Committee has reported only three nominees to the
Courts of Appeals all year. We have held hearings without even
including a nominee to the Courts of Appeals and denied a Committee
vote to two outstanding nominees who succeeded in getting hearings. I
certainly understand the frustration of those Senators who know that
Roger Gregory, Judge James Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis, as well as
Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell and others should have been
considered by this Committee and voted on by the Senate this year.
There continue to be multiple vacancies on the Third, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. With 23 current
vacancies, our appellate courts have nearly half of the total judicial
emergency vacancies in the federal court system. I note that the
vacancy rate for our Courts of Appeals is more than 12 percent
nationwide. If we were to take into account the additional appellate
judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000,
S.3071, a bill that was requested by the Judicial Conference to handle
current workloads, the vacancy rate on our federal courts of appeals
would be more than 17 percent.
The Chairman declares that ``there is and has been no judicial
vacancy crisis'' and that he calculates vacancies at ``less than
zero.'' The extraordinary service that has been provided by our corps
of senior judges does not mean there are no vacancies. In the federal
courts around the country there remain 63 current vacancies and several
more on the horizon. With the judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy
Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, there would be over 130 vacancies across
the country. That is the truer measure of vacancies, many of which have
been long-standing judicial emergency vacancies in our southwest border
states. The chief judges of both the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have had
to declare their entire courts in emergencies since there are too many
vacancies and too few circuit judges to handle their workload.
The chairman misconstrues the lessons of the 63 vacancies at the end
of the 103rd Congress in 1994. I would point out that in 1994 the
Senate confirmed 101 judges to compensate for normal attrition and to
fill the vacancies and judgeships created in 1990. In fact, that
Congress reduced the vacancies from 131 in 1991, to 103 in 1992, to 112
in 1993, to 63 in 1994. Vacancies were going down and we were acting
with Republican and Democratic Presidents to fill the 85 judgeships
created by a Democratic Congress under a Republican President in 1990.
Since Republicans assumed control of the Senate in the 1994 election
the Senate has not even kept up with normal attrition. We will end this
year with more vacancies than at the end of the session in 1994. As I
have pointed out, the vacancies are most acute among our courts of
appeals. Further, we have not acted to add the judgeships requested by
the Judicial Conference to meet increased workloads over the last
decade.
According to the Chief Justice's 1999 year-end report, the filings of
cases in our Federal courts have reached record heights. In fact, the
filings of criminal cases and defendants reached their highest levels
since the Prohibition Amendment was repealed in 1933. Also in 1999,
there were 54,693 filings in the 12 regional courts of appeals. Overall
growth in appellate court caseload last year was due to a 349 percent
upsurge
[[Page 20854]]
in original proceedings. This sudden expansion resulted from newly
implemented reporting procedures, which more accurately measure the
increased judicial workload generated by the Prisoner Litigation Reform
Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both passed
in 1996.
Let me also set the record straight, yet again, on the erroneous but
oft-repeated argument that ``the Clinton Administration is on record as
having stated that a vacancy rate just over 7 percent is virtual full-
employment of the judiciary.'' That is not true.
The statement can only be alluded to an October 1994 press release.
It should not be misconstrued in this manner. That press release was
pointing out that at the end of the 103rd Congress if the Senate had
proceeded to confirm the 14 nominees then pending on the Senate
calendar, it would have reduced the judicial vacancy rate to 4.7
percent, which the press release then proceeded to compare to a
favorable unemployment rate of under 5 percent.
Unfortunately, the chairman's assertions are demonstrably false.
Contrary to his statement, the Justice Department's October 12, 1994
press release that he cites does not equate a 7.4 percent vacancy rate
with ``full employment,'' but rather a 4.7 percent rate. Additionally,
the vacancy rate was not reduced to 4.7 percent in 1994, and stands at
three times that today.
The Justice Department release was not a statement of administration
position or even a policy statement but a poorly designed press release
that included an ill-conceived comment. Job vacancy rates and
unemployment rates are not comparable. Unemployment rates are measures
of people who do not have jobs not of Federal offices vacant without an
appointed office holder.
When I learned that some Republicans had for partisan purposes seized
upon this press release, taken it out of context, ignored what the
press release actually said and were manipulating it into a
misstatement of Clinton administration policy, I asked the Attorney
General, in 1997, whether there was any level or percentage of judicial
vacancies that the administration considered acceptable or equal to
``full employment.''
The Department responded:
There is no level or percentage of vacancies that justifies
a slow down in the Senate on the confirmation of nominees for
judicial positions. While the Department did once, in the
fall of 1994, characterize a 4.7 percent vacancy rate in the
federal judiciary as the equivalent of the Department of
Labor `full employment' standard, that characterization was
intended simply to emphasize the hard work and productivity
of the Administration and the Senate in reducing the
extraordinary number of vacancies in the federal Article III
judiciary in 1993 and 1994. Of course, there is a certain
small vacancy rate, due to retirements and deaths and the
time required by the appointment process, that will always
exist. The current vacancy rate is 11.3 percent. It did reach
12 percent this past summer. The President and the Senate
should continually be working diligently to fill vacancies as
they arise, and should always strive to reach 100 percent
capacity for the Federal bench.
At no time has the Clinton administration stated that it believes
that 7 percent vacancies on the federal bench is acceptable or a
virtually full federal bench. Only Republicans have expressed that
opinion. As the Justice Department noted three years ago in response to
an inquiry on this very questions, the Senate should be ``working
diligently to fill vacancies as they arise, and should always strive to
reach 100 percent capacity for the federal bench.''
Indeed, I informed the Senate of these facts in a statement in the
Congressional Record on July 7, 1998, so that there would be no future
misunderstanding or misstatement of the record. Nonetheless, in spite
of the facts and in spite of my July 1998 statement and subsequent
statements on this issue over the past three years, these misleading
statements continue to be repeated.
Ironically, the Senate could reduce the current vacancy rate to under
5 percent if we confirmed the 39 judicial nominees that remain bottled
up before the Judiciary Committee. Instead of misstating the language
of a 6-year-old press release that has since been discredited by the
Attorney General herself, the chairman would have my support if we were
working to get those 39 more judges confirmed.
I regret to report again today that the last confirmation hearing for
federal judges held by the Judiciary Committee was in July, as was the
last time the Judiciary Committee reported any nominees to the full
Senate. Throughout August and September and now into the first week in
October, there have been no additional hearings held or even noticed,
and no executive business meetings have included any judicial nominees
on the agenda. By contrast, in 1992, the last year of the Bush
administration, a Democratic majority in the Senate held three
confirmation hearings in August and September and continued to work to
confirm judges up to and including the last day of the session.
I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all
nominees, including women and minorities. So long as the Senate is in
session, I will urge action. That highly-qualified nominees are being
needlessly delayed is most regrettable. The Senate should join with the
President to confirm well-qualified, diverse and fair-minded nominees
to fulfill the needs of the Federal courts around the country.
As I noted on the floor earlier this week, the frustration that many
Senators feel with the lack of attention this Committee has shown long
pending judicial nominees has simply boiled over. I understand their
frustration and have been urging action for some time. This could all
have been easily avoided if we were continuing to move judicial
nominations like Democrats did in 1992, when we held hearings in
September and confirmed 66 judges that Presidential election year.
I regret that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate is not holding
additional hearings, that we only acted on 39 nominees all year and
that we have taken so long on so many of them. I deeply regret the lack
of a hearing and a vote on so many qualified nominees, including Roger
Gregory, Judge James Wynn, Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell, Enrique
Moreno, Allen Snyder and others. And, I regret that a year ago today,
the Senate rejected the nomination of Justice Ronnie White to the
Federal District Court of Missouri on a partisan, party-line vote.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. I yield for a question.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Vermont, the bulletproof vest bill
that you wrote and that you have spoken about here on the floor this
morning--is that right?
Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
Mr. REID. It would greatly benefit rural Nevadans; is that not right?
Mr. LEAHY. There is no question it would benefit rural Nevada. Of
course, the distinguished deputy leader was in law enforcement himself.
He knows the threat that police officers face. That threat is not
exclusive to big cities, by any means.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the lead Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee, Nevada is an interesting State. Seventy percent of the
people in Nevada live in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Another about
20 percent live in the Reno metropolitan area. The 10 percent who are
spread out around the rest of the State cover thousands and thousands
of square miles, and there are many small communities that do not have
the resources that the big cities have to provide, for example,
bulletproof vests.
I say to my friend from Vermont, do you agree that people who work in
rural America in law enforcement deserve the same protection as those
who work in urban centers throughout America?
Mr. LEAHY. There is no question about it. In fact, in the 1999 bill
they were able to purchase nearly 400 vests, many of those in the rural
areas. If we get this through, now they can purchase 1,176 vests.
I say this because the Senate moved very quickly to pass a bill that
increased the penalties if we harmed dogs or horses used by law
enforcement. In other words, we could quickly zip this through and pass
a bill saying the penalty will be increased if one harms a
[[Page 20855]]
dog or horse used by law enforcement, but, whoops, we can't pass a
bipartisan piece of legislation protecting the law enforcement officer
himself or herself. I think of Alice in Wonderland, I have to admit,
under those circumstances.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I am happy we are looking out for
animals. I support that and was aware of that legislation, but I think
it is about time we started helping some of these rural police
departments in Nevada that are so underfunded and so badly in need of
this protection.
Mr. LEAHY. I say to my friend from Nevada, I, too, support the bill
protecting animals in law enforcement. But I wish we could have added
this other part. If you have the police officer out with the police
dog, that police officer deserves protection. If you have a police
officer out there with a horse--in many parts of both urban and rural
areas horses are still used for a number of reasons by police
officers--then let's also protect the police officer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
the leader, at 1 o'clock today, the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Fitzgerald, be recognized to make closing remarks on the Interior
appropriations conference report for up to 45 minutes, and following
the use or yielding back of time, the cloture vote occur,
notwithstanding rule XXII, and following that vote, if invoked, the
conference report be considered under the following time restraints: 10
minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of Appropriations; 30
minutes under the control of Senator Landrieu, 15 minutes under the
control of Senator McCain.
I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report,
without any intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator
would be kind enough to change the time until 2 o'clock. I think that
has been agreed to on your side. I did not hear. Senator Fitzgerald is
to be given 1 hour rather than 45 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, that is acceptable. We could change
the time to start at 2 o'clock today, with Senator Fitzgerald having 1
hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. In light of this agreement, Mr. President, the next
vote will be at approximately 3 o'clock.
Let me revise, once again, the unanimous consent request to begin at
1 o'clock, leaving the 1-hour timeframe for Mr. Fitzgerald; therefore,
in light of the agreement, the vote would occur at approximately 2
o'clock, with another vote on adoption of the conference report at 3:30
today. If I could wrap all of that in together as a unanimous consent
request, that would be my hope. I make that unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. The confusion is not on the part of the Senator from Texas.
It is my confusion. I apologize for inserting that 2 o'clock time.
There was some confusion on my part. The debate will start at 1 and we
will vote around 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Judicial Appointments
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, having heard my distinguished
colleague from Vermont talk about the judicial selection process, I
rise to commend Senator Hatch and his leadership of the Judiciary
Committee.
It is very difficult to accommodate all of the requests and
responsibilities that are entailed in a lifetime appointment to the
Federal bench. I think Senator Hatch has done the very best job he
possibly could in getting appointments through, appointments that are
reflective of Clinton administration priorities. The vast majority of
Clinton appointees have gone through. In my home State of Texas, we
have had 20 nominations. Senator Gramm and I have supported 18 of
those, and 17 have gone through. There is still one pending that we
support.
I think Senator Hatch has bent over backwards to do his due diligence
but to respect the wishes of the Democratic side and the
administration. I don't want to leave unchallenged some of the comments
made that indicate that serious consideration has not been given to
every single Clinton appointee and that in most cases those appointees
have been put forward.
It is important that a lifetime appointment be scrutinized because
there is no accountability of that lifetime appointment. We need to
look at all of the factors surrounding a particular nominee, knowing
the power that a Federal judge has and that the accountability is
limited.
I applaud Senator Hatch. I think he has done a terrific job under
very difficult circumstances. I hope he will continue the due diligence
and also continue apace with the nominations process.
Hospital Preservation Act
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Hospital
Preservation Act that Senator Abraham and I introduced last year. We
achieved partial relief for hospitals last year, but we have
reintroduced it this year in an attempt to get more relief for the
beleaguered hospitals of our country.
Today we have both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate
Finance Committee working on this very important legislation. We will
have legislation that will, at least for this year, restore the cuts
that are being made to our hospitals in Medicare payments, but I am
hoping we can get more. In fact, there are many areas of our health
care system that have been undercut by a combination of the Balanced
Budget Act and have actually been cut even more forcefully by the
Health Care Financing Administration than was ever intended by
Congress.
When we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we said we would look at the
effects, and if we needed to refine it in any way, we would do that.
Congress has met its responsibility in that regard. We had the Balanced
Budget Act Refinement Act passed. We have come back and restored cuts
that were too much. That is what we are doing in the bill that is
before us or will be before us very soon, that is now being considered
by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance
Committee. In fact, the legislation would increase payments to
hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, managed care
organizations, and other health providers that are paid under Medicare.
This legislation is needed especially for our hospitals because they
are the front line of our health care delivery system. This legislation
builds on legislation Congress passed last year that reversed some of
the cuts in provider payments that did result from the Balanced Budget
Act and from excessive administrative actions taken by the Health Care
Financing Administration.
Last year's bill contained important provisions that have helped
preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the
highest level of health care anywhere in the world. The Balanced Budget
Refinement Act that Congress passed last year did make the situation a
little brighter for some of these struggling hospitals. It eases the
transition from cost-based reimbursement to prospective payment for
hospital outpatient services. It restores some of the cuts to
disproportionate share payments, and it provides targeted relief for
teaching hospitals and cancer and rehabilitation hospitals.
I was proud to have been the prime advocate in the Senate for one of
the provisions in that bill that restored the full inflation update for
inpatient hospital services for sole community provider hospitals,
those located primarily in rural areas that provide the only
institutional care in a 35-mile geographic area. However, last year's
bill was really just a start. I think we have all
[[Page 20856]]
heard from hospitals that they are really hurting. Hospitals are
actually beginning to close, in Texas and all over the Nation.
Independent estimates are that this trend will only get worse unless
something is done.
I and many of my colleagues in Congress continue to hear from
hospital administrators, trustees, health professionals that they were
struggling to maintain the quality and variety of health services in
the face of mounting budget pressures. With the statutory and HCFA-
imposed cuts that they were seeing, many efficiently run hospitals
began for the first time to run deficits and threaten closure. For many
of these hospitals to close, particularly those in rural areas, would
mean not only the loss of life-saving medical services to the residents
of the area but also the loss of a core component of local communities.
Jobs would be lost. Businesses would wither, and the sense of community
and stability a local hospital brings would suffer.
My colleague, Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan, and I began the
task of looking for the best way to provide significant assistance to
these hospitals to make sure the payments they were receiving for
taking Medicare patients were fair and adequate to enable them to
continue serving our Nation's seniors, and also to have the support
they need to run their hospitals. We decided to try to expand the sole
community provider hospital provision to all hospitals.
The bill we have introduced will make sure that Medicare payments for
inpatient services actually keep up with the rate of hospital
inflation. We will restore the full 1.1 percent in scheduled reductions
from the annual inflation updates for inpatient services called for by
the Balanced Budget Act. Moreover, rather than just applying to a small
group of hospitals, this legislation would benefit every hospital in
America, providing an estimated $7.7 billion in additional Medicare
payments over the next 5 years.
Now, you may ask, where is that $7.7 billion going to come from?
Well, when we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we projected savings of
$110 billion over the 5-year period that should have occurred from the
cuts we put in the Balanced Budget Act. But, in fact, instead of $110
billion, we are now projecting $220 billion in savings. So the $7.7
billion just for this part of the bill has already been saved, and $100
billion more is estimated when you take into account the whole 5 years.
So the bottom line is, we cut too much; we are going to restore part
of those cuts; and we are still going to be approximately $100 billion
ahead. So we will have saved $100 billion, as we intended to do, but we
will restore the cuts that have caused such hardships to the hospitals
throughout our country.
The bill that is being considered by the House Ways and Means
Committee contains a full 1-year restoration in the inflation update
for hospitals. The pending Senate Finance Committee bill would restore
the cuts in 2001, but it only delays the 2002 cuts until 2003. This is
progress.
I so appreciate Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan's efforts in the
Senate Finance Committee. But I don't want to delay those cuts. I want
to restore the cuts for the full 2 years. I hope that in the end we can
go ahead and do that because these hospitals need to know that there is
a stability in their budgeting, that they will be able to look at the
restoration in the cuts for the next 2 years. They need to be able to
plan. They need to know they will have the adequate funding for
Medicare that they must have to give the services in the community and
to support the hospital for all of the people and the health care needs
of the community.
So we are not doing anything that would bust the budget or go into
deficits. The fact is, this is a refinement. We have cut $100 billion
too much, and we are restoring $8 billion of that.
In the bill that is being considered by the Senate Finance Committee,
we also will strengthen the Medicare payments for the disproportionate
share hospitals, for home health care agencies, for graduate medical
education, and for Medicare+Choice plans. We are not out of the woods,
but we are taking a major step in the right direction.
I commend Senator Roth for his leadership of the committee, along
with Senator Moynihan. I implore Congress to move swiftly on this very
important legislation. We cannot go out of session without addressing
the issue of keeping our hospitals from suffering disastrous cuts in
Medicare--cuts that they cannot absorb and cuts that are not warranted.
This is our responsibility, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague, Senator Abraham, for helping me so much on this
issue. He has been a leader. After listening to hospital personnel in
his home State of Michigan, he came to me and said, ``We have to do
something; let's do it together,'' and I said, ``Great,'' because we
must act before we leave this year in Congress. We cannot go forward
without addressing this very important issue for the hospitals and
health care providers of our country.
Certification of Mexico
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution I have introduced on behalf of myself and
Senators Grassley, Gramm, Kyl, Domenici, Dodd, Feinstein, Hollings, and
Sessions.
We have submitted this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to deal with
the issue of the certification of Mexico. Several of us introduced a
bill earlier in the session after the election of the new President of
Mexico, Vicente Fox, to try to address the issue of two new
administrations in both of our countries that will be faced with the
automatic certification of the issue of how we are dealing with illegal
drug trafficking as a bilateral effort in our two countries, but with
two administrations that have not had time to sit down and come up with
a plan that would cooperate fully in this very important effort.
Since time is so short, we have come up with a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that I think will at least say it is the will of the Senate.
If we can pass this before we adjourn sine die, I think it will be a
major step in the right direction to give some relief to the two new
Presidents who will be sworn in for both of our countries and to say,
first of all, we in the Senate take this very seriously. One of the
most important issues for our countries is dealing with illegal drug
trafficking between Mexico and the United States. Realizing that
neither President could be held accountable yet for the programs that
should be put in place, we are going to have a 1-year moratorium.
This is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution:
Whereas Mexico will inaugurate a new government on 1
December 2000 that will be the first change of authority from
one party to another;
Whereas the 2nd July election of Vincente Fox Quesada of
the Alliance for Change marks an historic transition of power
in open and fair elections;
Whereas Mexico and the United States share a 2,000 mile
border, Mexico is the United States' second largest trading
partner, and the two countries share historic and cultural
ties;
Whereas drug production and trafficking are a threat to the
national interests and the well-being of the citizens of both
countries;
Whereas U.S.-Mexican cooperation on drugs is a cornerstone
for policy for both countries in developing effective
programs to stop drug use, drug production, and drug
trafficking; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
(a) The Senate, on behalf of the people of the United
States
(1) welcomes the constitutional transition of power in
Mexico;
(2) congratulates the people of Mexico and their elected
representatives for this historic change;
(3) expresses its intent to continue to work cooperatively
with Mexican authorities to promote broad and effective
efforts for the health and welfare of U.S. and Mexican
citizens endangered by international drug trafficking, use,
and production.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the
United States must develop and implement a counterdrug
program that more effectively addresses the official
corruption, the increase in drug traffic, and the lawlessness
that has resulted from illegal drug trafficking, and that a
one-year waiver of the requirement that the President certify
Mexico is warranted to permit both new governments time to do
so.
I appreciate very much Senator Grassley working with me on this
[[Page 20857]]
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. All of my cosponsors represent a
bipartisan effort across the borders and across both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. President, I want to just say I went to Mexico leading a
delegation of Members of Congress. It was the first congressional
delegation to visit Mexico with the new President-elect, and we were
able to sit down and visit with both President Zedillo, the President
of Mexico, and the President-elect, Vicente Fox. I want to say how
encouraged we were with the dynamism of President-elect Fox, with his
absolute assurance that this drug issue is one of the most important of
all the issues between our two countries, and they promised to work
hand in hand with the new administration that will be elected in the
United States in November, and with Members of Congress to do
everything they can working with us to cooperate in stopping the cancer
on both of our countries that this drug trafficking is causing.
When we have a criminal element in Mexico and a criminal element in
the United States, that is bad for both of our countries. It is preying
on the ability of our country to have full economic freedom, to grow
and prosper, and to have friendly relations across our borders. The
drug trafficking issue is the big cloud over both of our countries. I
believe that President-Elect Fox is going to pursue this vigorously.
I also want to say that President Zedillo has taken major steps in
that direction for his country. He, first of all, laid the groundwork
for the democracy that clearly was shown in this last election. Instead
of handpicking a successor and not allowing free primaries, he did the
opposite. He allowed the free primaries and he said in every way they
were going to have open and free elections. President Zedillo has made
his mark on Mexico. He was a very important President for recognizing
that the time had come for free and open elections in Mexico. He is to
be commended, and I think he will go down in the history books as one
of the great Presidents of Mexico.
In addition, President Zedillo tried very hard to cooperate in the
effort that we were making in drug trafficking. I would say that no one
believes that we are nearly where we need to be in that regard. But I
think he took some very important first steps.
I see a ray of sunshine in Mexico. Our country to the South is a very
important country to the United States. They are our friends. We share
cultural ties. We share family ties.
It is in all of our interests that we have the strongest bond between
Mexico and the United States--just as we have with Canada and the
United States. These are our borders. I have always said that I believe
the strengthening of our hemisphere is going to be a win for all three
of our countries.
I want to go all the way through the tip of South America in our
trading relations and in the building of all of our economies because I
think that is our future. Our countries depend on each other. We are
interdependent, and our friendship and our alliances will be important
for the security and viability of all of our countries in the Western
Hemisphere.
I am very pleased that we have introduced this sense of the Senate. I
urge my colleagues to help us pass this sense of the Senate so that we
will be able, next session, to say that the Senate has spoken, and that
we want to give some time to certification so that our countries can go
forward with our two new Presidents and have a strong working
relationship.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
speak for no more than 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Energy Policy
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my attention was drawn this morning to an
article in the Washington Times where our Secretary of Energy, Bill
Richardson, defends energy policy by saying something that I found
fascinating, to the point of absurdity. He says, ``We are not in an
energy crisis.''
I am not quite sure how Mr. Richardson defines ``crisis,'' but I do
know Mr. Richardson has recognized, at least for 12 months, a problem.
Am I to understand that the reason for the absence of an energy policy
in the Clinton administration is that we recognize a problem, but we
are not going to do anything about it until it becomes a crisis?
Home heating oil last year, in the Northeast, began at 80 cents to 90
cents a gallon. It went to nearly $2 before that season was over. It
was contracted this summer at $1.19, and it is now selling at $1.40. I
call that a crisis if I am low income and I want a warm home this
winter. I call it a crisis if I want to travel cross-country and I
can't afford to fill my gas tank. I call it a crisis if I am a trucker
and I can't up my contracts to absorb my fuel or energy costs and I
must turn my truck back in, as thousands are now doing--turning their
trucks back in on the lease programs under which they acquired them
when they planned to move the commerce of America across this country.
Mr. Secretary, earlier this year, you flew numerous times to the
Middle East with a tin cup in hand, begging the sheiks of the OPEC
nations to turn the valve on just a little bit and let out a little
more oil, hopefully dropping the price of crude and therefore lowering
the cost at the pump. For a moment in time it worked. Then the price
started ratcheting up as the markets began to understand that what had
happened was pretty much artificial and pretty much rhetorical in
nature and that, in fact, the supplies had not increased to offset the
demand.
While all of that was going on, underneath the surface of this issue
were a few basic facts. We have lost over 30 refineries in the last
decade because they couldn't afford to comply with the Clean Air Act;
they couldn't retrofit in a profitable way. They were not given tax
credits and other tools because it was ``big oil'' and you dare not
cause them any benefits that might ultimately make it to the
marketplace so the consumer could ultimately benefit. Those refineries
went down.
Here we are at a time when the price of crude oil peaked and the Vice
President ran to the President and said please release SPR, and that
has been done, or at least it is now being organized to be done, and it
may lower prices. Yet that was a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was
destined to be used only for a crisis. And the Secretary of Energy says
no crisis. He himself said yesterday before the National Press Club
there is no energy crisis in this country. But there was a crisis last
week and the President agreed to release the oil out of SPR.
I don't get it. I do not think I am that ignorant. I serve on the
Energy Committee. We reviewed this. We have argued for a decade that
there is a problem in the making, but this administration will not put
down a policy, even though they see a problem, unless the problem
becomes a crisis.
But now there is not a crisis, so why are we releasing the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which was designed not only for a crisis but for a
national emergency, one that was inflicted upon us by a reduction or a
stoppage of the flow of foreign crude coming into our economy that
might put our economy at risk.
The Secretary says we have a short-term problem and we will work it
out in time.
Mr. Secretary, what does ``working it out'' mean? Have you proffered
or proposed a major energy policy before the Congress of the United
States? No, you have not. Have you suggested an increase in production
of domestic resources so we could lower our dependency on foreign oil?
No, you have not, Mr. Secretary.
So the American public ought to be asking of this administration, the
Vice President, the President, and the Secretary of Energy: Mr.
Secretary, Mr.
[[Page 20858]]
President, and Mr. Vice President, if there is no crisis, then why are
you tapping the very reserves that we have set aside for a time of
crisis? Somehow it doesn't fit.
There were political allegations 3 or 4 weeks ago when the Vice
President was asking the President to release the petroleum reserve. He
was saying there was a crisis, or a near crisis. That got done. And
yesterday,
In remarks before the National Press Club, [Secretary]
Richardson said the ``political campaign'' was behind Gore's
accusations against [big] oil companies and that a surge in
demand for oil in the United States and abroad is the real
reason gasoline, heating-oil and natural-gas prices have
soared this year. ``We are not in an energy crisis.''
Mr. Secretary, if you are traveling or if you are not wealthy and you
have to pick up the 100 percent increased cost in your energy bills and
your heating bills, I am going to tell you that is a crisis. But my
guess is, it is typical of this administration, a problem is a problem
until there is a crisis, and then you find a solution; 8 years without
a solution to this problem spells crisis.
I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, but your rhetoric doesn't fit the
occasion, nor does it rectify the problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes, and I ask to be followed by the
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who will speak on the same
subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The ``Captive Shipper'' Problem
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr.
Rockefeller and I, along with the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, have
been working on legislation dealing with our railroad service in this
country. We have introduced legislation, S. 621, entitled the Railroad
Competition and Service Improvement Act which addresses problems
associated with shippers who are ``captive'' or dependent on one
railroad for their shipping needs. Mr. President, I have with me a
letter from over 280 chief executive officers of American corporations
writing about this subject.
I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record following my
presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. These CEOs of some of America's largest companies, and
companies all across this country, join us expressing concern about
what has happened to America's railroads. There is no competition in
the railroad industry in this country. The deregulation of the rail
industry occurred, now, over 20 years ago. At that point, we had 42
class I railroads. Now we are down to only about four major railroad
operations in this country--two in the East and two in the West. Rather
than encouraging some competitive framework in the rail industry, the
deregulation of the railroad industry has resulted in a handful of
regional monopolies. They rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum power
over the marketplace.
These megarailroads dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent
of the gross ton miles and nearly 94 percent of the revenues, and they
control 90 percent of all coal movement in this country, 70 percent of
all grain movement in America, and 88 percent of all chemical movement
in this country.
It is quite clear what consolidation has meant to all Americans. Let
me give a practical example. If you are a farmer in my State of North
Dakota and you want to sent a load of wheat to market and you put that
load of wheat on a railcar in Bismarck, ND, and send it to Minneapolis,
MN, a little over 400 miles, you will pay $2,300. If you are going to
ship that same carload of wheat from Minneapolis to Chicago, about the
same distance, you do not pay $2,300, you pay less than $1,000.
Why the difference? Why are we charged more than double as North
Dakotans to ship wheat about the same distance? Because there is no
competition on the line from Bismarck to Minneapolis, but there is
competition between Minneapolis and Chicago, so the prices are
competitive. Where there is competition, there are lower rates. Where
there is no competition, there are monopoly prices. They say to
businesses and farmers: Here's the charge; if you don't like it, don't
use our service.
What other service exists? There is only one line, only one railroad.
There is a monopoly service, and they are engaged in monopoly pricing,
and we have no regulatory authority to say this is wrong.
We have what are called ``captive shippers.'' These are Main Street
businesses, family farmers, big companies, small companies, and they
are held captive by the railroad companies that say to them: We have
the rails, we have the cars, we have the company, and here's what the
service is going to cost you; if you don't like it, tough luck.
In the circumstance I just described, the railroad says to a North
Dakota farmer: We're going to charge you double what we charge other
people. Why? Because we choose to. Why? Because we want to; because we
have the muscle to do it, and if you don't like it, take a hike.
That is what is going on in this industry where there is no
competition and where we have shippers being held captive all across
this country.
Do rail costs matter much to my part of the country? Let me give
another example.
Grain prices have collapsed. A farmer does not get much for grain
these days. If you take wheat to an elevator in Minot, ND, that
elevator pays about $2.40 a bushel for it, which is a pittance--it is
worth a lot more than that--the cost to ship that $2.40 a bushel wheat
to the west coast is nearly $1.20 a bushel. Half the value of that
wheat on the west coast ends up being transportation costs by the
railroad industry.
How can they do that? It's pricing gouging and nobody can do much
about it because there is no regulatory authority to say it is wrong.
They hide behind the Staggers Rail Act which deregulated the railroads,
gave them enormous power, and resulted in a substantial concentration.
The result is, all across this country we have shippers who are now
held captive, they are locked in by an industry that says: This is what
we are going to charge you; if you don't like it, that's tough luck.
What happens if someone believes this is really arbitrary, really
unfair and they intend to complain about it? We had what was called the
Interstate Commerce Commission. That was a group of folks who had died
from the neck up. Nobody told them, but they were dead from the neck up
and had one big rubber stamp down there. It said: ``Approved'' They had
one big rubber stamp and one big ink pad. Whatever the railroads
wanted, the ICC said: ``Approved.''
We got rid of the ICC. Now we have a Surface Transportation Board,
and we have someone at the Surface Transportation Board, Linda Morgan,
to whom I pay a compliment. She put a moratorium on mergers. We had
another proposal for a merger, and she slapped on a moratorium. That
merger fell apart. Good for her. It is the first good sign of life for
a long while among regulators. Good for her. But all of the merger
damage is pretty well done. Linda Morgan is fighting a lonely battle at
the Surface Transportation Board.
Let me show you what happens when somebody files a complaint for
unfair rail charges. You file a complaint, and here are the steps.
First of all, you need to ante up some money. The filing fee for the
standard procedure of complaint will be $54,000. It differs in some
cases. If you have a beef with the railroad, first of all, understand
you are taking on somebody with a lot more money and muscle than you
have, No. 1. No. 2, you are going to pay a filing fee to file a
complaint against the railroad freight rates, and then when you file
the complaint, you ought to expect to live a long time because you are
not going to get a result for a long, long time. In fact, some folks in
Montana filed a complaint against a railroad. It took 17 years--17
years--for the complaint to go through the process, and then it never
really got resolved in a
[[Page 20859]]
satisfactory way. That is why rail shippers understand it does not
make much sense to take the railroads on.
You have the railroad with the muscle to make these things stick, and
then you have regulators who have largely been braindead for a long,
long time and do not want to do much. The exception again is we have a
new Surface Transportation Board. Linda Morgan showed some courage, so
there is some hope with the current STB.
What is happening in this country must change. Senator Rockefeller,
who has been a leader on this issue, and I have held hearings on it. We
both serve on the Senate Commerce Committee. We are joined by Senator
Burns in our efforts. It is a bipartisan effort.
We want to pass the S. 621, but we are not going to get it done by
the end of this year. What we are hoping for is that the 280 plus CEOs
of companies across this country, large and small, who wrote this
letter saying they are sick and tired of being held captive by shipping
rates imposed by railroads that are noncompetitive--a rate that does
not often relate to value for service--will get the attention in
Congress that they deserve. We hope these CEOs continue to weigh in, in
a significant way, with those who matter in this Congress to say:
``Let's do something serious about this issue.'' This is a tough issue
but it is one Congress has a responsibility to tackle.
I pay credit to my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller.
He has been working on this issue for a long time. I have been
privileged to work with him. We know that which is worth doing takes
some time to get done often, but we are not going to quit. The message
to the 280 companies that have signed this letter, the message to our
friends in Congress is: We have a piece of legislation that tries to
tackle this issue of monopoly concentration and inappropriate pricing
in the railroad industry. It tackles the issue on behalf of captive
shippers all across this country--family farmers and Main Street
businesses and others--and we are not going to quit.
We hope as we turn the corner at the start of this next Congress that
we will be able to pass legislation that will give some help and some
muscle to those in this country who are now paying too much. They
expect to be able to operate in a system that has competition as a
regulator in the free market, and that has not existed in the rail
industry for some long while.
I yield the floor, and I believe my colleague from West Virginia will
also have some things to say.
Exhibit 1
September 26, 2000.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings: We are writing
to ask that shipper concerns with current national rail
policy be given priority for Commerce Committee action next
Congress. The Staggers Rail Act was enacted in 1980 with the
goal of replacing government regulation of the railroads with
competitive market forces. Since that time, the structure of
the nation's rail industry has changed dramatically. Where
there were 30 Class I railroad systems operating in the U.S.
in 1976, now there are only seven. While major railroads in
North America appear poised to begin another round of
consolidations in the near future, the Surface Transportation
Board continues to adhere to policies that hamper rail
competition. Structural changes in the rail industry combined
with STB policies have stopped the goal of the Staggers Rail
Act dead in its tracks.
We depend on rail transportation for the cost-effective,
efficient movement of raw materials and products. The quality
and cost of rail transportation directly affects our ability
to compete in a global marketplace, generate low cost energy,
and contribute to the economic prosperity of this nation.
Current rail policies frustrate these objectives by allowing
railroads to prevent competitive access to terminals,
maintain monopolies through ``bottleneck pricing,'' and
hamper the growth of viable short line and regional railroads
through ``paper barriers.''
We applaud the Commerce Committee's leadership on behalf of
consumers concerning proposed mergers in the airline
industry. America's rail consumers also need your support and
leadership to respond effectively to the dramatic changes
that are underway in the rail industry. Bipartisan
legislation is currently pending in both the Senate and House
of Representatives that takes a modest, effective approach in
attempting to remove some of the most critical impediments to
competition. Please work with us and take the steps that are
needed to create a national policy that ensures effective,
sustainable competition in the rail industry.
Sincerely,
Fred Webber, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council;
Glenn English, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association;
Alan Richardson, Executive Director, American Public Power
Association;
Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute;
Henson Moore, President and COE, American Forest and Paper
Association;
Kevern R. Joyce, Chairman, President and CEO, Texas-New
Mexico Power Company;
Jeffrey M. Lipton, President and CEO, NOVA Chemicals
Corporation;
Robert N. Burt, Chairman and CEO, FMC Corporation;
Allen M. Hill, President and CEO, Dayton Power and Light
Company;
Paul J. Ganci, Chairman and CEO, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation;
David T. Flanagan, President and CEO, CMP Group, Inc;
Charles F. Putnik, President, CONDEA Vista Company;
Thomas S. Richards, Chairman, President and CEO, RGS Energy
Group, Inc;
W. Peter Woodward, Senior Vice President, Chemical
Operations, Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC;
Phillip D. Ashkettle, President and CEO, M.A. Hanna
Company;
Eugene R. McGrath, Chairman, President and CEO,
Consolidated Edison, Inc.;
David M. Eppler, President and CEO, Cleco Corporation;
Robert B. Catell, Chairman and CEO, KeySpan Energy;
Thomas L. Grennan, Executive VP, Electric Operations,
Western Resources, Inc,;
Joseph H. Richardson, President and CEO, Florida Power
Corporation;
Wayne H. Brunetti, President and CEO, Xcel Energy, Inc.;
Myron W. McKinney, President and CEO, Empire District
Electric Company;
Erle Nye, Chairman, TXU Corporation;
Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, PECO
Energy Company;
James E. Rogers, Vice Chairman, President and CEO, Cinergy
Corp.;
Stanley W. Silverman, President and CEO, The PQ
Corporation;
Robert Edwards, President, Minnesota Power;
William G. Bares, Chairman and CEO, The Lubrizol
Corporation;
Stephen M. Humphrey, President and CEO, Riverwood
International;
Thomas A. Waltermire, Chairman and CEO, The Geon Company;
James R. Carlson, Vice President, Flocryl Inc.;
John M. Derrick, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Pepco;
David D. Eckert, Executive Committee Member, Rhodia Inc.;
Frederick F. Schauder, Ltd., CFO and HD of Business Service
Center, Lonza Group, Ltd.;
Marvin W. Zima, President, OMNOVA Solutions Performance
Chemicals;
Simon H. Upfill-Brown, President, and CEO, Haltermann,
Inc.;
Thomas A. Sugalski, President, CXY Chemicals, USA;
John L. MacDonald, Chairman and President, JLM Industries
Inc.;
David A. Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc.;
Roger M. Frazier, Vice President, Pearl River Polymers
Inc.;
Yoshi Kawashima, Chairman and CEO, Reichhold, Inc.;
Geroge F. MacCormack, Group Vice President, Chemicals and
Polyester, DuPont;
C. Bert Knight, President and CEO, Sud-Chemie Inc.;
James A. Cederna, President and CEO, Calgon Carbon
Corporation;
Bernard J. Beaudoin, President, Kansas City Power and
Light;
William S. Stavropoulos, President and CEO, The Dow
Chemical Company;
Andrew J. Burke, President and CEO, Degussa-Huls
Corporation;
Geroge A. Vincent, Chairman, President & CEO, The C.P. Hall
Company;
William Cavanaugh, III, Chairman, President and CEC,
Carolina Power & Light Company;
Richard B. Priory, Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy
Corporation;
Howard E. Cosgrove, Chairman, President and CEO, Conectiv;
Gary L. Neale, Chairman, president and CEO, NiSource Inc.;
Robert L. James, President & CEO, Jones-Hamilton Co.;
Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President and CEO, Crompton
Corporation;
Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Eastman
Chemical Company;
Reed Searle, General Manager, Intermountain Power Agency;
[[Page 20860]]
Robert Roundtree, General Manager, City Utilities of
Springfield, MO;
Walter W. Hasse, General Manager, Jamestown Board of Public
Utilities;
Glenn Cannon, General Manager, Waverly Iowa Light and
Power;
Jeffrey L. Nelson, General Manager, East River Electric
Power Cooperative;
Mike Waters, President, Montana Grain Growers Association;
Terry F. Steinbecker, President & CEO, St. Joseph Light &
Power Company;
Hugh T. McDonald, President, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;
Dave Westbrock, General Manager, Heartland Consumers Power;
David M. Radtcliffe, President & CEO, Georgia Power
Company;
Stephen B. King, President and CEO, Tomah3 Products, Inc.;
Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President and CEO, Olin
Corporation;
Ian MacMillan, Technical Manager, Octel-Starreon LLC;
Martin E. Blaylock, Vice President, Manufacturing
Operations, Monsanto Company;
G. Ashley Allen, President, Milliken Chemical, Division of
Milliken & Co.;
Dwain S. Colvin, President, Dover Chemical Corporation;
Bill W. Waycaster, President and CEO, Texas Petrochemicals
LP;
David C. Hill, President and CEO, Chemicals Division, J.M.
Huber Corporation;
Mark P. Bulriss, Chairman, President and CEO, Great Lakes
Chemical Corporation;
Michael E. Ducey, President and CEO, Borden Chemical, Inc.;
Chuck Carpenter, President, North Pacific Paper Co.;
Richard R. Russell, President and CEO, GenTek Inc.; General
Chemical Corporation;
John T. Files, Chairman of the Board, Merichem Company;
John C. Hunter, Chairman, President and CEO, Solutia Inc.;
William M. Landuyt, Chairman and CEO, Millennium Chemicals,
Inc.;
Kevin Lydey, President and CEO, Blandin Paper Company Inc.;
J. Roger Harl, President and CEO, Occidental Chemical
Corporation;
Rajiv L. Gupta, Chairman and CEO, Rohm and Haas Company;
Sunil Kumar, President and CEO, International Specialty
Products;
Kenneth L. Golder, President and CEO, Clariant Corporation;
Michael Fiterman, President and CEO, Liberty Diversified
Industries;
Nicholas R. Marcalus, President and CEO, Marcal Paper Mills
Inc.;
Charles H. Fletcher, Jr., Vice President, Neste Chemicals
Holding Inc.;
William J. Corbett, Chairman and CEO, Silbond Corporation;
Robert Betz, President, Cognis Corporation;
Arnold M. Nemirow, Chairman and CEO, Bowater Inc.;
Harry J. Hyatt, President, Sasol North America;
Eugene F. Wilcauskas, President and CEO, Specialty Products
Division, Church & Dwight Co., Inc.;
Robert C. Buchanan, Chairman and CEO, Fox River Paper Co.;
David W. Courtney, President and CEO, CHEMCENTRAL
Corporation;
Joseph F. Firlit, President and CEO, Soyland Power
Cooperative;
Ronald Harper, CEO and General Manager, Dakota Coal Company
and Dakota Gasification Co.;
Richard Midulla, Executive VP and General Manager, Seminole
Electric Cooperative, Inc.;
Dan Wiltse, President, National Barley Growers Association;
William L. Berg, President and CEO, Dairyland Power
Cooperative;
Charles L. Compton, General Manager, Saluda River Electric
Cooperative;
Don Kimball, CEO, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.;
Gary Smith, President and CEO, Alabama Electric
Cooperative, Inc.;
Stephen Brevig, Executive VP and General Manager, NW Iowa
Power Cooperative;
Frank Knutson, President and CEO, Tri-State G and T
Association, Inc.;
Robert W. Bryant, President and General Manager, Golden
Spread Electric Cooperative;
Marshall Darby, General Manager, San Miguel Electric
Cooperative, Inc.;
Thomas W. Stevenson, President and CEO, Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative;
Kimball R. Rasmussen, President and CEO, Deseret G and T
Cooperative;
Thomas Smith, President and CEO, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation;
Evan Hayes, President, Idaho Grain Producers Association;
Gary Simmons, Chairman, Idaho Barley Commission;
Randy Peters, Chairman, Nebraska Wheat Board;
Terry Detrick, President, National Association of Wheat
Growers;
Leland Swenson, President, National Farmers Union;
Frank H. Romanelli, President and CEO, Metachem Products,
L.L.C.;
Frederick W. Von Rein, Vice President, GM Fisher Chemical,
Fisher Scientific Company LLC;
Raymond M. Curran, President and CEO, Smurfit Stone
Container Corp.;
Floyd D. Gottwald, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Albemarle
Corporation;
Richard G. Bennett, President, Shearer Lumber Products;
John Begley, President and CEO, Port Townsend Paper
Company;
Gregory T. Cooper, President and CEO, Cooper Natural
Resources;
Mark J. Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Borden
Chemicals and Plastics;
Kees Verhaar, President and CEO, Johnson Polymer;
L. Ballard Mauldin, President, Chemical Products
Corporation;
George M. Simmons, President of First Chemical Corporation,
ChemFirst Inc;
Christopher T. Fraser, President and CEO, OCI Chemical
Corporation;
Gerhardus J. Mulder, CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board,
Felix Schoeller Technical Papers, Inc.;
John F. Trancredi, President, North American Chemical Co.,
IMC Chemicals Inc.;
Christian Maurin, Chairman and CEO, Nalco Chemical Company;
Nicholas P. Trainer, President, Sartomer Company, Inc.;
Thomas H. Johnson, Chairman, President, and CEO, Chesapeake
Corporation;
Gordon Jones, President and CEO, Blue Ridge Paper Products
Inc.;
David Lilley, Chairman, President and CEO, Cytec Industries
Inc.;
Mario Concha, Vice President, Chemical & Resins, Georgia-
Pacific Corporation;
Duane C. McDougall, President and CEO, Willamette
Industries, Inc.;
Kennett F. Burnes, President and COO, Cabot Corporation;
Aziz I. Asphahani, President and CEO, Carus Chemical
Company;
Thomas M. Hahn, President and CEO, Garden State Paper
Company;
Dan F. Smith, President and CEO, Lyondell Chemical Company;
Frank R. Bennett, President, Bennett Lumber Products Inc.;
Joseph G. Acker, President, Hickson Dan Chemical
Corporation;
James F. Akers, President, The Crystal Tissue Company;
Lee F. Moisio, Executive Vice President, Vertex Chemical
Corporation;
Richard G. Verney, Chairman and CEO, Monadnock Paper Mills,
Inc.;
Helge H. Wehmeier, President and CEO, Bayer Corporation;
Michael Flannery, Chairman and CEO, Pope and Talbot, Inc.;
R. P. Wollenberg, Chairman and CEO, Longview Fiber Company;
Michael T. Lacey, President and COO, Ausimont USA, Inc.;
Michael J. Kenny, President, Laporte Inc.;
Jean-Pierre Seeuws, President and CEO, ATOFINA
Petrochemicals, Inc.;
Michael J. Ferris, President and CEO, Pioneer Americas,
Inc.;
Edward A. Schmitt, President and CEO, Georgia Gulf
Corporation;
Peter A. Wriede, President and CEO, EM Industries, Inc.;
Fred G. von Zuben, President and CEO, The Newark Group;
Paul J. Norris, Chairman, President and CEO, W.R. Grace &
Co.;
George H. Glatfelter II, Chairman, President and CEO, P.H.
Glatfelter Company;
Larry M. Games, Vice President, Procter & Gamble;
David C. Southworth, President, Southworth Company;
Harvey L. Lowd, President, Kao Specialties Americas LLC;
Richard Connor, Jr., President, Pine River Lumber Co.,
Ltd.;
William Wowchuk, President, Eaglebrook, Inc.;
W. Lee Nutter, Chairman, President and CEO, Rayonier;
Robert Carr, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Schenectady International, Inc.;
Robert Strasburg, President, Lyons Falls Pulp & Paper,
Inc.;
J. Edward, CEO, Gulf States Paper Corporation;
Gorton M. Evans, President and CEO, Consolidated Papers,
Inc.;
John K. Robinson, Group Vice President, BP Amoco p.l.c.;
David J. D'Antoni, Sr. Vice President and Group Operating
Officer, Ashland Inc.;
Pierre Monahan, President and CEO, Alliance Forest
Products, Inc.;
Peter Oakley, Chairman and CEO, BASF Corporation;
Charles K. Valutas, Sr. Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer, Sunoco, Inc.;
Leroy J. Barry, President and CEO, Madison Paper
Industries;
Norman S. Hansen, Jr., President, Monadnock Forest
Products, Inc.;
Dan M. Dutton, CEO, Stinson Lumber Company;
Michael L. Kurtz, General Manager, Gainesville Regional
Utilities;
William P. Schrader, President, Salt River Project,
Jim Harder, Director, Garland Power and Light;
Gary Mader, Utilities Director, City of Grand Island,
Nebraska;
Robert W. Headden, Electric Superintendent, City of
Escanaba, Michigan;
[[Page 20861]]
Darryl Tveitakk, General Manager, Northern Municipal Power
Agency;
Steven R. Rogel, Chairman, President and CEO, Weyerhaeuser
Company;
John T. Dillon, Chairman and CEO, International Paper
Company;
Roy Thilly, CEO, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.;
Tom Heller, CEO, Missouri River Energy Services;
Charles R. Chandler, Vice Chairman, Greif Bros Corp.;
Rudy Van der Meer, Member, Board of Management, Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Inc.;
William B. Hull, President, Hull Forest Products, Inc.;
Larry M. Giustina, General Manager, Giustina Land and
Timber Co.;
Daniel S. Sanders, President, ExxonMobil Chemical Company;
Thomas E. Gallagher, Sr. Vice President, Coastal Paper
Company;
F. Casey Wallace, Sales Manager, Allegheny Wood Products
Inc.;
Terry Freeman, President, Bibler Bros Lumber Company;
William Mahnke, Vice President, Duni Corporation;
Neil Carr, President, Elementis Specialties;
Chris A. Robbins, President, EHV Weidmann Industries Inc.;
James Lieto, President, Chevron Oronite Company LLC;
Marvin A. Pombrantz, Chairman and CEO, Baylord Container
Corp.;
M. Glen Bassett, President, Baker Petrolite Corporation;
Glen Duysen, Secretary, Sierra Forest Products;
Kent H. Lee, Senior Vice President of Speciality Chemicals,
Ferro Corporation;
James L. Burke, President and CEO, SP Newsprint Company;
Dana M. Fitzpatrick, Executive Vice President, Fitzpatrick
and Weller, Inc.;
Bert Martin, President, Fraser Papers Inc.;
Carl R. Soderlind, Chief Executive Officer, Golden Bear Oil
Specialties;
Charles L. Watson, Chairman and CEO, Dynegy, Inc.;
Alan J. Noia, Chairman, President and CEO, Allegheny
Energy;
Ronald D. Earl, General Manager and CEO, Illinois Municipal
Electric Agency;
Steven Svec, General Manager, Chillicothe Municipal
Utilities;
Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President and CEO, Northeast
Utilities;
Jay D. Logel, General Manager, Muscatine Power and Water;
Robert A. Voltmann, Executive Director & Chief Executive
Officer, Transportation Intermediaries Association;
Andrew E. Goebel, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Vectren Corporation;
Bob Johnston, President and CEO, Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia;
Rick Holly, President, Plum Creek;
A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific
Corporation;
Robert M. Owens, President and CEO, Owens Forest Products;
Charles E. Platz, President, Montell North America Inc.;
Nirmal S. Jain, President, BaerLocher USA;
Will Kress, President, Green Bay Packaging Inc.;
Stanley Sherman, President and CEO, Ciba Specialty
Chemicals Corporation;
Charles A. Feghali, President, Interstate Resources Inc.;
Charles H. Blanker, President, Esleeck Manufacturing
Company, Inc.;
Dennis H. Reilley, President and CEO, Praxair, Inc.;
Vohn Price, President, The Price Company;
Lawrence A. Wigdor, President and CEO, Kronos, Inc.;
Eric Lodewijk, President and Site Manager, Roche Colorado
Corporation;
James L. Gallogly, President and CEO, Chevron Phillips
Chemical Company;
Takashi Fukunaga, General Manager, Specialty Chemicals,
Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc.;
James A. Mack, Chairman and CEO, Cambrex Corporation;
F. Quinn Stepan, Sr., Chairman and CEO, Stepan Company;
John R. Danzeisen, Chairman, ICI Americas Inc.;
Harold A. Wagner, Chairman and CEO, Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc.;
Bernard J. Darre, President, The Shepherd Chemical Company;
Frank A. Archinaco, Executive Vice President, PPG
Industries, Inc.;
Gary E. Anderson, President and CEO, Dow Corning
Corporation;
David S. Johnson, President and CEO, Ruetgers Organics
Corporation;
Whitson Sadler, President and CEO, Solvay America, Inc.;
Peter L. Acton, General Manager, Arizona Chemical Company;
Wallace J. McCloskey, President, The Norac Company, Inc.;
Gregory Bialy, President and CEO, RohMax USA, Inc.;
Arthur R. Sigel, President and CEO, Velsicol Chemical
Corporation;
H. Patrick Jack, President and CEO, Aristech Chemical
Corporation;
Michael E. Campbell, Chairman and CEO, Arch Chemicals,
Inc.;
James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemicals, Inc.;
D. George Harris, Chairman, D. George Harris and
Associates;
James E. Gregory, President, Dyneon LLC;
Toshihoko Yoshitomi, President, Mitsubishi Chemical America
Inc.;
William H. Joyce, Chairman, President & CEO, Union Carbide
Corporation;
Kenneth W. Miller, Vice Chairman, Air Liquide America
Corporation;
Norman Blank, Senior Vice President, Research &
Development, Sika Corporation;
Edward W. Kissel, President and COO, OM GROUP, INC.;
Mario Meglio, Director of Marketing, Kuehne Chemical
Company, Inc.;
Jerry L. Golden, Executive Vice President-Americas, Shell
Chemical Company;
Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Reilly Industries,
Inc.;
Joseph F. Raccuia, CEO, Encore Paper Company, Inc.;
Alex Kwader, President and CEO, Fibermark;
John A. Luke, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Westvaco Corporation;
George J. Griffith, Jr., Chairman and President, Merrimac
Paper Co.;
George Harad, Chairman and CEO, Boise Cascade Corporation;
L. Pendleton Siegel, Chairman and CEO, Potlatch
Corporation;
Monte R. Haymon, President and CEO, Sappi Fine Paper;
George D. Jones III, President, Seaman Paper Company, Inc.;
Jon M. Huntsman, Sr., Chairman, Huntsman Corporation;
Jerry Tatar, Chairman and CEO, The Mead Corporation;
Larry L. Weyers, Chairman, President and CEO, WPS Resources
Corporation;
Jan B. Packwood, President and CEO, IDACORP, Inc.;
E. Linn Draper, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, American
Electric Power;
Steven E. Moore, Chairman, President and CEO, OGE Energy
Corp.;
John MacFarlane, Chairman, President and CEO, Otter Tail
Power Company;
H. Peter Burg, Chairman and CEO, First Energy Corp.;
John Rowe, Chairman, President and CEO, Unicom Corporation;
Erroll B. Davis, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, Alliant
Energy Corporation;
Alan Richardson, President and CEO, PacifiCorp;
William F. Hecht, Chairman, President and CEO, PPL
Corporation;
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation;
William Rodecker, Director, Occupational Health, Safety &
Environmental Affairs, Eli Lilly and Company.
____
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Jersey.
ALS Treatment And Assistance Act
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, all of us in our public lives on
occasion meet an individual under circumstances and remains with us.
They are so powerful in their impact that they haunt us and, if we are
true to our responsibilities, also lead us to involvement. It could be
circumstances of a struggling family attempting to pay their bills. It
could be someone in enormous physical or emotional distress.
I rise today because 3 years ago I met a young family from Burlington
County, NJ, who had exactly this impact on me, my life, and my own
service in the Senate.
Kevin O'Donnell was 31 years old, a devoted father who was skiing
with his daughter one weekend, when he noticed a strange pain in his
leg. It persisted, which led him to visit his family doctor. Here, he
was shocked to learn, despite his apparent good health, the vibrancy of
his own life and his young age, that he had been stricken with ALS,
known to most Americans as Lou Gehrig's disease.
We are fortunate that ALS is a very rare disorder. It affects 30,000
individuals in our Nation, with an additional 5,000 new cases diagnosed
every year. We should be grateful it is so rare because the impact on
an individual and their health and their family is devastating. Indeed,
there are few diseases that equal the impact of ALS on an individual.
It is, of course, a neurological disorder that causes the progressive
degeneration of the spinal cord and the brain. Muscle weakness,
especially in the arms and legs, leads to confinement to a wheelchair.
In time, breathing becomes impossible and a respirator is needed.
Swallowing becomes impossible. Speech becomes nearly impossible. Muscle
by muscle, legs to arms to chest to throat, all motor activity of the
body shuts down.
While ALS usually strikes people who are over 50 years old, indeed,
there
[[Page 20862]]
are many cases of young people being afflicted with this disease. Once
the disease strikes, life expectancy is 3 to 5 years. But the
difficulty is, life expectancy is not measured from diagnosis; it is
measured from the first symptoms.
Diagnosing ALS is very difficult. What can appear as a pain in the
leg can be overlooked for months. Muscle disorders can be ignored for a
year. Doctors have a difficult time diagnosing Lou Gehrig's disease.
Not surprisingly, after diagnosed, the financial burdens are
enormous. Work is impossible. Twenty-four hour care is likely.
Wheelchairs, respirators, nursing care can easily cost between
$200,000, to a quarter of a million dollars a year.
Families struggle with this financial burden while they are also
struggling with the certainty of death at a young age.
This leads me to the responsibilities of this institution.
Patients with ALS must wait 2 years before becoming eligible for
Medicare. For 2 years--no help, no funds, no assistance. As a result,
17,000 ALS patients currently are ineligible for Medicare services. And
thousands of these individuals will die having never received one penny
of Medicare assistance. Their death from ALS is a foregone conclusion.
It could come in a year or 2 years or 3, but we are requiring a 2-year
waiting period before there is any assistance.
Clearly, ALS, the problems of diagnosis, the certainty of death, the
rapid deterioration of the human body, was not considered with this 2-
year waiting period.
Nearly 3 years ago, I first introduced legislation that would
eliminate the 24-month waiting period for ALS from Medicare. Most of
the people who were with me that day here in the Senate when we
introduced this legislation are now dead. Most of them never received
any Medicare assistance. Only I remain, having been there that day
offering this legislation again to bring help to these people.
But their agony and the burdens on their families have now been
succeeded by thousands of others, who at the time probably had never
heard of ALS disease, certainly did not know that Medicare, upon which
their families had come to rely, would be out of reach to them in such
a crisis.
The ALS Treatment and Assistance Act, since that day, has enjoyed
bipartisan support, with 28 cosponsors in the Senate, 12 Republicans
and 16 Democrats. In the House of Representatives, 280 Democrats and
Republicans have cosponsored the legislation.
This spring, the Senate unanimously adopted this legislation as part
of the marriage penalty tax bill, which, of course, did not become law.
Both Houses, both parties have responded to this terrible situation.
Two weeks ago, when Senator Moynihan and Senator Daschle introduced
S. 3077, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000, I was very proud
that the ALS provision was included in their legislation. Last
Wednesday, the ALS waiver was included in the balanced budget
refinement legislation approved by the House Commerce Committee. So
there is still hope.
As every Member of this institution knows, the calendar is late.
Regretfully, we are again at a time of year when the legislative
process ceases to work as it is taught in textbooks across the country.
There will not be an opportunity for me to advocate this legislation
for ALS patients by offering an amendment on the Senate floor to the
Medicare package developed by the Finance Committee. That option is
simply not going to exist under the procedures and the calendar of the
Senate.
I am, therefore, left with the following circumstances. Having lost
many of those ALS patients, on whose behalf I originally began this
effort, a new group of families are now helping me across the country.
They, too, have a year or two remaining in their lives and need this
help.
If I can succeed in getting this provision, with the support of my
colleagues, in the balanced budget refinements that ultimately will be
passed by this Senate, for those people before their deaths, there is
still hope. If I fail, then these people, too, will expire before they
get any assistance from the Government.
I do not know of an argument not to pass this legislation. I do not
know of a point that any Senator in any party, at any time, could make,
to argue on the merits, that these ALS patients should not get a waiver
under Medicare, in the remaining months or years of their lives, to get
some financial assistance.
The unanimous support of the Senate previously, I think, is testament
to the fact that we are of one mind. I simply now would like to ask my
colleagues, in these final days, knowing that there will be a Medicare
balanced budget refinement bill, that this provision be included.
I also, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a copy of the letter that was sent to Chairman Roth last week,
signed by 16 of my colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans,
asking for inclusion of the ALS legislation in a balanced budget
refinement package.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2000.
Hon. William V. Roth,
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Roth: As the Finance Committee prepares to
mark-up a Balanced Budget Act refinement package for Medicare
providers, we urge your support for the inclusion of an
important provision of S. 1074, the Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis Treatment Act. This provision would eliminate the
24-month waiting period for Medicare which prevents ALS
patients from receiving the immediate care they desperately
need.
As you know, ALS is a fatal neurological disorder that
affects 30,000 Americans. Its progression results in total
paralysis, leaving patients without the ability to move,
speak, swallow or breathe and therefore totally dependent on
care givers for all aspects of life. Without a cure or any
effective treatment, the life expectancy of an ALS patient is
only three to five years.
A common problem for individuals stricken with ALS is that,
due to the progressive nature of the disease and the lack of
any diagnostic tests, a final diagnosis is often made after a
year or more of symptoms and searching for answers. This
delay results in a loss of valuable time that could have been
spent in starting treatment early. Once a diagnosis is
finally made, the tragedy is needlessly worsened by
Medicare's 24-month waiting period which forces ALS patients
to wait until the final months of their illness to receive
care.
Eliminating this unfair restriction for ALS patients enjoys
strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. In
fact, the House version of this bill has the support of 280
co-sponsors. Including this legislation in a BBA refinement
package will represent a first real step toward improving the
quality of life for Americans stricken with ALS. We look
forward to working with you, and appreciate your
consideration of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and I thank
my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. First, I would like to comment on the comments that
were made by Senator Torricelli from New Jersey. I thought they were
profound, moving, and obviously urgent.
What I regret to have to report to him is that the Senate Finance
Committee, on which I serve on the minority side, has concluded there
will be no markup. There will with no markup on the balanced budget
amendment. So this is very sad. This is part of the denigration of the
process of this entire institution.
There is no health care legislation that has come out of the Finance
Committee, or anywhere else, in the last 2 years. We could go through
that litany.
But I want to report my profound discouragement to the Senator that
we were told yesterday there would be no markup, no markup on the one
thing that we could do to help not only the people you are talking
about but all the hospitals and hospices and skilled nursing
facilities, home health agencies in our States which are suffering.
So we have to rely on the good will of the President when he meets
with leaders, Republican leaders. Hopefully, maybe a Democrat will be
included in that meeting. Maybe something can happen.
[[Page 20863]]
But this is where we have arrived at in this institution. It is
unfortunate. It is wretched. It has a terrible consequence for the
people who you so movingly and eloquently talked about.
Railroad Competition
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to
speak about an issue--the plight of captive shippers--on which the
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, spoke and on which I have been
working for 16 years, every day I have been in the Senate, with a
complete, absolute, and total lack of success. One doesn't ordinarily
admit those things, but I say that because that is how bad the
situation is. That is how unwilling the Congress is to address this
problem even though it affects every single Senator and every single
Congressman in the entire United States of America without a single
exception.
How did this happen is the same question as asking why is it that
people complain about planes being late but don't take any interest in
aviation policy. We are a policy body. We are meant to deliberate; we
are meant to discuss issues. We don't. We don't take any interest in
aviation. So we complain but don't do anything. We take no interest in
railroad policy, and so we don't complain and we don't do anything.
As a result, the American Association of Railroads, which is one of
the all-time most powerful lobbying groups in the country, has its way.
As Senator Dorgan said, they have their way although there are only
really four or five railroads left. When I came here in 1985, as the
junior Senator from West Virginia, there were 50 or 60 class I
railroads. Those are the big ones. Now there are four or five, probably
soon to be two or three.
When the Staggers Act was passed to deregulate the railroads, which
unfortunately this Congress did in 1980, they divided it into two
parts. They said for those railroads which had competition, the market
would set the price. But they said there are about--let's pick the
number--20 percent of all railroads which have no competition. In the
coal mines, steel mills, granaries, and manufacturing facilities that
these railroads serve, there is no competition. Their rates would be
determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission at that time. Now it
is called the Surface Transportation Board. Very few of my colleagues
know anything about the Surface Transportation Board or knew anything
about the Interstate Commerce Commission, even though many of their
people are suffering vastly from the consequences of the inaction of
these two bodies.
We don't have railroad competition in many aspects of our economy.
You can't move coal by a pickup truck and you can't fly it in an
airplane, you have to move it in a train. Sometimes you can put it in a
truck, but you have to basically put it in a train. The Presiding
Officer knows that very well; he comes from a State that produces coal.
I also am going to submit the same letter the Senator from North
Dakota did for the Record so it appears at the conclusion of my
remarks. It is an extraordinary letter to Chairman McCain and Senator
Hollings signed by 282 CEOs--not government relations people, not
lobbyists, but by CEOs. It is the most extraordinary document of
commitment and anger over a subject I have seen in the 16 years I have
been in the Senate. I have never seen anything like this before.
This is obviously a matter of enormous importance to my State. Most
of what we produce has to be moved by railroad: Chemicals; coal; steel;
lumber. It is a place where railroads have an enormous presence and
railroads dominate.
This letter seeks to make railroad policy a top concern. These people
say it is their top legislative concern. They represent virtually every
industry, and all parts of the country.
I don't know how we got to this situation. I think it is ignorance on
the part of the Congress, it is inattention, to some degree laziness on
the part of the Commerce Committee and the Congress. It doesn't rise to
the level of a crisis which hits us one day and grabs all the
headlines. It is like the ALS about which the Senator from New Jersey
was talking. It just creeps slowly. It just gradually destroys parts of
the economy.
Let me explain the situation this way. Imagine if I decided I wanted
to fly to Dallas, TX, from Charleston, WV, and I was told I had to go
through Atlanta. We don't have a lot of direct connections out of West
Virginia. And suppose the airline told me, told this Senator, that they
would not tell me how much my ticket would cost from Atlanta to Dallas.
I would be outraged. All kinds of people would jump into the action.
They couldn't do that. That would be illegal. It would be wrong.
The railroads can do what the airlines are prevented from doing. They
can refuse to quote you a price on what is called bottleneck
situations, where they will not tell you how much it is going to cost
on a monopoly segment. By doing that they control the price of whatever
you are shipping, wherever you are shipping it. That is wrong.
One of the reasons they are able to do that is that railroads, unlike
virtually every other industry that has been deregulated, have
antitrust exemption. Why do railroads have antitrust protection? Can
anybody give me a reason they would have antitrust protection? They
have been deregulated. No other industry that has been deregulated has
an exemption from our antitrust law, but the railroads do, because the
American Railroad Association moves very quietly and skillfully under
the radar of attention. It is a huge and powerful group. It doesn't
make waves, doesn't cause notice. It hands out tremendous amounts of
money, but they do their work below the radar screen.
As a result, when chemicals move out of the Kenawha Valley and the
Ohio Valley in West Virginia and when coal moves out of southern West
Virginia and northern West Virginia, we are victims in many
circumstances to captive shipping. We are captives of the railroads.
They can charge our companies whatever they want, and they do. It is
illegal, but the railroads have on their side the Surface
Transportation Board, which is supposed to ``regulate'' them, but
instead is concerned only with how much money the railroads are making.
So why should the railroads do anything other than make the most money
they can? And they do.
I know of no other situation like that in America. I come from a
family that knew something about monopoly. And, properly and correctly,
a President named Theodore Roosevelt came along and ended that because
it was wrong. It was done in those times. That is the way those
businesses were done, but it was wrong.
Well, it is wrong what the railroads are doing today on captive
shipping. For 16 years we have been fighting this--16 years, no
progress, nothing. The STB comes up and they say: We need to have rules
and regulations from the Congress. The folks in the Commerce Committee
say: We are having all kinds of hearings.
We don't have hearings. We technically have hearings, but they are
not hearings. They are not probing hearings. A couple people drop in; a
couple people drop out. Consumers everywhere suffer from this, and they
don't even know about it. We should, because it is our responsibility
to protect consumers. Where the law says the railroad companies cannot
do something which they are doing, we should be upset by that. And if
it is 20 percent of railroad traffic, we should be angry about it. But
we don't care. We don't care.
Again, many, if not most, of the products and commodities--coal and
chemicals especially--being shipped by companies in West Virginia these
products are shipped by companies, are shipped by companies that are
captive to a single railroad. Only one line serves most of these
plants. The railroads have all power: This is what you are going to
pay; if you don't want to pay it, then we won't serve you.
And they use a lot of other strong-arm tactics, which I will not go
into, although I am protected on the floor and I could, and I would be
happy to, but I won't do it. But they use strong-arm tactics; they know
how to use them and they do use them. There are four or five major
railroads, and they
[[Page 20864]]
can use strong-arm tactics and get away with it. All the others have
been merged and eaten up. So the shippers are forced to pay whatever
the railroads want to charge. If my colleagues think that is fair,
fine.
This is what it's like: When you walk into a grocery store to buy
bread, you know what bread is supposed to cost. But no, the grocer
says, no, you have to pay three times the usual cost. I don't think my
colleagues would stand for that. But my colleagues do put up with this,
by continuing to let railroads charge whatever they want--not what the
market says the cost should be--even though it costs their constituents
and companies in their states more money than it should, and puts
people out of work.
Why won't my colleagues get interested in this subject? Why won't
they require the STB and the railroads to follow the law? Why doesn't
the Commerce Committee take this more seriously?
I cannot remember any significant period of time since I have been in
this body that I have not had a steady flow of complaints from my
``captive'' shippers--large and small companies that are captive to one
railroad. They have no alternative but to pay what the railroad says
they must. There is only one line going in; what are they going to do?
Carry it out by hand? The Staggers Act said the railroads shouldn't
exercise this kind of control. The captive shippers cannot set their
own price. The railroads set the price on the monopoly segment, often
without telling shippers what the price is, and thereby control the
price along the entire route. This happens--today and every day--in the
American economy. This is free market?
So businesses in my State and in your State, Mr. President, and the
State of the Senator from Alaska are hindered from making the kinds of
profits and putting a number of people to work because we in Congress
choose to ignore an enormous American problem.
I'd like to say a little bit about why this has all happened. I have
talked about the diminution of the number of railroads. We have just
two railroads on the east coast and two on the west coast, and one
running the length of the Mississippi. These five railroads collect 95
percent of all freight revenues, as Senator Dorgan said. Pretty soon,
that number may be reduced to just two railroads, period. These
railroads are not exactly having a hard time. This level of
``competition''--with just a few railroads controlling 95 percent of
the traffic--means, prima facie, that we really have no competition at
all. You just say 95 percent, and there you have it. By definition,
there is no competition.
During the last 5 years, the pace of railroad consolidation has been
dizzying. In 1996, the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
Railroads threw the entire country into crisis. Did we care? Yes,
briefly, for a week or so. There were some stories in the Wall Street
Journal--we heard about the Houston railyard being shut down--and some
of the rest of the country noticed, too. It was a strange and confusing
railroad problem, and we didn't have time to figure it out; that was
our attitude. So it came and it went. But it cost endless millions of
dollars and endless lost jobs.
But we need to look at what happened. The results of that merger--
creating one huge, unresponsive railroad, from two large unresponsive
railroads--were major service disruptions, plant closings, thousands of
lost workdays, and endless millions of dollars lost by companies all
over this country.
We had the same thing on a smaller scale in West Virginia and in the
East. We have had our own merger. Conrail was divided kind of piecemeal
between CSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads. A period of disruption
followed that merger also--perhaps not the scale of the UP-SP debacle--
but still devastating and frustrating to my manufacturers in my State
and throughout the Northeast. The railroads didn't worry because they
knew nobody here was paying any attention.
Rail consolidation isn't the only culprit. Several unjustified and
counterintuitive rulings made by the Surface Transportation Board and
its predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, have
stifled railroad competition and made matters much worse.
These agencies have enormous power in our economy. Their key decision
was the 1996 ``bottleneck'' decision to which I have already referred.
That allows a railroad to remain in control of its essential
facilities, known as ``bottlenecks'' and effectively prevent a rail
customer from getting to a competing railroad, or even getting a price.
In other words, where railroads share a line, they won't let you use
it. They won't let anybody else use it. They won't tell you what it
would cost even if you work out some kind of arrangement. They control
the cost of shipping along your whole route, and they shut you down.
The court of appeals upheld the decision of the STB as not being
``arbitrary or capricious.'' So that seems to be on the side of the
railroads. In its decision, the court of appeals went out of its way to
say that the bottleneck decision was, one, not the only interpretation
that the STB could have made under the law; and, two, not necessarily
the interpretation the court itself would have made.
Since then, the STB, predictably, has refused to revisit this
decision and seems to take the official position that it does not have
the legal authority to reach any other conclusion without specific
direction from Congress to put competition first. Well, I don't have
any problem with that, except Congress hasn't been paying any attention
and probably won't do that anytime soon. There is no chance we will do
that in the Commerce Committee now. Public anger hasn't been
galvanized, and congressional anger hasn't been galvanized.
Congressional passiveness rules.
Under the protective rulings of the Surface Transportation Board,
railroads are the only industry in the Nation that have both been
deregulated and allowed to maintain monopoly power over its essential
facilities. Congress, the Federal agencies, and the Federal courts have
specifically prevented telephone companies, airlines, natural gas
pipelines, and electric utilities from controlling essential
facilities, while at the same time they enjoy the benefits of
deregulation.
I reject the notion that the Staggers Rail Act intentionally allowed
railroads to use their bottleneck facilities to prevent customers
access to competition. That is wildly illogical and wildly untrue. It
goes against every principle of the American market economy. Likewise,
it makes no sense, and runs counter to the law of the land, for the STB
to view protection of the financial health of the railroads as its
overriding mission, which they do. In all of their history, they have
never found a railroad to be revenue adequate. That is the technical
term. In other words, they have never found a railroad which is making
enough money. The railroads have to make more money, suppress
competition, according to the STB.
So if we in Congress really care about the long-term viability of the
freight railroad industry, we have to examine and make fundamental
changes to the policy. But first we have to understand it--and we
don't, and we won't, until people get motivated.
The railroad industry itself is given unwarranted special treatment,
about which I have spoken, regarding the antitrust review. They are
totally exempt from review by the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice. Instead, it is left to the Surface Transportation Board to
determine whether a merger or acquisition is ``in the public
interest.''
Now, fortunately, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, the STB
is quite concerned about its merger policy. Hurrah. They see, as I do,
the very real and ominous possibility that a final round of railroad
mergers could leave us with just two transcontinental railroads
carrying 97 percent of all American rail freight.
So the STB responded this year by instituting a 15-month moratorium
on major railroad mergers. They are also
[[Page 20865]]
conducting a rulemaking on their merger procedures.
I commend this unprecedented and important letter from 282 chief
executive officers of huge American companies and small American
companies to all of my colleagues. My guess is that very few colleagues
will read that letter because we are passive, because this issue is
under our radar. Or more accurately, we have decided to ignore it. When
it comes to ignoring this problem, we have an unblemished record of
success, even though our inaction hurts companies and people in every
part of this country.
Their letter sends a compelling message to Congress that the status
quo on railroad policy is unacceptable and must be changed. Senator
Burns, Senator Dorgan, and I have a bill to do exactly that, if we can
get anybody to pay attention to it.
I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West
Virginia. I sympathize with the exposure that his State has. Of course,
my State, unfortunately, is not connected to the rest of the United
States by rail. We have a State-owned railroad and would like to have
the opportunity to have a railroad connection. I am sympathetic to his
cause.
Energy Crisis
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of
situations that I think are paramount in our consideration of issues
before us today. I know most of my colleagues are aware of the current
situation in Belgrade and the uprising against the dictatorship of
Milosevic. I understand the situation is very grave at this time. I
know we are all hopeful there will be no serious loss of life as a
result of the uprising. I am sure my colleagues will join me in our
prayers and hopes that the opposition's Kostunica will be successful in
ousting Milosevic and instituting a democratic and peaceful new
government in Yugoslavia. I know the Senate hopes for the best and that
the nightmare in Yugoslavia may soon be at an end.
Unfortunately, we have a similar situation in the Middle East and the
fighting that is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Over 67 people have been killed.
I think it appropriate at a time when we are facing an energy crisis
in this country to recognize the volatility associated with the area
where we are most dependent on our oil supply; namely, the Middle East.
Fifty-eight percent of our oil is imported primarily from OPEC.
As we look at the situation today, we recognize the fragility, if you
will, and the sensitivity associated with relying on that part of the
world, particularly when we see the action by this administration in
the last few days of drawing down oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve which is set up for the specific purpose of ensuring that we
have an adequate supply in storage if, indeed, our supply sources are
interrupted.
By drawing that reserve down 30 million barrels, we sent a signal to
OPEC that we were drawing down own our savings account making us more
vulnerable, if you will, to those who hold the leverage on the supply
of oil; namely, OPEC, Venezuela, Mexico, and other countries.
I wanted to make that observation and further identify, if you will,
that we have a situation that needs correction. We still have time to
do it in this body; that is, to pass the EPCA reauthorization bill.
As a consequence of the effort by the majority leader yesterday to
bring that bill up--H.R. 2884--the reauthorization bill, I think it is
important that we recognize why we need it.
First, it reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
authorization expired in March of this year.
It creates a home heating oil reserve with a proper trigger mechanism
that is needed.
It provides State-led education programs on ``summer fill" and fuel
budgeting programs.
It requires the Secretary of Defense to concur with drawdowns and
indicate that those drawdowns will not impact national security.
It strengthens weatherization programs by increasing the per-dwelling
allowance.
It requires yearly reports on the status of fuel supply prior to the
heating season.
We have worked hard at trying to bring this to the floor and get it
passed.
Yesterday, the Senator from California indicated there was still
opposition to the bill. It is my understanding that comments were made
about the bipartisan substitute we have offered. As a consequence, I
believe there is a need for a response.
One, the Senator claimed that we could take up and pass the
underlying bill--H.R. 2884--without amendment.
This simply can't happen. The underlying bill does not contain
responsible trigger mechanisms to protect SPR from inappropriate
withdrawal.
The Secretary of Energy has asked for a more responsible trigger
mechanism than is contained in the underlying bill. The Secretary is
right. We need that. This is our insurance policy if we have a blowup
in the Middle East.
Second, by accepting the House bill, we would lose the opportunity to
strengthen the weatherization program contained in the substitute and
we would also lose the mandate for a yearly report from the Department
of Energy on the status of our fuel heading into the winter contained
in the substitute.
These are important issues. I am sure the Senator from California
would agree that she would support these.
But, as a consequence, to suggest that we can accept the House bill
that doesn't include the triggering mechanism is the very point that I
want to bring up.
The Senator from California also said the Federal Government should
not be in the oil business and that they don't do well in the oil
business. I certainly agree. We don't do well with the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. We have bought high and sold low out of that
reserve.
But it is even more important now that we have moved some of our oil
to build up a heating oil reserve.
Isn't it ironic that the facts are, since the beginning of this year,
more than 152,000 barrels of distillate--heating oils, light diesels,
and so forth--have been exported each day. We are exporting fuel oils
and heating oils that we ought to be holding in our reserve since we
have a shortage of heating oil for the Northeast States that are so
dependent on it. That is not what we are doing.
According to today's Wall Street Journal, that number is ballooning
even higher because of tight supplies and higher prices in Europe. In
other words, we need more of it here, but we are sending it over to
Europe--as opposed to the administration putting a closure or requiring
that crude oil be taken out of SPR and be refined for heating oil and
held in this country in reserve.
That isn't in the requirement for the 30 million barrels that went
out of SPR. The companies that bid on it can do whatever they wish with
it. So we haven't accomplished anything. Where is it going? It is going
to Europe.
I agree with the Senator from California that the Federal Government
should not be in the oil business. They are doing a lousy job of it,
and their SPR withdrawal is strictly a political cover to try to imply
that the administration is doing something about the crisis so we don't
get too excited about the election that is coming up. It is a charade.
The Senator from California claims the royalty-in-kind provisions are
a charade allowing oil companies to pay fair market value--and this
Senator is trying to undercut efforts to resolve valuation issues.
While I would like to take credit for all the provisions in our bill,
in fairness, they were worked out with the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Bingaman, and the administration. In fact, the
royalty-in-kind program was initiated in 1994 by none other than Vice
President Gore as part of the reinvention of government to
[[Page 20866]]
test new, more efficient ways of collecting its royalty share.
If the Senator from California is saying that Al Gore's efforts to
reinvent government have been a failure and have cost the American
taxpayer millions of dollars, I would certainly respect her opinion.
Furthermore, a provision requires that the Government receive
benefits ``equal to or greater'' than it would have received under a
royalty evaluation program.
Finally, the Senator accused me--the Senator from Alaska--of trying
to move this program ``in the dark of night.''
Well, I am disappointed by that statement. Prior to even taking this
substitute up on the floor, my staff approached the staff of the
Senator from California to work to resolve concerns in a good-faith
effort.
The staff of Senator Bingaman, the ranking member of the Energy
Committee, which I chair, spent countless hours answering the Senator's
questions and addressing her concerns. Unfortunately, those efforts
evidently have been unsuccessful.
So any argument that the RIK language in this bill has not gone
through an appropriate process pales in comparison to that alleged lack
of process involved in a ``rider'' on the same subject the Senator from
California supports in the Interior appropriations bill.
You cannot have it both ways.
The arguments are simply empty rhetoric premised on the assumption
that oil companies are inherently bad and any program dealing with them
must be flawed. The implication is that the oil companies are
profiteering.
There is no mention that we were selling oil in this country at $10 a
barrel a year ago. Now it is $33 a barrel.
Who sets the price of oil? Is it ``Big Oil'' in the United States?
No. It is OPEC. OPEC provides 58 percent of the supply. It is Venezuela
and Mexico. You pay the price, or you leave it.
I am prepared to bring up this bill under a reasonable time
agreement, debate the issue at length, and have the Senator from
California offer an amendment to strike the provision if she finds it
objectionable. That is her right. I support that right.
But it is time we move the Senate version of this very important bill
to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and establish a home
heating oil reserve, and get the administration focused on the reality
that the oil they propose to take out of SPR is being refined and sent
over to Europe to meet their heating oil demands. That is the reality.
If we don't move this legislation, the Senator from California will
have to bear the responsibility. It is unconscionable to me at a time
when we face an energy crisis--not only oil and natural gas but other
areas and in our electric industry--that we find some other important
bills being held up. We have passed out of the Committee an electric
power reliability bill. The purpose was the recognition that we have a
shortage of generating capability in this country.
We have not expanded our generating capacity to meet the demand. As a
consequence of that, we have not progressed with a distribution system
to meet the demand that is growing. So out of the Committee, along with
Senator Gorton, we specifically worked to get an electric power
reliability bill. It is sitting here waiting for passage. What it
does--and the administration wants it--it sets up a way to share the
shortage.
That sounds ironic, but we have a shortage of generating capacity. We
have seen spiking costs very high, hundreds and thousands of dollars,
for short periods of time. The reliability bill administers in a fair
manner, to ensure that if there is any surplus in one area, it is moved
to other areas without the exposure of spiking. We cannot seem to move
that on the floor of the other body. We are going into a timeframe
where, if we get a cold winter and higher electric demands, we will
need that legislation.
Another bill, of course, that we considered is our electricity
deregulation bill, a comprehensive bill. The problem was there was a
mandate to have 7\1/2\ percent of our energy derived from renewables.
That is easy to say. The administration mandated that bill. But there
is no way to enforce it because we simply don't have the technical
capability to achieve 7\1/2\ percent of our energy from non-hydro
renewables. It is less than 2 percent now.
They say we haven't spent enough money or been dedicated or made a
commitment. I remind my colleagues, we have extended in 5 years $1.5
billion in direct spending to subsidize development of renewables. We
have given tax incentives for renewables of $4.9 billion. I support
renewables, but we just can't pick them up. The wind doesn't always
blow outside. In my State of Alaska, it is not always sunny. Solar
panels do not always work.
As a consequence, I remind my colleagues, when you fly out of
Washington from time to time, you don't leave here on hot air, you need
energy. We have a crisis. We have not passed the electric power
reliability legislation, we have not passed comprehensive electricity
deregulation, and we are in a situation where we have taken oil from
SPR and now we are seeing that oil move to Europe.
I want to use the remaining time to do a contrast because I want to
emphasize the significance of the energy policies as proposed by our
two Presidential candidates. Make no mistake, on energy policy the
differences between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush could not be
more clear.
Let's look at costs. We have added up the Bush proposal, $7.1 billion
over 10 years. The Gore proposal, which the newspapers have added up--
which are usually somewhat favorable to the Vice President--costs 10
times more than that, somewhere between $80 and $125 billion. They are
still trying to pin down the figures. The Vice President wants to raise
prices and limit supply of fossil energy, which makes up over 80
percent of our energy needs. By discouraging domestic production, the
administration has forced us to be more dependent on foreign oil,
placing our national security at risk and, of course, raising prices.
The Vice President's only answer in the first debate was to give you
solar, wind, biomass technologies, that are not yet available. Again, I
remind my colleagues, we have spent $1.5 billion in direct spending and
$4.9 billion in tax incentives over 5 years trying to develop more
renewables.
In contrast, Governor Bush would expand domestic production of oil
and natural gas, reduce imports below 50 percent, and ensure affordable
and secure supplies by developing resources at home. He would invest
ample resources into emerging clean fossil technologies, renewable
energy, and energy conservation programs, but, most of all, he won't
bet on our energy future. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to
yield cleaner, more affordable energy sources for tomorrow.
Now, let's look at the record. The Vice President has said he has an
energy plan that focuses not only on increasing the supply but also
working on the consumption side. The facts show the Vice President
doesn't practice what he preaches. The administration has actually
decreased energy supply during the past 7\1/2\ years. They have opposed
domestic oil production and exploration. We have 17 percent less
production since Clinton-Gore took office. We have closed 136,000 oil
wells and 57,000 gas wells since 1992. They oppose the use of plentiful
American coal and clean coal technology. The EPA makes it uneconomical
to have a coal-generating plant. The demand is there for energy, but
clearly coal is simply almost off limits because of the process.
We force the nuclear industry to choke on its waste. We are one vote
short in this body of passing a veto override, yet the U.S. court of
appeals, in a liability case, ruled the Government had the
responsibility to take the waste. The cost to the taxpayers here is
somewhere between $40 and $80 billion in liability due the industry as
a consequence of the Federal Government's failure to honor the sanctity
of the contract.
They have threatened to tear down hydroelectric dams. Where are they
[[Page 20867]]
going to place the traffic that moves on barges? Put it on the
highways? That will take away 10 percent of our Nation's electricity.
They ignored electric power reliability and supply concerns. Go out
to San Diego and see the price spikes there--no new generation, no new
transmission in southern California.
They have claimed to support increased use of natural gas, yet they
have kept Federal lands off limits to natural gas production;
approximately 64 percent of the overthrust belt in the Midwest--
Wyoming, Colorado, Montana--is off limits to exploration. We all
remember in this body the Vice President coming and sitting as
President of the Senate, utilizing his tie-breaking vote in 1993 to
raise the gas tax.
We recall initially he wanted a Btu tax to reduce consumption of
energy when the administration first came in. There has been a series
of taxes. We heard a lot about it in the debate the other day. The Vice
President said the tax plan favors the richest 1 percent. Yet 2 percent
of the people pay 80 percent of the taxes. He didn't mention that.
Talking about crude oil and the Vice President, instead of doing
something to increase the domestic supply of oil, the Vice President
seems to want to blame big oil for profiteering as a cause for high
prices. This simply is an effort to distract attention from the real
problems, to cover for this Administration's lack of a real energy
strategy.
One year ago, oil was being given away at $10 a barrel. Who was
profiteering, Mr. Vice President? Were American oil companies simply
being generous? The small U.S. companies-- ``Small Oil''--were
suffering, with 136,000 stripper and marginal oil wells closed. Our
domestic energy industry was in real trouble. Stripper wells cannot
make it at $10 a barrel.
The six largest oil companies--Al Gore's ``big oil''--only comprise
15 percent of the world oil market. In contrast, OPEC--Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Iraq--produce 30 million barrels a day and
control 41 percent of the world's oil market. OPEC controls the supply.
Therefore, they set the price, not the United States.
If we don't like their price, I guess we don't have to buy their oil.
But obviously we are addicted to it. By discouraging domestic
exploration and increasing our reliance on foreign oil, the Vice
President would take away that option, essentially, forcing us to pay
OPEC's price for oil, holding us hostage to foreign governments, as the
case is now.
What about Governor Bush? He would encourage new domestic oil and gas
explorations. As he said Tuesday: The only way to become less dependent
on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore at home. Charity begins
at home.
Just opening up the ANWR Coastal Plain in my State of Alaska to
exploration would increase domestic production by a million barrels a
day. I bet it would drop the price of oil $10 to $15 a barrel. The same
amount, a million barrels a day, is slightly more than what we import
from Iraq. Here is a person we don't trust, whom we fought a war
against, yet we are dependent on, and that is Saddam Hussein. Shouldn't
we produce this oil at home rather than risk our national security by
relying on Iraq for energy needs?
Yesterday I gave a few facts, not fiction, about oil exploration and
gas exploration in my State. My colleague from Nevada, who is not on
the floor today, continued to refer to outdated estimates and
recoverable oil from ANWR using oil prices. He said at a price of $18 a
barrel, ANWR was likely to yield a low-end estimate of 2.4 billion
barrels, but that still is 1 million barrels a day for 6 years, Mr.
President.
And the prices will be much higher than that--they will be $25 a
barrel, or more. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the ANWR
Coastal Plain is likely to yield 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil,
nearly as much as Prudhoe Bay. But it is interesting to reflect on
Prudhoe Bay because that one area has supplied one-fifth of our oil
needs for the last 20 years. ANWR could do the same for the next 20
years. Remember the realities associated with estimates. They estimated
Prudhoe Bay would produce 10 billion barrels, and it has produced over
12 billion and is still producing over a million a day.
I want to talk about natural gas because Governor Bush's energy plan
is more than just increasing the domestic supply of oil. He would also
expand access to natural gas on Federal lands and build more gas
pipelines.
The Vice President makes no mention of natural gas, leaving the most
critical part of America's energy mix policy simply unsaid. Yet natural
gas is vital for home heating and electric power. 50 percent of U.S.
homes, 56 million, use natural gas for heating. Natural gas provides 15
percent of our Nation's electric power, and that generating capability
has no place to go for more capacity other than natural gas because you
can't get permitted. Mr. President, 95 percent of our new electric
power plants will be powered by natural gas as the fuel of choice, but
this administration refuses to allow the exploration and production of
gas, or the construction of pipelines, to increase the supply of gas to
customers.
Demand has gone up faster than supply. This yields higher prices. And
our demand for gas will only increase. The EIA expects natural gas
consumption to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet now to 30 to 35
trillion cubic feet by 2010.
The administration touts natural gas as its bridge to the energy
future--our cleanest fossil fuel--fewer emissions, efficient end use
for industrial and residential applications, huge domestic supply, no
need to rely on imports. Yet they place Federal lands off limits to new
natural gas production. Where are we going to get it? Mr. President, 64
percent of the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt is off limits. The
roadless policy of the Foreign Service locks up 40 million acres of
public land, and there is a moratorium on OCS drilling until 2012.
Where is it going to come from, thin air?
Al Gore would even cancel existing leases. He made a statement in
Rye, NH, on October 21, 1999:
I'll make sure there is no new oil leasing off the coasts
of California and Florida. And then I would go much further:
I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is
no new drilling off these sensitive areas--even in areas
already leased by previous administrations.
The American people ought to wake up. Where is our energy going to
come from? Now there is no strategic natural gas reserve, is there,
like we have for an oil, for the Vice President to fall back on in the
case of natural gas prices. This administration simply ignored energy,
and now we are in trouble and they are covering their behind.
Natural gas is now over $5.30 per thousand cubic feet. Less than 10
months ago it was $2.16.
The differences are clear. The Vice President would limit new natural
gas production and force higher prices for consumers. Governor Bush
would encourage domestic production of natural gas and the construction
of pipelines to get it there.
We talked, finally, about renewables. The Vice President said Tuesday
that:
We have to bet on the future and move beyond the current
technologies to have a whole new generation of more
efficient, cleaner energy technologies.
That sounds fine, but how are we going to get there? I think we all
agree in this case our energy strategy should include improved energy
efficiency, as well as expanded use of alternative fuels and renewable
energy and a mix of fuel oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro.
But the critical question is how do you get there from here? The Vice
President would make a bet. He would bet that by diminishing supply of
conventional fuels such as oil and natural gas, you will be more
willing to pay higher prices and make renewables competitive. He will
support higher energy taxes, just as he did in 1993 when he cast the
tie-breaking vote to raise gas taxes. And he will favor more
regulations, more central controls on energy use standards for each
part of our everyday life.
The Vice President will tell you what kind of energy you could use,
how much of it you could use, and how much you would have to pay for
it.
[[Page 20868]]
In contrast, Governor Bush would harness America's innovative
technological capability and give us the technologies of tomorrow by
using the American ``can do'' spirit. Governor Bush would set aside the
up-front funds from leasing Federal lands from ANWR, for oil and gas--
the ``bid bonuses''--to be earmarked for basic research into renewable
energy. He has a plan. It is a workable plan. It is not smoke and
mirrors. The production royalty from oil and gas leases would be
invested in energy conservation and low-income family programs such as
LIHEAP or weatherization assistance. Using tax incentives, Governor
Bush would expand use of renewable energy in the marketplace--building
on successful experience in the State of Texas. As a result of Governor
Bush's efforts on electricity restructuring, Texas will be one of the
largest markets for renewable energy, about 2000 new megawatts.
Finally, Governor Bush would also maintain existing hydroelectric
dams and streamline the Federal relicensing process. Al Gore would
breach the dams in the Pacific Northwest.
The Vice President will try to lay the blame on Congress. He said we
have only approved about 10 percent of their budget requests for
renewable energy. Here again the Vice President is twisting the facts.
According to the Congressional Research Service, we have provided $2.88
billion in funding for renewable energy since 1992; 86 percent of their
request.
The conclusion, the bottom line, is the contrast between the
candidates and their energy policies could not be more clear. The Vice
President wants to raise prices and limit the supply of fossil energy
which makes up over 80 percent of our energy needs, replacing it with
solar, wind, and biomass technologies which are just not widely
available or affordable today.
Governor Bush would expand the domestic production of oil and natural
gas, ensuring affordable and secure supplies. He won't bet on our
energy future. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to yield
cleaner more affordable energy sources for tomorrow.
The choice for the American consumers on November 7 is clear. Support
a candidate with a positive plan to reduce dependence on Saddam
Hussein, the Middle East, and other areas; produce here at home and use
all our energy resources, our coal, our oil, our hydro, our nuclear,
and natural gas because we are going to need them all to keep the U.S.
economy going.
Remember, you can't fly out of here on hot air.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The time until 2 o'clock is
under the control of the Senator from Illinois.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed
to speak for up to 5 minutes, with the consent from the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Yugoslavia
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my intention to speak for a
couple of minutes, and then I will suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask if the distinguished Chair would also like to say a few words. And
if he indicates such, I will step aside.
I want to speak about something that is happening that is very
important to our country and to the rest of the world. As we speak,
hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavian people are demonstrating in the
streets, saying they want the election result to be declared. It was an
election. There is a question about how free it was.
Certainly President Milosevic is trying to have a runoff, to have
time to get his troops back together. But it is clear the people of
Yugoslavia are standing up for their rights. During all the time the
United States has been dealing with the issue of President Milosevic
and his wife continuing to keep down the people of Yugoslavia and the
satellite countries--Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo--to keep them from
having the opportunity to express their free will, we in America have
said to the people of Yugoslavia: Please, make your voices heard.
We will be supportive of what the people of that country want to
happen. Clearly, there has been somewhat of a revolution in this last
election period.
I hope and pray for the people of Yugoslavia that they will get their
voice, that they will have their voices heard, that they will have
representation in Parliament, and that the truly elected President of
Yugoslavia will be able to take office.
It is impossible for us to know if the election was fair. It is
impossible for us to know if there should be a runoff. Certainly the
people have taken matters into their own hands, and they have shown a
spirit that cannot be denied.
The hearts and prayers of the people of America are with the people
of Yugoslavia today, hoping they will be able to have a free and fair
Presidential election; that they will be able to have a Parliament that
is truly representative of the people of Yugoslavia. That extends to
the people of Montenegro, the people of Macedonia, the people of
Kosovo, that they, too, will have their free will to be in control of
their countries.
We are watching in our country and we wish them the best. We hope the
people of Yugoslavia can take control of their own destiny. That is
what we would wish for every person in the world, for every country in
the world, and no less certainly for Yugoslavia.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to all the
Members of this distinguished body and, in particular, our Senate
leaders on both sides of the aisle for the opportunity they have given
me over the last couple days to speak to a matter of great importance,
in my mind, a matter which, though it concerns only a relatively small
portion of the Interior conference committee report that is before the
Senate, I think nonetheless is a matter that goes to the heart of the
Government's appropriations process.
I want to review and describe the filibuster I have conducted since
about 2 days ago. It has had four major parts.
First, I explained the project about which I was concerned: The
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library to be built in Springfield, IL.
This is a project I support, and I am working to help make sure the
project is adequately funded over the next couple years in the Senate.
Second, I explained our insistence on Federal competitive bidding and
described the bill the Senate supported which detailed the competitive
bid provision. This body, on its own, when focused on the narrow issue
of whether the Federal funding the Congress is approving for the
Abraham Lincoln Library would require that the project be competitively
bid in accordance with Federal bidding guidelines, all Members from all
50 States, agreed that the Federal competitive bid guidelines should be
attached.
However, the Interior conference committee report that is before us
has stripped out that competitive bidding requirement, and since the
project now is in the heart of this Appropriations Committee report,
which has many other projects and appropriations for programs and
Departments of the Federal Government all over the country, it is now
in a bill that will no doubt pass the Senate.
Third, I compared the State versus the Federal procurement process
and procedure.
Finally, I gave the context in which these concerns arise. I read a
series of articles from publications from throughout the State of
Illinois that discussed, first, the various contexts in which the
issues of competitive bidding have come up in the State of Illinois
and, second, the potential for insider abuse when there are not tight
requirements that competitive bidding be applied to a government
construction project or a government lease or to
[[Page 20869]]
practically any kind of project in which the Federal or State
government is involved.
It has been my effort to make the best possible case that Federal
competitive bidding rules should be attached to the Lincoln Library.
I began by reviewing the time line of this project. This project was
first discussed 2 years ago, or more, under the administration of then
Gov. Jim Edgar of the State of Illinois. In the first few months of
February 1998, Governor Edgar at that time was proposing a $40 million
library. Later, we saw how, by March of 1999 in a new administration,
the project had grown to a $60 million project. Then we saw how, by
April of 1999, they were discussing $148 million project to construct
the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, IL.
Since then, I think the numbers have fallen back down, and we are
really talking about a $115 million to $120 million project: $50
million will come from the Federal Government, $50 million will come
from the State, and the rest will come from private sources.
I also talked about the specific language in the Interior conference
committee report that is before us.
I noted that that authorization for $50 million in funding, coupled
with an appropriation for $10 million that would be distributed in this
fiscal year, does not specify who is to get the $50 million
authorization. The authorization language does not require that the
money be delivered to the State of Illinois. It says the money will be
delivered to an entity that will be selected later by the Department of
the Interior in consultation with the Governor of the State of
Illinois.
I have been concerned by the wide open nature of that language. When
you think about wording a bill that money will be funneled to an entity
that is going to be selected later, we do not know what that entity is.
That raises cause for concern. What happens if that money falls outside
of the hands of State or Federal officials altogether and is in private
hands? Will there be any controls on it at all?
I also mentioned that I was concerned, if this money did go to the
State of Illinois--it may well go to the State of Illinois--the State
would probably hand it over to its Capital Development Board.
I noted that the Illinois Capital Development Board, which builds
many of the State's buildings, such as prisons, built the State of
Illinois Building in the city of Chicago, IL. They have an unusual
provision in the general State procurement code, a highly irregular and
unusual provision, that allows the Capital Development Board to
establish ``by rule construction purchases that may be made without
competitive sealed bidding and the most competitive alternate method of
source selection that shall be used.''
I pointed out that with this lack of a hard and fast requirement, if
the money were to flow to the State of Illinois, and the Capital
Development Board were to construct this library, the Capital
Development Board, by their own statute, would have the authority to
opt out of competitively bidding this project.
I do not think a project of any magnitude, paid for by the taxpayers,
should be done without competitive bidding. Obviously, there is too
much potential for abuse. We want to make sure we get the best value
for the taxpayers. It would be irresponsible for the Congress to not
require competitive bidding, in my judgment, and not just on a small
project but most particularly for a very large project such as this, a
$120 million project.
I also want to note--to give some scale to the size of a $120 million
building--we have some Illinois structures and cost comparisons. The
source for this is the State Journal-Register, the newspaper in
Springfield, IL, from a May 1, 2000, article.
They said that the estimated cost, adjusted for inflation, of
building the Illinois State Capitol in today's dollars would be $70
million. So $120 million is much more expensive. The Lincoln Library
would be much more expensive than the State capital.
There is another building in Springfield that is worth $70 million.
That is the Illinois State Revenue Department building, the Willard Ice
Building, built in 1981 to 1984. It would probably cost about $70
million to build. That is a huge building.
The Prairie Capital Convention Center: It is estimated to have cost
$60 million in today's dollars.
The Abraham Lincoln Library will be much more expensive than all of
these very major buildings in Springfield, IL. On a project of this
magnitude, obviously we need to have the construction contracts
competitively bid.
In discussing the State procurement code, I noted that the State
Capital Development Board had the ability to opt out of competitively
bidding projects. It was for that reason, when I saw the language of
this measure that originally came over to us from the House, I decided
we ought to look at attaching tougher guidelines.
We compared the State procurement code to the Federal procurement
code, and I determined that in order that we not have to worry about
the State opting out of competitive bidding, and in order that we not
have to worry about some other flaws in the State procurement code, we
would instead attach the Federal guidelines.
When I was in Springfield as a State senator for 6 years, back in
1997 I voted for the current State procurement code. It is indeed some
improvement over the old State procurement laws. Nonetheless, it does
have some problems and it could be better. I regret that I missed the
loophole that allows the Capital Development Board to opt out of
competitively bidding a project.
I also discussed, at length, yesterday how the Capital Development
Board was sending around a letter saying they would competitively bid
this project, no matter what. They also suggested that their rules
require them to competitively bid this project.
That contention is conclusively demolished by the language of the
State statute, which shows that they do not have to competitively bid.
They are sending out a letter saying they would competitively bid.
Obviously, that does not create a legal requirement. They sent the
letter to me. Maybe it creates a contractual obligation to me, but it
does not make them legally accountable in the bidding process. How can
you hold someone accountable if the code is optional? That is the
problem with the State procurement code.
Furthermore, I noted, when I had a discussion with Senator Durbin--
he, of course, along with all other Senators in this body, supported
the passage of the Senate provision which required competitive bidding
in accordance with the Federal guidelines. However, he did raise the
question, How would the State be able to adapt itself so it would apply
the Federal competitive bidding guidelines?
I pointed out that the State code contemplates, in fact, that from
time to time Federal guidelines will be attached on grants from the
Federal Government and that the State has statutory authority to adopt
all its forms and procedures in order to make sure they can comply with
guidelines imposed by the Federal Government, much in the same way the
State would have to comply with any guidelines the Federal Government
gave along with funding for education, for health care for the
indigent, for Medicaid dollars, or the like. Absolutely, there is
nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything unusual about that. That
is why the State contemplates it in its procurement code.
I also reviewed, at length, the context in which this debate has
occurred. I read a series of articles from publications throughout the
State of Illinois into the Record. Those articles discuss the various
contexts in which competitive bidding had come up before in the
awarding of construction contracts, of leases for State buildings, of
licenses for riverboats.
I also discussed loans the State had given out back in the early
1980s to build luxury hotels, loans that never were repaid, and it
seemed the borrowers had never really been held fully accountable.
I told you that from my experience of several years in the Illinois
State legislature, I could not casually dismiss this history. It is
seared in my memory
[[Page 20870]]
from many bruising battles I had when I was a State senator in the
Illinois State Senate from 1993 to the end of 1998.
Finally, we asked the question whether the Lincoln Library is another
one of those insider deals, such as the ones we discussed when we read
into the Record stories of leases of State buildings to the State in
which it seemed the people who owned the property made out real well
but the State seemed to be paying very exorbitant rental rates, and
also mishaps that we had with construction projects in the past.
We described how, with the very lucrative Illinois riverboat
licenses, some of which could be worth in the hundreds of millions of
dollars each, the minute you got one of those riverboat licenses, you
would have the ability to earn in some cases $100 million a year, and
that these licenses could be considered extremely valuable. They would
probably sell on the open market for many times the amount of annual
earnings that would accrue to one of those licenses.
We described how those very valuable licenses were given out in the
State of Illinois on a no-bid basis for a total consideration of
$85,000 apiece. I described how I thought that was wrong, that those
licenses, instead of being handed out as political bonbons to connected
political insiders who happen to be longtime, big-dollar contributors
to both sides of the aisle, that we should not have just given them
away like that. They should have been competitively bid, and the people
who wanted those lucrative licenses should not have been going through
the legislature or through a gaming board made up of officials
handpicked by the Governor to see who would become the next
multimillionaire in the State of Illinois.
Had we had competitive bidding for those riverboat licenses, then we
might not have had all the articles written about how it was that only
a handful of politically connected people just happened to wind up
being the ones who got these phenomenally lucrative gambling licenses.
They were lucrative licenses not only because they were gambling
licenses but because they were monopoly licenses. There could be only
10 riverboats in the State of Illinois. If there could only be 10
restaurants or 10 hotels in the State of Illinois, then the license to
operate one of those restaurants or hotels would be very valuable as
well.
We reviewed at length all the problems that happened and all the
questions that get raised when a governmental body gives out privileges
or contracts or leases without tight procedures to make sure that
political favoritism does not enter into the equation and without tight
guidelines to make sure there is a fair and equitable competitive
bidding process.
After this whole discussion, in which some names of prominent
political people seemed to be coming up again and again and again in
many of the articles, we finally arrived at the question, is this
Abraham Lincoln Library to be built in Springfield--the construction
has not started yet; it is scheduled to start on Lincoln's birthday
next year, 2001; they have awarded some architecture and engineering
contracts and some design contracts--just another insider deal? We
concluded that it may or may not be. We won't know until it is done,
until we see how it is done. But we concluded that, clearly, given the
whole history of problems we have seen again and again and again in
recent State history with the awarding of construction contracts,
leases, privileges, licenses, that we ought to do our very best to
prevent this project from becoming just one more insider deal. And we
noted what a horrible, ugly irony it would be if a monument to ``Honest
Abe'' Lincoln, arguably our country's greatest President, wound up
having any taint at all.
That is what we are seeking to avoid. We should do our very best to
prevent it from becoming an insider deal.
Moreover, we have many red flags that have to be taken into account.
We have the price increases from $40 to $60 to now $120 million. We
have the location of the library. The library site has recently been
selected. This is a map of Springfield. This is the State Capitol
complex. This is where Abraham Lincoln's home is. It is now run by the
National Park Service. There is, in fact, an entire neighborhood that
has been renovated and kept up to look as we think it looked in the day
and age that Abraham Lincoln and his family lived there.
This is where the Capital Convention Center is. This is where the
Abraham Lincoln Library is now planned. That was the site selected.
Maybe that is the best site. I don't know. One may never know. It is
close to the old State Capitol, which Abraham Lincoln actually served
in and spoke in when he was a State legislator. It is near the Abraham
Lincoln law office. Is it the best site? I don't know. Did political
favoritism come into consideration in selecting that site? I don't
know. We don't know.
One thing is interesting, though. This hotel, the Renaissance
Springfield Hotel, is very close to the proposed library. That is the
hotel that, as we discussed yesterday, was built with taxpayer money in
the form of a State loan given out back in the early 1980s. The loan
was never paid back, though some payments were made on the loan. The
people who got the loan still own the hotel and still manage it.
Presumably if the Lincoln Library results in increased tourism revenue
and more people coming to visit the city of Springfield, there will be
a lot of tourist dollars. Some projections estimate as much as $140
million in tourist revenue will be added by the construction of the
library in Springfield. Certainly some of that would probably accrue to
the benefit of those who have the Renaissance Springfield Hotel.
The price increases, the location of the library, we note these
things. We note the involvement of individuals whose names have come up
in the past and were described again and again in many of the articles
read into the Record. And we note the general problem that the State
has had with projects such as this in the past.
Given all these red flags, isn't it appropriate that we be extra
careful and that we do everything we can to ensure that the project be
appropriately competitively bid? It is for that reason that I attached
the Federal competitive bid guidelines when the authorization bill came
into the Senate. These guidelines were adopted unanimously in the
Senate Energy Committee and, ultimately, the whole Senate unanimously
adopted these guidelines and sent the bill back to the House.
We are here today because we have to vote on the Interior conference
committee report which has appropriations for the project tucked in,
but with the Senate requirements for competitive bidding in accordance
with Federal guidelines stripped out. It is the fact that those
competitive bid guidelines are not contained within the authorization
and appropriations for the library in this Interior conference
committee report that I am here on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, this debate, as I have said, goes to the very heart of
the appropriations process itself. We need to take great care with the
taxpayers' money. The money represents precious hours of hard work,
sweat, and time away from their families. The American people are
fundamentally generous and they will permit reasonable expenditures for
the good of their country and their communities. The people of
Springfield, IL, are as generous as any, and they are as fine a people
as any.
I have heard more from the people of Springfield, IL, than from
anywhere else in my State about the importance to them of having an
honest and ethical bidding process on this library that they hope will
be a credit to their community for ages to come. But while the people
are generous and they are willing to permit us to make reasonable
expenditures in support of our States and communities, the taxpayers do
expect that they not be abused. We need to do our best to make sure
there are sufficient safeguards so that the people can know their hard
work is not being trampled on, that politically connected individuals
are not deriving
[[Page 20871]]
private profit at the expense of the taxpayers, all under the guise of
a public works project.
I know that in this Chamber our remarks go out to the entire country.
I am well aware of it in this debate because our office is receiving
correspondence from people all over the United States who find
interesting what has happened in Illinois. But I want to address these
remarks now exclusively to the people of my State--the land of
Lincoln--Illinois.
In a very short time now, the Senate will soon take a vote on the
Interior appropriations conference report. This is the vehicle that
contains the Lincoln Library provisions we have been talking about in
this filibuster.
When the Senate votes, we will lose because the Interior bill itself
is a bill with considerable support for projects around the country--it
is an $18 billion bill that literally has implications for every State
in the Nation--my colleagues will vote for it. Even those who, along
with me, believe the Lincoln Library should have Federal competitive
bidding rules attached to the money that will be appropriated today
will do so.
As I have noted, all Members of this body, earlier this week, voted
in favor of Federal competitive bidding guidelines for this project
when we had a vote just on that narrow issue. We cannot have a vote to
take out the language that is in the conference committee report that
does not require the competitive bidding. These are the rules of the
Senate. However, when the vote is called and we lose, I do not want the
people of Illinois to be discouraged by the difficulties we have
encountered. If nothing else, from the materials we have introduced
into the Record, it is clear that the political culture of Illinois is
entrenched and formidable--so entrenched and formidable that a simple
provision such as competitive bidding could become controversial.
Our effort in these last couple of days is just a baby step. Real
change can only come as the people of Illinois see more, know more, and
gradually come to realize that they do indeed have the power to make it
different. Real change comes from the bottom, from the people up. All
those of us in this body can do is observe, think, exercise our very
best judgment, and then make the case.
Today and yesterday, we have made the case. In a little while, the
opponents of our simple competitive bid requirement will prevail. But
the next time you hear of leases, or loans, or capital projects, or
riverboat licenses going to political insiders, you will remember this
debate; and together we will rejoin the fight and redouble our efforts
for the next time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? I object.
Mr. GRASSLEY. May I speak just on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't want to go through that if I don't have to.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to
the occupant of the chair, Senator Voinovich from Ohio.
(Mr. FITZGERALD assumed the chair.)
Elections in the Balkans
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as my colleagues are well aware, I have
a keen interest in what happens in the Balkans because I believe what
happens in Southeastern Europe impacts on our national security, our
economic well-being in Europe, the stability of Europe and yes, world
peace.
For the better part of the 20th Century, Western Europe and the U.S.
have had an enormous stake in what has occurred in Southeastern Europe.
However, we have not done enough to pay attention to what is
happening there, dating back to the time when former Secretary of
State, Jim Baker, said of Yugoslavia that ``we don't have a dog in this
fight.''
Unfortunately, that line of thinking has prevailed, and we've allowed
Slobodan Milosevic to wreak havoc. Over the last decade, he has spread
death and destruction to the people of Serbia, Kosovo and Croatia and
we all know that U.S. troops now are in Kosovo and Bosnia because of
him.
Even a U.S. and NATO led air war last year was not sufficient to
bring an end to the Milosevic regime.
Since the end of the war, I have been working hard on three essential
items that I believe will bring peace and stability to the region.
First, I have been working with leaders here and abroad to help stop
the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; second, to try and make sure that we
keep our promises to the Stability Pact of Southeast Europe. To that
end, I recently met with Bodo Homback, the head of the Stability Pact
to underscore the importance of the Stability Pact; and third, I have
been working tirelessly to support democracy in Serbia, a cause I took
on when I was governor of the State of Ohio.
When I was in Bucharest at the Organization for the Security and
Cooperation of Europe, OSCE, in July of this year, I introduced a
resolution on Southeastern Europe that called to the attention of the
OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly the situation in Kosovo and Serbia, and
made clear the importance of democracy in Serbia.
I pointed out to my OSCE colleagues in that resolution that Milosevic
was a threat to the stability, peace and prosperity of the region. I
argued that in order for the nations of that region to become fully
integrated into Europe--for the first time in modern history--
Milosevic's removal from office was absolutely essential.
My resolution put the OSCE, as a body, on record as condemning the
Milosevic regime and insisting on the restoration of human rights, the
rule of law, free press and respect for ethnic minorities in Serbia. I
was pleased that my resolution passed, despite strong opposition by the
delegation from the Russian Federation.
Many people had become resigned to the fact that if the NATO bombing
and the hardships that followed the end of the air war did not produce
widespread anti-Milosevic sentiment, the prospect for Milosevic's
removal from office by the Serbian people would not happen any time
soon. Even Milosevic himself felt confident enough in his rulership of
Yugoslavia to call for general elections nine months earlier than they
were supposed to occur.
On Sunday, September 24th, historic elections took place in
Yugoslavia in spite of the worst type of conditions that could possibly
hamper free and fair elections, including military and police presence
at polling places; ballots counted by Milosevic appointees; reports of
``ballot stuffing;'' intimidation of voters during the election
process; and the refusal to allow independent observers to monitor
election practices and results.
In spite of all that, the people won. They won because of the old
Serbian slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--which translates into
``only unity can save the Serbs'', or, ``in unity there is strength for
the Serbs.''
And I might say the opposition finally got its act together with
prayers to St. Sava, and with enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.
It was the political force of the people that propelled law
professor, and political unknown, Vojislav Kostunica, to victory.
This monumental victory over an indicted war criminal proves that the
Serb people strongly desire positive change. They want to see their
country move beyond the angry rhetoric and nationalistic fires fanned
by Milosevic.
And let me make this point clear: Mr. Kostunica's victory and his
support are not the result of Western influence.
And although Milosevic had previously acknowledged that Mr. Kostunica
had more votes, we learned yesterday afternoon that his pawns on the
constitutional court declared that the September 24th elections were
unconstitutional.
This latest and most blatant attempt by Milosevic to thwart the will
of the people is the final insult to the citizens of Yugoslavia.
[[Page 20872]]
The citizens of Yugoslavia--through a constitutional election--have
spoken. They have elected a new President.
The Serb people, driven by a desire to live free from the
dictatorship of Milosevic, have been pushed to take their election
mandate by force. They are, at this very moment, engaged in a struggle
to throw off the shackles of oppression.
In light of these developments, I am prayerful that the Serb people
will be able to enforce their will, and that they will remember their
slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--and remain united at this very
important time for freedom.
I also pray that the Serb military and police forces will avoid
bloodshed, recognizing that their brothers and sisters only seek the
freedom that a tyrant has denied them.
Let me be clear, Mr. President: this is not a revolution. The Serb
people are enforcing the mandate of their election because this man who
has been beaten refuses to relinquish power.
He ought to understand that he's either going to walk out of there or
go out on a stretcher or in a body bag.
Mr. President, we in the United States must render our support to the
Serb people immediately, and convince our allies and the nations of the
world that Vojislav Kostunica is the new and legitimately elected
leader of Serbia, and we need to convince Russia that they should
immediately tell Milosevic that the game is over; it's time to go.
Mr. President, we also need to assure the Serbian people--who have
been long-standing friends of this nation and also our allies in World
War II--that we are still their friends and that it is Milosevic who
has been the problem, not the Serbian people.
The Serb people need to know that with their new leader, Vojislav
Kostunica, we will remove our sanctions against Serbia and help them
re-invigorate their economy and re-establish their self-respect and the
United States will welcome them into the light of freedom and a bright
new chapter in Serbian history.
Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, we are witness to the belated
if inevitable fall of a tyrannical regime that failed to convince the
population under its control that its worst enemy lay outside that
nation's borders. As I speak, the Serbian people are storming
Yugoslavia's Parliament building and seizing television stations. In
the town of Kolubara, coal miners and tens of thousands of supporters
have openly and peacefully defied the Milosevic regime's efforts at
stemming the tide of history. A regime that stands accused of crimes
against humanity is on its deathbed, and the United States must not
hesitate to declare its unequivocal support for those brave enough to
defy that regime.
The people of Yugoslavia have spoken very clearly. They turned out to
elect a new President, and Slobodan Milosevic's efforts to manipulate
the democratic process has not succeeded. The formidable internal
security apparatus that Milosevic and his supporters in the Socialist
Party, as well as the Yugoslav United Left, the Communist organization
led by his wife Mirjana Markovic, have established cannot save him.
The new defense doctrine President Milosevic approved just 2 months
ago listed as its highest priority preservation of the regime that
today finds itself under the gravest threat to its survival. While the
United States must exercise care in how its role in developments in
Serbia are perceived, it must not fail to lend its moral support to
those fighting for democracy.
Since 1992, the Balkans have been the scene of the bloodiest fighting
in Europe since World War II. The wars that have ravaged Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Kosovo produced a list of war criminals that will take
years to try, in the event they are brought to justice. A tremendous
amount of the blame for that situation resides in one man--Slobodan
Milosevic. He was instrumental in creating the environment in which
those atrocities occurred and presided over military campaigns that
gave the world a new and onerous phrase: ethnic cleansing.
There are those who believe the United States did not have a role to
play in supporting democratization in Serbia. Those of us who supported
S.720, the Serbia Democratization Act, however, have remained firm in
our conviction that U.S. support for democracy in that troubled nation
was something to be proud of and could play a positive role in
facilitating positive change in Yugoslavia. That S.720 has remained
stuck in the House is unfortunate, but the message that it sent merely
by its introduction was powerful. We cannot selectively stand for
freedom and should not be ashamed that it provides the moral foundation
of our foreign policy. Ongoing events in Serbia illustrate vividly the
intense desire for democracy in Serbia and the United States should not
hesitate to state its strong support for the election of Vojislav
Kostunica and for the forces of change in Yugoslavia.
The Balkan powderkeg is facing its most promising period of change
since the end of the Cold War. We should not be idle witnesses to that
change. I urge the House to speak forcefully on this issue by passing
the Serbia Democratization Act at once. The symbolism of U.S. support
for democratic change will not play into the hands of a discredited
regime in its death throes. On the contrary, it will tell the people of
Yugoslavia that we stand with them on the verge of a new era.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Department of the Interior
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations
bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required under
the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote:
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--8
Breaux
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Inhofe
Landrieu
McCain
Smith
NOT VOTING--3
Feinstein
Jeffords
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 8.
[[Page 20873]]
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Presiding Officer state what the order of
business is now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a time limit on the conference
report, 10 minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, 30 minutes under the control of Senator
Landrieu, and 15 minutes under the control of Senator McCain.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of the unauthorized and
unrequested earmarks, earmarks added in conference, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
____________________
Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 4578, Conference Report for FY 2001,
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill Language
Additional $1,762,000 for assessment of the mineral
potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010
of Public Law 96-487.
Earmark of $2,000,000 provided to local governments in
southern California for planning associated with the Natural
Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program.
Earmark of $1,607,000 for security enhancements in
Washington, D.C.
Earmark of $1,595,000 for the acquisition of interests in
Ferry Farm, George Washington's Boyhood Home and for
management of the home.
An additional $5,000,000 for Save America's Treasures for
various locale-specific projects.
Earmark of $650,000 for Lake Champlain National Historic
Landmarks.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Kendall County Courthouse.
Earmark of $365,000 for the U.S. Grant Boyhood Home
National Historic Landmark which should be derived from the
Historic Preservation Fund.
Earmark of $1,000,000 of the total of the grants made
available to the State of Maryland under Title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 if the
amount is set aside in an acid mine drainage abatement and
treatment fund established under a State law.
Earmark of $300,000 shall be for a grant to Alaska Pacific
University for the development of an ANILCA training
curriculum.
Provision stating that none of the funds in this Act may be
used to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the
Kankakee River basin that is inconsistent with the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding
and siltation in that area.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall designate
Anchorage, Alaska, as a port of entry for the purpose of
section 9(f)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Harvey
R. Redmond of Girdwood, Alaska, at no cost, all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to United States
Survey No. 12192, Alaska, consisting of 49.96 acres located
in the vicinity of T. 9N., R., 3E., Seward Meridian, Alaska.
Provision which requires a land exchange regarding the
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish refuge.
Provision which authorizes a land exchange in Washington
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Othello Housing
Authority.
Provision which authorizes the establishment of the First
Ladies National Historic Site in Canton, Ohio.
Provision which authorizes the Palace of Governors in New
Mexico.
Provision which authorizes the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Heritage Preservation Commission.
Provision which redesignates the Cuyahoga Valley National
Recreation Area as a National Park.
Provision which authorizes the Wheeling National Heritage
Area in West Virginia.
Earmark of $500,000 to be available for law enforcement
purposes on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests.
Earmark of $990,000 for the purpose of implementing the
Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which shall be available to
the Secretary for the management of the Valles Caldera
National Preserve, New Mexico.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to be allocated to the Alaska Region,
in addition to its normal allocation for the purposes of
preparing additional timber for sale, to establish a 3-year
timber supply and such funds may be transferred to other
appropriations accounts as necessary to maximize
accomplishment.
Earmark of $700,000 shall be provided to the State of
Alaska for monitoring activities at Forest Service log
transfer facilities, in the form of an advance, direct lump
sum payment.
Earmark of $5,000,000 is appropriated and shall be
deposited into the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund
without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation. The
Secretary of Agriculture shall distribute these funds to the
City of Craig in fiscal year 2001.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the National
Forest System' and `Capital Improvement and Maintenance'
accounts and planned to be allocated to activities under the
`Jobs in the Woods' program for projects on National Forest
land in the State of Washington may be granted directly to
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for
accomplishment of planned projects.
Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest
Service shall be available for payments to counties within
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
Language stating that the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to enter into grants, contracts, and cooperative
agreements as appropriate with the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation, as well as with public and other private
agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals, to
provide for the development, administration, maintenance, or
restoration of land, facilities, or Forest Service programs,
at the Grey Towers National Historic Landmark.
Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest
Service shall be available, as determined by the Secretary,
for payments to Del Norte County, California.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to be designated by the Indian Health
Service as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health
Corporation (YKHC) to start a priority project for the
acquisition of land, planning, design and construction of 79
staff quarters at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a negotiated
project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health
Service.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, for fiscal year 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior are authorized to limit competition for
watershed restoration project contracts as part of the `Jobs
in the Woods' component of the President's Forest Plan for
the Pacific Northwest or the Jobs in the Woods Program
established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals
and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the
States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska
that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on
Federal lands.
Provision which continues a provision regulating the export
of Western Red Cedar from National forest System Lands in
Alaska.
Provision which continues to limit mining and prospecting
on the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri.
Provision limiting competition for fire and fuel treatment
and watershed restoration contracts in California.
Provision that amends the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area Act to expedite the acquisition of critical lands
within the NSA dealing with land appraisal assumptions
utilized by the Forest Service to acquire land within the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
Provision that adds the ``Boise Laboratory Replacement Act
of 2000'' that permits the sale of the Forest Service Boise,
ID, laboratory site, occupied by the Rocky Mountain Research
Station, and the use of the proceeds to purchase interests in
a multi-agency facility at the University of Idaho.
Conference Report Language
Bureau of Land Management
Earmark of $500,000 for Montana State University weed
program.
Earmark of $750,000 for Idaho weed control.
Earmark of $900,000 for Yukon River salmon.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Missouri River activities
associated with the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.
Earmark of $500,000 for the Missouri River undaunted
stewardship program.
Earmark of $700,000 for the development of a mining claim
information system in Alaska.
Earmark of $500,000 for a coalbed methane EIS in Montana.
Earmark of $650,000 for the Montana cadastral project.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Utah geographic reference
project.
Earmark of $2,400,000 for Alaska conveyance.
Earmark of $500,000 to prepare an EIS for future coal bed
methane and conventional oil and gas development in the
Montana portion of the Power River Basin.
Earmark of $500,000 for the Undaunted Stewardship program,
which will allow for local input and participation in grants
to protect historic sites along the Lewis and Clark Trail.
This program is to be cooperatively administered by the
Bureau and Montana State University.
[[Page 20874]]
Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the Waste
Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) at New
Mexico State University in addressing the problem of
abandoned mine sites in the western United States.
Earmark of $482,000 for an Alaska rural fire suppression
program (Wildland fire management).
Earmark of $482,000 for a rural Alaska fire suppression
program. (Wildland fire suppression).
Earmark of $8,800,000 is to be made available to the
Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) of Northern Arizona
University, through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau
of Land Management, to support new and existing ecologically-
based forest restoration activities in ponderosa pine
forests.
Earmark of $3,760,000 for construction at the Coldfoot
Visitor Center.
Earmark of $400,000 for construction at the Fort Benton
Visitor Center.
Earmark of $200,000 for construction at the California
Train Interpretive Center.
Earmark of $500,000 for construction at the Blackwell
Island Facility.
Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the town
of Escalante and Garfield County, UT to ensure that the
construction of the science center is consistent with the
Escalante Center master plan.
Earmark of $5,000,000 for land acquisition in El Dorado
County, CA.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition at Organ
Mountains, New Mexico.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition for Upper Crab
Creek, Washington.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Earmark of $2,000 for Everglades for resource management.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for cold water fish in Montana and
Idaho.
Earmark of $270,000 for the California/Nevada desert
resource initiative.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Central Valley and Southern
California habitat conservation planning.
Earmark of $500,000 for bighorn sheep conservation in
Nevada.
Increases in the recovery program include $5,000,000 for
matching grants for Pacific salmon conservation and
restoration in Washington.
Earmark of $288,000 for wolf recovery in Idaho.
Earmark of $100,000 for wolf monitoring by the Nez Perce
tribe.
Earmark of $600,000 for eider research at the Alaska
SeaLife Center.
Earmark of $600,000 for Lahontan cutthroat trout
restoration.
Earmark of $500,000 for the black capped vireo in Texas.
Increase of $1,400,000 for Washington salmon enhancement.
Increase of $4,000 for bull trout recovery in Washington.
Increase of $500,000 for private lands conservation efforts
in Hawaii.
Increase of $50,000 for rehabilitation of the White River
in Indiana in response to a recent fish kill.
Increase of $252,000 in project planning for the Middle Rio
Grande Bosque program.
Increase of $350,000 for Long Live the Kings and Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group.
Increase of $575,000 to reduce sea bird by-catch in Alaska.
Increase of $360,000 for staffing and operations associated
with the new port of entry designation in Anchorage, Alaska.
Increase of $5,000,000 for the Washington Hatchery
Improvement Project.
Increase of $184,000 for marking of hatchery salmon in
Washington.
Earmark of $11,051,000 for the Alaska subsistence program.
Earmark of $750,000 for the Klamath River flow study.
Earmark of $500,000 for Trinity River restoration.
Earmark of $200,000 for Yukon River fisheries management
studies.
Earmark of $100,000 for Yukon River Salmon Treaty education
efforts.
Increase of $2,000,000 for Pingree Forest non-development
easements in Maine to be handled through the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation.
The increase provided in consultation for cold water fish
in Montana and Idaho are for preparation and implementation
of plans, programs, or agreements identified by the States of
Idaho and Montana that will address habitat for freshwater
aquatic species on non-Federal lands.
Earmark of $800,000 in new joint ventures funding for the
Atlantic Coast.
Earmark of $750,000 in new joint ventures funding for Lower
Mississippi.
Earmark of $650,000 in new joint ventures funding for Upper
Mississippi.
Earmark of $1,400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Prairie Pothole.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Gulf
Coast.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Playa
Lakes.
Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Rainwater Basin.
Earmark of $1,000,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Intermountain West.
Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Central Valley.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Pacific Coast.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for San
Francisco Bay.
Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Sonoran.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Arctic Goose.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for Black
Duck.
Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for Sea
Duck.
Earmark of $593,000 for Alaska Maritime NWR, AK
(Headquarters/Visitor Center).
Earmark of $500,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Water
management facilities).
Earmark of $3,600,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Education
Center).
Earmark of $350,000 for Canaan Valley NWR, WV (Heavy
equipment replacement).
Earmark of $500,000 for Clarks River NWR, KY (Garage and
visitor access).
Earmark of $250,000 for Great Dismal Swamp NWR, VA
(Planning and public use).
Earmark of $800,000 for John Heinz NWR, PA (Administrative
wing).
Earmark of $700,000 for Kealia Pond NWR, HI (Water control
structures).
Earmark of $180,000 for Kodiak NWR, AK (Visitor Center/
planning).
Earmark of $130,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (ADA
accessibility).
Earmark of $600,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (Non-motorized
trail).
Additional $5,000,000 for National Conservation Training
Center, WV (Fourth Dormitory).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Noxubee NWR, MS (Visitor Center).
Earmark of $300,000 for Pittsford NFH, VT (Planning and
design/hatchery rehabilitation).
Earmark of $115,000 for Seatuck & Sayville NWRs, NY
(Visitor facilities).
Earmark of $1,512,000 for Silvio O. Conte NWR, VT
(Education Center).
Earmark of $1,100,000 for White River NWR, AR (Visitor
Center construction).
Earmark of $350,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV
(Holding and propagation).
Earmark of $20,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV
(Office renovations).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition at Back Bay NWR
(VA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Big Muddy
NWR (MO).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Bon Secour
NWR (AL).
Earmark of $1,750,000 for land acquisition for Centennial
Valley NWR (MT).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Clarks River
NWR (KY).
Earmark of $2,100,000 for land acquisition for Dakota
Tallgrass Prairie Project (SD).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Edwin B.
Forsythe NWR (NJ).
Earmark of $1,150,000 for land acquisition for Grand Bay
NWR (AL).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Lake Umbagog
NWR (NH).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Minnesota
Valley NWR (MN).
Earmark of $600,000 for land acquisition for Neal Smith NWR
(IA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Northern
Tallgrass NWR (MN).
Earmark of $800,000 for land acquisition for Patoka River
NRW (IN).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for land acquisition for Prime Hook
NWR (DE).
Earmark of $750,000 for land acquisition for Silvo O. Conte
NWR (CT/MA/NH/VT).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Stewart B.
McKinney NWR (CT).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Waccamaw NWR
(SC).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Walkill
River (NJ).
National Park Service
Earmark of $975,000 for the 9 National Trails.
Increase of $2,300,000 for Harpers Ferry Design Center.
Earmark of $350,000 to repair the lighthouse at Fire Island
NS.
Earmark of $75,000 to repair the Ocean Beach Pavilion at
Fire Island, NS.
Earmark of $309,000 for repairs of the Bachlott House.
Earmark of $100,000 for the Alberty House which are both
located at Cumberland Island NS.
Earmark of $500,000 for maintenance projects at the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways Park.
Earmark of $200,000 for a wilderness study at Apostle
Islands NL, WI.
Language that directs the National Park Service make
sufficient funds available to assure that signs marking the
Lewis and Clark route in the State of North Dakota are
adequate to meet National Park Service standards.
Language that directs that, within the amounts provided for
operation of the National Park System, the Service shall
provide the necessary funds, not to exceed $350,000, for the
Federal share of the cooperative effort to provide emergency
medical services in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
Language stating that consideration should be given to
groups involved in hiking and biking trails in southeastern
Michigan and the Service is encouraged to work cooperatively
with groups in this area.
Increase of $100,000 for Gettysburg NMP technical
assistance.
[[Page 20875]]
Increase of $250,000 for the National Center for
Preservation Technology.
Language that directs that implementation funds for the
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area are contingent
upon National Park Service approval of the management and
interpretive plans that are currently being developed.
Earmark of $742,000 for Alaska Native Cultural Center.
Earmark of $100,000 for Aleutian World War II National
Historic Area.
Earmark of $2,300,000 for Chesapeake Bay Gateways.
Earmark of $300,000 for Dayton Aviation Heritage
Commission.
Earmark of $2,250,000 for Four Corners Interpretive Center.
Earmark of $500,000 for Lamprey River.
Earmark of $500,000 for Mandan On-a-Slant Village.
Earmark of $500,000 for National First Ladies Library.
Additional $40,000 for Roosevelt Campobello International
Park Commission.
Earmark of $500,000 for Route 66 National Historic Highway.
Earmark of $495,000 for Sewall-Belmont House.
Earmark of $400,000 for Vancouver National Historic
Reserve.
Earmark of $594,000 for Wheeling National Heritage Area.
Earmark of $100,000 for Women's Progress Commission.
An additional $7,276,000 for various locale-specific
Historic Preservation projects.
Earmark of $500,000 for Antietam NB, MD (stabilize/restore
battlefield structures).
Earmark of $1,360,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (erosion
control).
Additional $600,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (rehab Outer
Island lighthouse).
Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL (Seminole Rest).
Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL.
Earmark of $4,000,000 for Corinth NB, MS (construct visitor
center).
Earmark of $779,000 for Cumberland Island NS, GA (St.
Mary's visitor center).
Additional $1,000,000 for Cuyahoga NRA, OH (stabilize
riverbank).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Dayton Aviation NHP, OH (east
exhibits).
Earmark of $114,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA, PA/NJ
(Depew site).
Earmark of $350,000 for Down East Heritage Center, ME.
Earmark of $500,000 for Dry Tortugas NP, FL (stabilize and
restore fort).
Earmark of $129,000 for Edison NHS, NJ (preserve historic
buildings and museum collections).
Earmark of $1,175,000 for Edison NHS, NJ.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Ft. Stanwix NM, NY (completes
rehabilitation).
Earmark of $386,000 for Ft. Washington Park, MD (repair
masonry wall).
Earmark of $300,000 for Gateway NRA, NY/NJ (preservation of
artifacts at Sandy Hook unit).
Earmark of $100,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway,
MD/VA (Belle Haven).
Earmark of $300,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway,
MD/VA (Mt. Vernon trail).
Earmark of $511,000 for Grand Portage NM, MN (heritage
center).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Hispanic Cultural Center, NM
(construct cultural center).
Earmark of $3,000,000 for Hot Springs NP, AR
(rehabilitation).
Earmark of $2,500,000 for John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley NHC, RI/MA.
Earmark of $795,000 Kenai Fjords NP, AK (completes
interagency visitor center design).
Earmark of $10,000,000 for Lincoln Library, IL.
Earmark of $290,000 for Lincoln Home NHS, IL (restore
historic structures).
Earmark of $487,000 for Longfellow NHS, MA (carriage barn).
Additional $945,000 for Manzanar NHS, CA (establish
interpretive center and headquarters).
Earmark of $2,543,000 for Missouri Recreation River
Research & Education Center, NE (Ponca State Park).
Earmark of $500,000 for Morristown NHP, NJ.
Earmark of $500,000 for Morris Thompson Visitor and
Cultural Center, AK (planning).
Earmark of $150,000 for Mt. Rainier NP, WA (exhibit
planning and film).
Additional $7,500,000 for National Constitution Center, PA
(Federal contribution).
Earmark of $6,000,000 for National Underground RR Freedom
Center, OH.
Earmark of $338,000 for New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail,
NJ (exhibits, signage).
Earmark of $800,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair
retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
Earmark of $445,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair
retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
Earmark of $10,000,000 for Palace of the Governors, NM
(build museum).
Earmark of $203,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX
(completes visitor center).
Earmark of $1,614,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX
(completes visitor center).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shiloh NMP, TN (erosion control).
Earmark of $3,000,000 for Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage,
PA (rehabilitation).
Earmark of $240,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
Earmark of $330,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
Earmark of $445,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections
building, fire suppression).
Earmark of $20,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections
building, fire suppression).
Earmark of $340,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island,
NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis
Island, NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
Earmark of $500,000 for Tuskegee Airmen NHS, AL
(stabilization planning).
Earmark of $365,000 for U.S. Grant Boyhood Home, OH
(rehabilitation).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Vancouver NHR, WA (exhibits,
rehabilitation).
Earmark of $739,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
Earmark of $550,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
Earmark of $788,000 for Washita Battlefield NHS, OK
(visitor center planning).
Earmark of $4,000,000 for Wheeling Heritage Area, WV
Earmark of $38,000 for Wilson's Creek NB, MO (complete
library).
Earmark of $200,000 for Wright Brothers NM, NC (planning
for visitor center restoration).
Earmark of $1,500,000 to complete the Federal investment at
Fort Stanwix NM in New York.
Language expecting the Service to provide the necessary
funds, within the amounts provided for Equipment Replacement,
to replace the landing craft at Cumberland Island NS and
replace the airplane at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
Earmark of $300,000 to initiate a Lincoln Highway Study to
initiate a study to define the cultural significance and
value to the Nation of the Congaree Creek site in Lexington
County, SC, as part of the Congaree National Swamp Monument,
and a study for a national heritage area in the Upper
Housatonic Valley in Northwest Connecticut.
Land Acquistion and Conservation Fund:
Earmark of $200,000 for Apostle Islands NL (WI).
Earmark of $1,200,000 for Appalachian NST (Ovoka Farm)
(VA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Brandywine Battlefield (PA).
Earmark of $1,200,000 for Chickamauga/Chattanooga NMP (TN).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA (PA).
Earmark of $3,250,000 for Ebey's Landing NHR (WA).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Gulf Islands NS (Cat Island)
(MS).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Ice Age NST (Wilke Tract) (WI).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Indiana Dunes NL (IN).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Mississippi National River RA
(Lower Phalen Creek) (MN).
Earmark of $2,700,000 for Petroglyph NM (NM).
Earmark of $2,200,000 for Saguaro NP (AZ).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shenandoah NHA (VA).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Sitka NHP (Sheldon Jackson
College) (AK).
Earmark of $1,100,000 for Sleeping Bear Dunes NL (MI).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Stones River NB (TN).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Wrangell-St. Elias NP & Pres.
(AK).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for the purchase of Cat Island, MS
(subject to authorization).
Earmark of $1,000,000 included for the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields National Historic District is contingent upon
the final approval by the Secretary of the Interior of the
Commission.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for the intended purchase of patented
mining claims in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park by the
National Park Service.
Earmark of $250,000 for the Hawaiian volcano program.
Earmark of $475,000 for Yukon Flats geology surveys.
Earmark of $1,200,000 for the Nevada gold study.
Earmark of $300,000 for Lake Mead/Mojave research.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Lake Champlain toxic study.
Earmark of $450,000 for Hawaiian water monitoring.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Southern Maryland aquifer
study.
Earmark of $180,000 for a Yukon River chum salmon study.
Earmark of $750,000 for the continuation of the Mark Twain
National Forest mining study to be accomplished in
cooperation with the water resources division and the Forest
Service.
Earmark of $4,000,000 to create NBII `nodes' to work in
conjunction with private and public partners to provide
increased access to and organization of information to
address these and other challenges. These funds are to be
distributed as follows: $350,000 for Pacific Basin, Hawaii;
$1,000,000 for Southwest,
[[Page 20876]]
Texas; $1,000,000 for Southern Appalachian, Tennessee;
$200,000 for Pacific Northwest, Washington; $250,000 for
Central Region, Ohio; $200,000 for North American Avian
Conservation, Maryland; $250,000 for Network Standards and
Technology, Colorado; $400,000 for Fisheries Node, Virginia
and Pennsylvania; $200,000 for California/Southwest
Ecosystems Node, California; and, $150,000 for Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem Node, Montana.
Language stating that funding is provided for light
distancing and ranging (LIDAR) technology to assist with
recovery of Chinook Salmon and Summer Chum Salmon under the
Endangered Species Act. These funds should be used in Mason
County, WA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Earmark of $500,000 for Alaska subsistence.
Earmark of $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for a distance learning,
telemedicine, fiber optic pilot program in Montana.
Earmark of $146,000 for Alaska legal services.
Earmark of $200,000 for forest inventory for the Uintah and
Ouray tribes.
Earmark of $300,000 for a tribal guiding program in Alaska.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for the distance learning project on
the Crow, Fort Peck, and Northern Cheyenne reservations.
Increase of $1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church
repairs, which completes this program as authorized.
Increase of $50,000 for Walker River (Weber Dam).
Increase of $200,000 for Pyramid Lake.
Increase of $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Fishing
Settlement.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Earmark of $250,000 to the University of Washington
silviculture effort at the Olympic Natural Resource Center.
The managers have also agreed with Senate direction
concerning funding levels for the wood utilization laboratory
in Sitka, AK, and for operations of the Forest Research
Laboratories located in Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown,
WV, and funds for the CROP study on the Colville National
Forest, WA.
Language which directs the Forest Service to provide total
operational funding of $750,000 to the Rapid City, SD, lab.
Language which directs the Forest Service to provide
$502,000 in appropriated funds for the Wind River canopy
crane, WA. This funding includes proposed funding for the New
York City watershed and the Senate proposed funding for Utah
technical education and State of Washington stewardship
activities.
An additional $750,000 for an update of the cooperative
study on the New York-New Jersey highlands area.
Language directing $1,400,000 to the Ossippee Mountain
conservation, easement NH, and also to direct no less than
$2,000,000 to the Great Mountain, CT, easement, and no less
than $2,000,000 for the West Branch, ME, project.
Language stating the importance of forest protection in
South Carolina and encourage the Forest Service to work with
the appropriate State agencies to ensure continuation of
these much needed protections.
Increase of $450,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Study.
Earmark of $500,000 for cooperative activities in Forest
Park in St. Louis, MO.
Earmark of $250,000 in a direct lump sum payment for the
United Fisherman of Alaska to implement an educational
program to deal with subsistence management and other
fisheries issues.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to assist a land transfer for Kake,
AK; these funds are contingent upon an authorization bill
being enacted.
Earmark of $2,000,000 to cost-share kiln-drying facilities
in southeast and south-central Alaska.
Language stating that the funds provided for reforestation
on abandoned mine lands in Kentucky are to be matched with
funds provided in this bill to the Department of Energy for
carbon sequestration research, as well as other non-federal
funds.
Earmark of $900,000 for the University of Washington and
Washington State University extension forestry effort.
Earmark of $1,878,000 for Columbia River Gorge economic
development in the States of Washington and Oregon.
Earmark of $300,000 for the CROP project on the Colville
NF, WA.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for acid mine clean-up on the Wayne
NF, OH.
Earmark of $360,000 for the Rubio Canyon waterline analysis
on the Angeles NF, CA.
Increase of $1,500,000 increase for aquatic restoration in
Washington and Oregon.
Increase of $1,250,000 increase for Lake Tahoe watershed
protection.
Increase of $300,000 for invasive weed programs on the
Okanogan NF and other eastern Washington national forests
with no more than five percent of these funds to be assessed
as indirect costs.
Earmark of $200,000 for the Batten Kill River, VT, project.
Earmark of $700,000 for operations of the Continental
Divide trail.
Earmark of $100,000 for the Monongahela Institute effort at
Seneca Rocks, WV.
Earmark of $120,000 for the Monongahela NF, Cheat Mountain
assessment, WV.
Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative recreational site
planning on the Wayne NF, OH.
Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative efforts regarding
radios for use at Tuckerman's Ravine on the White Mountain
NF, NH.
Earmark of $68,000 for the Talimena scenic byway.
Language which directs the Forest Service to conduct a
feasibility study on constructing a recreational lake on the
Bienville NF in Smith County, MS.
Earmark of $790,000 for forestry treatments on the Apache-
Sitgreaves NF, AZ.
Earmark of $250,000 for a Pacific Crest trail lands team.
Earmark of $500,000 for special needs on the Pisgah and
Nantahala NFs.
Additional $2,000,000 for the Quincy Library Group project,
CA.
Additional $5,000,000 for Tongass NF, AK, timber pipeline.
Earmark of $500,000 in the minerals and geology management
activity to support necessary administrative duties related
to the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
Earmark of $600,000 is provided for cooperative research
and technology development between Federal fire research and
fire management agencies and the University of Montana
National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis.
Earmark $263,000 for Apache-Sitgreaves NF, AZ, urban
interface.
Earmark of $6,947,000 for windstorm damage in Minnesota.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for the Lake Tahoe basin.
Earmark of $2,400,000 for work on the Giant Sequoia
National Monument and Sequoia National Forests.
Earmark of $7,500,000 is a direct lump sum payment to the
Kenai Peninsula Borough to complete the activities outlined
in the spruce bark beetle task force action plan. Ten percent
of these funds shall be made available to the Cook Inlet
Tribal Council for reforestation on Native inholdings and
Federal lands identified by the task force.
Language emphasizing the need for a cost-share for the Grey
Towers, PA, funding.
Language encouraging the Forest Service to work with Tulare
County, CA, on plans for recreational facilities.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for the Forest Service to develop a
campground in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley in the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, WA.
Earmark of $2,000,000 to purchase non-development scenic
easements in Pingree Forest, ME.
Earmark for Lake Tahoe, NV of $2,000,000 for cooperative
erosion grants in State and private forestry, $1,250,000 for
the NFS vegetation and watershed activity to enhance
restoration of sensitive watersheds, $1,500,000 in capital
improvement and maintenance to help fix the ailing road
system, and $1,500,000 in wildfire management funding to
enhance forest health by reducing hazardous fuel.
Earmark of $5,500,000 for management of national forest
system lands for subsistence uses in Alaska as proposed by
the Senate.
The Forest Service is encouraged to give priority to
projects for the Alaska jobs-in-the-woods program that
enhance the southeast Alaska economy, such as the Southeast
Alaska Intertie.
Increase of $2,000,000 is provided for a demonstration of
solid oxide technology in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
Earmark of $278,000 for the Golden, CO, field office.
Indian Health Service
Earmark of $225,000 for the Shoalwater Bay infant mortality
prevention program.
Increases for the Alaska immunization program include
$70,000 for pay costs and $2,000 for additional
immunizations.
Within the funding provided for contract health services,
the Indian Health Service should allocate an increase to the
Ketchikan Indian Corporation's (KIC) recurring budget for
hospital-related services for patients of KIC and the
Organized Village of Saxman (OVS) to help implement the
agreement reached by the Indian Health Service, KIC, OVS and
the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation on September
12, 2000. The additional funding will enable KIC to purchase
additional related services at the local Ketchikan General
Hospital.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for the Northwest Portland area AMEX
program.
Earmark of $4,500,000 is provided for construction of the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's facility at Hilo,
Hawaii.
title v--emergency/supplemental provisions
Department of Interior
$1,500,000 for the preparation and implementation of plans,
programs, or agreements identified by the State of Idaho that
will address habitat for freshwater aquatic species on non-
Federal lands in the State.
$1,000,000 to be made available to the State of Idaho to
fund habitat enhancement, maintenance, or restoration
projects consistent with such plans, programs, or agreements.
$5,000,000 for the conservation and restoration of Atlantic
salmon in the Gulf of Maine,
[[Page 20877]]
with funds provided to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the Atlantic Salmon Commission and the National
Academy of Sciences for specified activities.
$8,500,000 to various specific locales to repair or replace
buildings, equipment, roads, bridges, and water control
structures damaged by natural disasters; funds are to be used
for repairs to Service property in the states of Maryland,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Washington.
$1,2000,000 for repair of the portions of the Yakima
Nation's Signal Peak Road.
An additional $1,800,000 for repairs in Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticutt, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland-Delaware-
Washington, D.C., Massachusetts-Rhode Island, Nevada, New
Hampshire-Vermont, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and
Virginia.
Department of Agriculture
$2,000,000 for an avalanche prevention program in the
Chugach National Forest, Kenai National Park, Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge and nearby public lands.
$7,249,000 to the National forest system for damage caused
by severe windstorms in the States of Minnesota and
Wisconsin.
Total earmarks in report...................................$372,064,000
Total supplemental/emergency earmarks........................28,249,000
Total combined earmarks.....................................400,313,000
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald, the
Senator from Illinois, for his valiant effort to prevent a contract to
be let without any competition. I do not understand why contracts that
entail expenditure of taxpayers' funds should not be let in a
competitive fashion so that the taxpayers can receive the maximum value
for their investments in their Government. I congratulate Senator
Fitzgerald for his valiant effort.
This year's final agreement provides a much-needed infusion of
funding for conservation, wildlife management, and Native American
programs. However, once again, I express my objections to the amount of
excessive pork barrel spending and extraneous legislative riders
included in this final agreement.
The agreement exceeds its overall budget by $2.5 billion, increasing
spending by 25 percent, with funding levels that are close to $4
billion higher than the House bill and $3 billion more than the Senate
bill.
We are entering a remarkable phase of American political history. The
spigot is on, and it is on in a fashion I have not seen in the years I
have spent in the Congress.
The new conference agreement has taken pork barrel spending to higher
proportions by adding more than $120 million more in earmarks that
either were not included in the Senate or House bill or added funding
for unrequested or unauthorized projects. In addition to higher amounts
of pork barrel spending, appropriators conveniently designated billions
more in emergency spending, including nearly $30 million in ``emergency
funds'' for locale-specific earmarks.
As I said, I have a list that was printed in the Record. Several of
our favorites: $1.25 million for weed programs at Montana State
University and Idaho--weed programs that are specific to two
universities; $5.25 million for a new dormitory at the National
Constitution Training Center; $20,000 for office renovations at the
White Sulfur Springs National Fish Hatchery. Guess where. West
Virginia. We have several fish hatcheries in my State of Arizona. I
wonder if maybe we could get a little refurbishment for our offices, as
well as those in West Virginia.
There is $487,000 for a carriage barn in Longfellow National Historic
Site in Massachusetts--a carriage barn.
Here is one of my favorites. I think we should all be impressed by
the pressing need for this: $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders
Association. For the Reindeer Herders Association, $176,000 is
earmarked.
That also happens to be out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding.
Never mind that we have dilapidated housing, terrible schools,
nutrition programs that need to be funded in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, my friends, but we put in $176,000 for that vitally needed
Reindeer Herders Association. I am sure Santa Claus is very pleased
that these funds will be going to the Reindeer Herders Association.
You will find something very interesting, Mr. President, as I go
through the list of earmarks and as people read the Record. You will
see the names Alaska, West Virginia, Washington State, and Hawaii
appear with amazing frequency, which I am sure is pure coincidence.
So we have $1 million for a distance learning telemedicine, fiber-
optic pilot program in Montana.
Here is an important one. Here is a vital item that had to be
earmarked: $1.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in Alabama. I am
not familiar with the Vulcan Statue, but I am sure it needed to be
refurbished over any other statue in America that may need to be
refurbished.
Here is one that should interest taxpayers and entertain all of us:
$400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club in New York. Take heart, all
Southside sportsmen, help is on the way: $400,000 for your operations.
There is $5 million for the Southeast--guess where--Alaska Economic
Disaster Fund, which was not included in either the Senate or House
proposals, ordered to be used for Craig, AK, to assist with economic
development. Times are tough in Craig, my friends. They need $5 million
in Craig.
I urge those who are interested to find out what the population of
Craig, AK, might be. I think that might turn out to be a fair amount of
money per capita.
There is $500,000 for administrative duties at the Kensington Mine in
southeast Alaska--ta-da, Mr. President--for administrative duties at
the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
We have lots of mines in my State. I hope they will consider helping
them with their administrative duties in their mines, as well.
Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on.
So $2 million for the purchase of Cat Island in Mississippi; $5
million for a land transfer in Kake, AK; $4.6 million for the Wheeling
National Heritage Area in West Virginia, which has received earmarks in
previous Interior appropriations without any authorization. I should
point out that new legislative language was tacked on to this report to
finally authorize this project, although it certainly never went
through the normal process of approval.
I hope the taxpayers will be able to see how we are spending their
dollars. It is remarkable.
I believe in the debate one of the candidates was saying: You ain't
seen nothing yet. Mr. President, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until
we get to the omnibus bill which very few of us will have ever seen or
read when we vote yes or no on it. We will have a remarkable document,
one I think historians in the centuries ahead will view with interest
and puzzlement.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
atlantic salmon conservation and restoration
Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for his invaluable help in
securing funding for vital, time-sensitive, on-the-ground Atlantic
salmon conservation and restoration programs in Maine on an emergency
basis. Due to your efforts, $5.0 million in emergency appropriations
were included in the Interior Appropriations conference report for this
purpose. It is critical that these funds be on the ground this year in
order to demonstrate a federal financial commitment to salmon in my
State, and that a listing under the Endangered Species Act is not
necessary to conserve and restore Maine's Atlantic salmon.
Mr. GORTON. My home state, too, has experienced the disruption that a
federal endangered species listing can cause. I therefore appreciate
the importance and urgency of the funds sought by the Senator from
Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. The emergency appropriation included in the Interior
Appropriations conference report will make a substantial contribution
to salmon conservation and restoration efforts in the State. The funds
will be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (or
``NFWF''), which has made a commitment to me to allocate the monies to
worthwhile projects as soon as possible. The conference report provides
$5.0 million to
[[Page 20878]]
NFWF, of which $2.0 million will be made available to the Atlantic
Salmon Commission and $500,000 will be made available to the National
Academy of Sciences. The remaining $2.5 million will be administered by
NFWF to carry out a grant program that will fund on-the-ground projects
to further Atlantic salmon conservation or restoration efforts in
coordination with the State of Maine and the Maine Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Plan.
The conference report contains language indicating that funds
administered by NFWF will be subject to cost sharing. Is it your
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this language means the $2.5 million
administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program must be matched, in
the aggregate, by at least $2.5 million in non-federal funds?
Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Maine is correct. I expect that the $2.5
million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5
million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
Ms. COLLINS. And is it also your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that
the $2.0 million made available to the Atlantic Salmon Commission and
the $500,000 made available to the National Academy of Sciences will
not be subject to any matching requirement?
Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.
Ms. COLLINS. I want to again thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In crafting this conference
report, he has accomplished a Herculean task with this usual grace and
skill. And the $5.0 million he has helped secure will promote a
vigorous and effective salmon conservation and restoration effort in my
State.
Mr. GORTON. As I have said before, I greatly admire the Senator from
Maine's tenacity and her unfailing devotion to the best interests of
her State.
lake tahoe land acquisition colloquy
Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request your help
interpreting the language that was inserted into the conference report
pertaining to the use of funds appropriated for the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive property at Lake Tahoe. That language states
that no funds may be used to acquire urban lots. To my knowledge,
``urban lots'' is a term that is not defined in this bill or any
related statute or regulation. As a result, I want to make sure that we
clarify what we intend by the term urban lot.
As you know, the plan to protect Lake Tahoe is predicated in large
part of the Lake Tahoe Preservation Act of 1981 (H.R. 7306), commonly
known as the Santini-Burton Act, and companion California and Nevada
bond acts. Together, these State and Federal acts provide for the
purchase and stewardship of environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. The legislative history of the Santini-Burton Act
indicated that approximately $150 million worth of land in Lake Tahoe
would be purchased (approximately $100 million has been expended to
date). The Santini-Burton Act generally identified lands eligible for
purchase, and was followed by the adoption of a comprehensive plan
identifying specific criteria for purchases. That plan was subject to
an Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying public comment
process, and this plan remains in effect to this day.
I am confident that, with the correct information in hand, Congress
will direct the Forest Service to go forward with the completion of the
program. In the meantime, however, the effort to protect Lake Tahoe is
likely to sustain significant damage if the language in the conference
report is mistakenly interpreted to reverse long standing policy
decisions. That is why I am asking for your concurrence to direct the
Forest Service to interpret the language in a manner consistent with
the existing program.
Specifically, I want to make it clear that the term ``urban lot''
does not include environmentally sensitive lands. The current program
designates a property's eligibility for acquisition according to its
environmental sensitivity because that is the purpose of the
acquisition program. Such designations reflect extensive analysis and
the support of the local community. This report language should not be
interpreted to change this methodology such that acquisition
eligibility is based on an unspecified and invariably random geographic
distinction. In all likelihood, any ill-conceived geographic standard
would exclude the most environmentally sensitive property that the
ongoing program is designed to protect.
I believe that the report language is consistent with the current
practice of federal land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe basin. Do you
share my understanding that the definition of ``urban lots'' includes
only those properties that are presently qualified for urban
development?
Mr. GORTON. That is my understanding.
Mr. REID. Then it makes sense for any prohibition on land acquisition
referred to in the report language to apply only if to properties that
satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) they are not adjacent to
current forest system lands, (2) they are within Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency's urban boundaries, (3) they are not adjacent to Lake
Tahoe, or to waters or streamzones tributary to Lake Tahoe, and (4)
they are presently eligible to take residential or commercial
development. This clarification integrates the intent of the new
conference report language to limit such acquisitions to essential
sensitive lands while retaining the basic purpose of the Lake Tahoe
land acquisition program.
Mr. GORTON. In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from
Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake
Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your
interpretation of the language in question.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Chairman's understanding and concurrence
on this very important issue.
regarding sec. 156 and accompanying report language
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, I included language
in this bill that directs the Department of Interior to finalize the
so-called 3809 regulations, which govern hardrock mining operations on
public lands, and to do so consistently with the findings and
recommendations of a study completed by the National Research Council
or NRC. The language is identical to language enacted in last year's
omnibus bill. I want to emphasize my intent in offering this language,
and request the Chairman's understanding and concurrence. Briefly, my
intent is to ensure that the Department of Interior finalizes a rule
that protects the environment and that takes into account the direction
of Congress and the findings and recommendations of the NRC report.
Mr. GORTON. I am glad to assist my friend, the senior Senator from
Nevada. In clarifying Congress' intent in enacting these provisions. I
agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to
study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is
consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year Congress adopted this requirement
that Interior finalize 3809 rule changes only if they are ``not
inconsistent'' with the recommendations of the NRC report I already
described. Parsing this statutory language to the point of absurdity,
the Interior Solicitor quickly wrote and circulated a legal opinion
concluding that Congress intended by this action to require Interior's
consideration only of material in the report specifically labeled as
``recommendations''--amounting only to a few lines of the report--and
no other information in the report. And, he went on to conclude that
this law imposes no significant limitations on the agency's ability to
finalize its proposed 3809 rule. This year we have adopted the
consistency requirement again, just as it was written last year. I ask
the Chairman, did we enact the language again just to ratify the legal
conclusion that Interior could finalize 3809 rules essentially without
restrictions?
Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act
again this year just to ratify the actions of
[[Page 20879]]
the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original
intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any
final 3809 regulations promulgated be consistent with that report.
Mr. REID. One last question that I have concerns a statement made by
some of our House colleagues during House consideration of the FY 2001
Interior appropriations bill in which they suggested an interpretation
of the ongoing rulemaking including broad discretion to deny mining
permits, by redefining the existing statutory definition of unnecessary
or undue degradation. Does the Chairman of the subcommittee who helped
develop this language agree that our House colleagues are suggesting an
interpretation that clearly goes beyond current law and that section
156 specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be
construed to expand existing authority.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in
this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory
authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House
colleagues would require additional statutory authority which Interior
does not have and is specifically denied by this bill.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chairman for his help in clarifying the
Committee's intent.
u.s. forest service national fire retardants
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee on an issue that affects the Forest Service
and forest fire fighting in the West.
Mr. GORTON. I would be glad to engage in such a discussion with my
friend, the distinguished Chairman of Forest and Public Lands
Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service has announced its
intention to move to gum thickened/sodium ferrocyanide aerially applied
fire retardants in the 2004 bid process. The Service is to be commended
for this initiative that seeks a more effective and environmentally
friendly means to address the wildfires with which we have become so
painfully accustomed in the West. Indeed, the Forest Service's own
research shows that gum thickened retardants are 25-40 percent more
effective than un-thickened retardants. The criteria called for in
2004, though, can be met today. Is it the Committee's view that the
U.S. Forest Service should be striving for a more environmentally
friendly product and should use such a product as soon as possible?
Mr. GORTON. I agree with that view. It should be the U.S. Forest
Service's priority to use the most effective, environmentally
protective aerially applied fire retardants.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the after-effects of wildfires
are devastating to the landscape. Mother Nature has a way of bringing
life back to the land when all appears lost. However, even Mother
Nature cannot erase for years the stains on the lands caused by some
aerially applied fire retardants. This is especially of concern where
historical and archeological resources, national parks, wilderness
areas and urban/wilderness areas are concerned. Would you agree that
U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option for local foresters to
use less staining fugitive retardants where, in their judgment, it is
warranted?
Mr. GORTON. I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should
preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize
the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Forest Service has historically
supported competition in the supply of fire retardants through the
inclusion of a viability clause in its bids. For the first time, the
upcoming 2001 bid process may be conducted by sealed bid. It is unclear
whether viability will be a consideration. This is a critical issue in
a fire season like the one we just experienced. Would you agree that
the U.S. Forest Service should support competition in the supply of
aerially applied fire retardants?
Mr. GORTON. I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high
performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to
the mission of the Service.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for this clarification.
great falls historic district, paterson, new jersey
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator
Gorton, about one aspect of the conference report.
Mr. Chairman, the conference report to the Interior Appropriations
bill for Fiscal Year 2001 does not include funding for construction
projects in the Great Falls Historic District, located in the City of
Paterson, New Jersey.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Great Falls
Historic District was established in Section 510 of Public Law 104-33,
the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legislation, which I coauthored,
is designed to preserve the historic character of the City of Paterson,
New Jersey. Like Lowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holds a prominent
place in our nation's industrial past. Few people realize that Paterson
was the first planned industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton himself
chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory, and he
established the Society for Useful Manufacturers right in Paterson. The
work of its citizens and the wealth of its natural resources soon
caused Paterson to thrive, and it became a mecca for countless numbers
of immigrants, including my own family. The skills and spirit of these
immigrants made Paterson one of our nation's leading centers for
textile manufacturing, earning the nickname ``Silk City.''
Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislation authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to provide grants through the Historic Preservation Fund for
up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan for the development of
historic, architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources
within the Great Falls District. The Secretary may also provide
matching funds for implementation of projects identified in the plan.
The total federal authorization for the Great Falls Historic District
is $3.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, since the authorizing legislation establishing the
Great Falls Historic District specifically enables the City to receive
up to $250,000 in matching federal funds for preparation of a historic
preservation plan, the Secretary could provide these funds through the
funds provided in the conference report for the Historic Preservation
Fund.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. This bill includes appropriations
from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible
projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.
Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman that the Great Falls project is
eligible to receive Historic Preservation Funds, for preparation of its
plan.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Great Falls
Historic District would be eligible to receive up to $250,000 of these
funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, and that, once
these plans are completed, an additional $50,000 in matching funds is
available from the Historic Preservation Fund for technical assistance
and $3 million is available for restoration, preservation, and
interpretive activities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the Mayor of the
City of Paterson to the regional director of the National Park Service,
expressing the City's interest in moving forward with development of
the Great Falls development plan. I hope that this letter will confirm
to the Service and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, that the City is
fully prepared to provide the necessary match to develop the plan. I am
confident that the City will work closely with the Service on
development of a plan, and that, once it is completed, the City may
apply for the remaining authorized funds for completion of specific
projects.
Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this matter, and I
ask
[[Page 20880]]
unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be inserted in the Record.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
City of Paterson,
Office of the Mayor,
Paterson, NJ, October 4, 2000.
Marie Rust,
Northeast Regional Director, National Park Service, 200
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Re: Public Law 104-333.
Dear Ms. Rust: This is to reaffirm our sincere interest in,
and need of, the funding of Public Law 104-333. Ever since
the authorization of the 3.3 million dollars for the Great
Falls Redevelopment Act we have been anxiously awaiting the
appropriation. We are committed to provide the necessary
local match.
The preparation of the Development Plan required by the Act
is an essential first step in documenting the feasibility of
a National Park. After the Plan, our two primary activities
in the district remain to be the redevelopment of the former
ATP Site including the Gun Mill and the rehabilitation of the
raceway. Both projects are essential to the achievement of
the economic development objectives of the Urban History
Initiative. The initial Gun Mill stabilization has been
successfully completed. We are awaiting the execution of the
Programmatic Agreement so that we may continue with the
engineering and other site preparation and stabilization work
for the former ATP Site. The overall raceway and
prioritization has been completed. Final plans are ready for
the Upper Raceway section.
We continue to pursue other sources of funding including
TEA-21 Enhancement, the New Jersey Historic Trust, New Jersey
Green Acres, and others. If these are not successful I will
ask the City Council to bond any remaining local share. This
is to assure you that we will secure the local match for
whatever amount Congress appropriates.
Very truly yours,
Martin G. Barnes,
Mayor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been a long time supporter of
CARA--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The concept behind CARA
was a visionary one--to take revenues generated from the extraction of
offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest them permanently and
automatically in our nation's invaluable wildlife, coastal, and public
land resources.
The CARA proposal that was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan way
by the Senate Energy Committee offered an opportunity for this Congress
to make an historic contribution to conservation and to truly leave
behind a legacy that we could be proud of and from which our children
would benefit.
Instead, we are faced with a situation in which this overwhelmingly
popular bill will never be considered on the Senate floor.
The House passed its version of CARA back in May by an overwhelming
vote of 315 to 102; it was a vote that brought in supporters from
across the political spectrum and around the country. More recently, a
letter signed by 63 Senators was sent to the Senate leadership
requesting that CARA be brought to the floor.
Yet the Republican leadership has refused to let this bill move
forward.
I ask my colleagues, what does it take to get a vote around here? How
can we say that we are doing the people's business, if a bill that is
as broadly supported as CARA cannot even be voted upon?
We have now been presented with a package in the Interior
appropriations bill that purports to fulfill the goals of CARA. I am
tremendously disappointed to say that this package does very little to
accomplish the goals of CARA.
CARA would have provided nearly $45 billion to important conservation
programs over the next 15 years. The Interior proposal provides roughly
$6 billion and only makes those funds available for the next 6 years.
But far more disappointing than the discrepancy in funding levels is
the fact that the Interior proposal does little to guarantee that these
funds will actually be made available each year for specific
conservation purposes.
Instead, the Interior proposal will force important and beneficial
programs like Urban Parks and Recreation to battle against other
important programs like the Historic Preservation program for funding
each year.
What made CARA remarkable was the fact that it would have provided
the Urban Parks program, or state fish and wildlife agencies, or
endangered species recovery efforts, with a predictable and reliable
amount of funding.
This feature would have ensured that important conservation efforts
would NOT be subject to the uncertainties of the annual appropriations
cycle, but instead could be certain that funding would be available
over the long term. And as a result, these conservation programs could
have finally planned and implemented ambitious, long-term conservation
efforts. The Interior appropriations proposal fails to provide this
sort of certainty.
I will vote for the Interior appropriations bill. The bill funds many
important programs that I care about and in making a nod to CARA it
will provide some increased funding for things like the state's portion
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I am also pleased that the most egregious anti-environmental riders
that appeared in earlier versions of this bill have been removed.
However, I hope nobody will interpret my vote for this bill as a sign
of support for what I view as a hijacking of CARA. I remain deeply
disturbed that a bill that had the potential to do as much good as CARA
will never see the light of day.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret
that I rise today to oppose the Conference Report to the Interior
Appropriations bill.
I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference
report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands
for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds
down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including
several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. The bill
includes two projects that have been particularly important to me and
for which I requested funding--the Lamprey River & St. Gaudens. I
appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations Committee to provide that
funding.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding these and other good provisions, the
bill fails to deliver what we as elected officials have promised the
American people. I want to take this opportunity to explain, especially
to my fellow Granite Staters, why I am voting against the Interior
Appropriations Conference Report.
First, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not include full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund or for the many
important programs included in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
In failing to provide this funding, I believe that we have truly
squandered an opportunity that may never exist again. Even more
importantly, I believe we failed to live up to the promise we made
years ago to dedicate a percentage of the revenues from oil and gas
production on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation and
enhancement of fish, wildlife, lands and waters.
Congress came close to keeping that promise when the House passed by
an overwhelming margin of three to one a landmark conservation bill--
the so-called Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a companion bill in July.
The CARA bill reflects our collective commitment to investing in the
environment for ourselves and for future generations.
I am proud that I was able to play a part in bringing attention to
the bill in the Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held a hearing on the Senate
bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although that
Committee, which I chair, did not have primary jurisdiction over the
bill, I felt it was important to hold the hearing to help build support
for the legislation and to highlight some of the very important
programs that would be enhanced by the passage of the bill. These
programs included funding for the Endangered Species Act and Pittman-
Robertson Act, both of which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works. I said it then, and I want to reaffirm
it today. Now is the
[[Page 20881]]
time for the Federal government to step up to the plate and assist in
the efforts to protect our natural resources--not by grabbing up more
Federal land, but by working in partnership with States and private
landowners and providing much-needed funding for critically underfunded
programs. The CARA bill would have done that.
Instead, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes a
mere shadow of the real CARA.
Instead of providing full permanent funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the Interior Conference Report appropriates only
$600 million for one year and only $90 million of that is allocated for
stateside funding. The CARA bill I cosponsored would have provided the
States with a guaranteed $450 million a year to conduct numerous
worthwhile conservation projects, including creating new parks and
building soccer fields. The limited appropriation provided by the
Conference Report, by contrast, with no guarantees for future years,
isn't CARA; it's business as usual.
The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors.
Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation
spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches,
shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans--94 percent believe
we should be spending more money on land and water conservation.
I agree with those Americans who believe that it's time to invest
some of the budget surplus in our environment. For years now, we have
been telling the tax payers that there isn't any money available for
conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the
burdens of saving our land and natural resources. Well, in my opinion,
those days are over. It's past time for the federal government to
contribute its fair share, and the Interior Conference Report falls far
short in that respect.
Second, I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Conference
Report provides no protections for private property rights. CARA did.
The real CARA bill provided an unprecedented level of protection for
the private land owner. For example, the Senate CARA bill that I
cosponsored expressly prohibited the Federal government from using any
CARA funds to implement regulations on private property. In addition,
all Federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund would have been subject to significantly more
restrictions than under current law. Not one of those private property
rights protections is included in the Interior Appropriations
Conference Report.
Third, I cannot support the language in the Conference Report that
establishes a vague new Federal ``wildlife conservation program'' that
imposes new, but undefined, obligations on the States and gives broad
discretion to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to define those
obligations. The Interior Appropriations Conference Report directs the
Fish and Wildlife Service to create a new $300 million state grant
program subject only to the approval of the Committee on
Appropriations. That is inappropriate.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for
overseeing wildlife programs; it is our prerogative and responsibility
to review, discuss, and ultimately authorize any wildlife program. Yet,
this new program was inserted at the last minute, behind closed doors,
without any public debate or consultation with the Committee of
jurisdiction. For that reason, I must oppose its inclusion in this
Conference Report. The concept may be a good one, but this is not the
right process or the appropriate vehicle.
Finally, I must oppose the Conference Report because of the adverse
impact it will have on thousands of citizens of New Hampshire who
depend upon and enjoy the White Mountain National Forest.
When the Senate passed its Interior Appropriations bill in July, it
included an important provision excluding the White Mountain National
Forest from this Administration's broad policy of prohibiting the
construction of all new roads in previously undisturbed areas of
national forests, the so-called roadless policy. We excluded the White
Mountain National Forest from this ``one-size-fits-all'' roadless
policy, not because we want thousands of miles of new roads in the
White Mountains, but because these decisions should be made at the
local level through the forest planning process, by the people who live
near, enjoy, and use the National Forest.
I have deep concerns about the Administration's roadless policy
because I believe it is intended to limit public access and legitimate
public use of our national forests. But even more importantly, in the
context of the White Mountain National Forest, it would specifically
override an existing forest management plan that maintains a balance
between economic activity, recreation and environmental protection--a
forest management plan that was developed through a collaborative
process involving state and local government officials, local citizens,
and federal officials. I firmly believe that States and local citizens
should play a significant role in making the management decisions
relating to the forest lands in their communities, including the
decisions about roads.
It was for that reason that I strongly supported the language that
was included in the Senate bill that allowed the citizens of New
Hampshire to make those decisions through the forest planning process
for the White Mountain National Forest, rather than simply mandating a
blanket roadless policy from Washington, D.C. That important provision,
however, has now been dropped from the Conference Report. I believe
that Washington D.C.'s roadless policy will hurt New Hampshire. It will
have significant economic, social, and ecological impacts. And it will
undermine the cooperative dialogue that took place during the revision
of the forest plan. Therefore, I cannot support a Conference Report
that does not include language protecting the White Mountain National
Forest from unnecessary and inappropriate interference from
Washington's bureaucrats.
The Interior Appropriations bill passed by the Senate last July also
included a specific exemption for North Country residents from the user
fees that the National Forest Service charges for access to the White
Mountain National Forest. That exemption has now been deleted.
I have long been opposed to user fees in the White Mountain National
Forest because I believe it is fundamentally unfair to local residents.
In areas, like the North Country of New Hampshire, where the Federal
Government owns much of the land, communities lose a significant
portion of their property tax base which they need to fund schools and
other necessary social programs and infrastructure. Residents in these
communities then have to make up the shortfall. The user fee, on top of
the loss in local tax revenue, imposes an unfair burden for local
citizens. It is wrong for the Federal government to charge local
residents in the North Country a fee for enjoying the White Mountain
National Forest when they are already subsidizing the Forest.
As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this
Interior Conference Report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have
done and appreciate the support they have given to important New
Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I
oppose the Conference Report.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak
about two provisions of great concern to my state of Minnesota. While
this conference report clearly missed the opportunity to make a
historic, long term, commitment to our environmental heritage, I rise
in support of this legislation because it does represent an important
first step in many conservation accounts, and includes vital funding to
restore Minnesota's National Forests.
First of all, I want to make clear that I am disappointed that the
full Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, was not included in this
Interior Appropriations bill. CARA, as reported out of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is landmark legislation that
would commit $3
[[Page 20882]]
billion annually for 15 years to conservation and natural resource
protection. CARA would provide $37.4 million of stable funding annually
to the conservation and protection of Minnesota's natural resources.
However the compromise in this bill does not reflect the spirit or
intent of the full CARA bill. First of all this Conference report does
not guarantee multiple year funding for the states, which was the
entire premise of CARA. When it comes to protecting our coastlines (on
the North Shore in Minnesota) and open spaces (in Northern Minnesota),
expanding our urban parks (in the metro Twin Cities area), or investing
in wildlife conservation, the annual appropriation approach has proven
not to work in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. In
addition, the report does not include dedicated funding for wildlife
conservation programs, which puts Minnesota's wildlife conservation
needs in competition with other state conservation programs, and makes
it possible that Minnesota would receive no funds for wildlife
preservation from this legislation. While, overall I am encouraged that
this legislation more than doubles conservation funding from the $742
million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 billion in FY 2000, we
should not loose sight of the fact that this conference report is
clearly no substitute for a full funded CARA bill.
On a related matter, I am pleased the conference committee has
restored the balance of the Forest Service's request for Minnesota's
National Forests. During consideration of the Interior Appropriations
bill, Senators Gorton and Byrd agreed to my amendment to include $7.2
million in additional emergency funds for Minnesota's National Forests.
And today the Senate will take an important step that will restore the
balance of emergency funds requested earlier this year by the Superior,
Chippewa and Chequamegon National Forests' for blowdown recovery
efforts.
Furthermore, this legislation includes an important regular, FY 2001
appropriation for the Superior National Forest, that my colleague from
Minnesota and I were able to work on together. These monies would be
available to the Forest Service next year and are vital to continued
recovery efforts in northern Minnesota.
These national forests bore the brunt of a massive once-in-a-thousand
year wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern Minnesota on
July 4, 1999. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties,
including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests,
and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has
severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly
manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests.
The most troubling aspect of this storm for the people of northern
Minnesota is the continued extreme risk of a catastrophic fire
resulting from the tremendous amount of downed and dead timber. Funding
provided to the Forest Service through this legislation will be used
for immediate and future recovery efforts, and to reduce the threat of
a major wildland fire.
The storm has changed affected portions of the forests for years to
come and has created new risks and experiences for visitors and
residents. Since July 4th, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests
officials have been working with state, county, and local officials on
storm recovery activities and planning to meet future needs.
Immediately after the storm the Forest Service, in conjunction with
State, County and local governments began a search and rescue operation
that lasted for 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999. Fortunately not a
single life was lost in the storm, however there were 20 medical
evacuations from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW. The
most severe case was a broken neck. In addition, the forest Service
conducted a search of 2,200 camp sights in the BWCAW to ensure no one
was trapped. And finally USFS crews cleared approx. 200 miles of roads,
and reconstructed 6 miles of emergency roads.
Once the emergency search and rescue was completed, the U.S. Forest
Service turned their attention to reducing hazards that could
negatively affect visitors, residents and local businesses that depend
on the BWCAW and the National Forests. The Forest Service brought in
191 people including an administrative team and several crews from
across the country to return facilities to a safe condition so they
could be reopened and used during the rest of the year.
And now the Superior National Forest is proposing to reduce the risk
of fire escaping the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, by
using prescribed burning within the wilderness. The 1.1 million-acre
BWCAW, located in northeastern Minnesota adjacent to the Canadian
border, is one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the United
States.
The proposal is to reduce the increased risk of wildfire associated
with the July 4, 1999, storm. The proposed action is to treat
approximately 47,000 to 81,000 acres of the wilderness with prescribed
fire over a five to six year time period.
The goal of this project is to improve public safety by reducing the
potential for high intensity wildland fires to spread from the BWCAW
into areas of intermingled ownership, which include homes, cabins,
resorts and other improvements, or across the international border into
Canada. This will be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to
ecological and wilderness values, and protects fire personnel and BWCAW
visitor safety during implementation.
While the Forest Service has been engaged in this work for many
months, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going
to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the
forest to a more normal and healthy state. However this cannot happen
without adequate funding. This is a victory for all of Minnesota, and I
am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased that
the Senate approved the remainder of these badly needed funds today,
especially for the people of northern Minnesota, who cannot wait.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the conference
report for Interior appropriations before this body today makes a
significant investment in Wisconsin's only unit of the National Park
System, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Lakeshore recently
celebrated its 30th anniversary on September 26, 2000, and I rise today
to express my gratitude to the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for working with me
to ensure that some of the highest priority needs at the Lakeshore are
met.
I have been raising the need for these funds since 1998. On April 22
of that year, I introduced legislation, named for former Senator
Gaylord Nelson who was the sponsor of the federal legislation that
created the Lakeshore, to try to make sure that the Park Service has
the funds included in this bill today. This bill helps to fund a
wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the
Wilderness Act. Most of the Lakeshore is managed as wilderness, yet the
required study has not yet been completed so that Congress can evaluate
whether there is a need for a formal legal designation. This bill
retains amendment language that I offered during the Senate
consideration of Interior appropriations and provides $200,000 for that
purpose.
The bill also provides funds to the Park Service to protect the
history Raspberry and Outer Island lighthouses which are threatened by
erosion. The 21 islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have
six lighthouses, the greatest number of lighthouses on any property in
federal ownership anywhere in the country. They are all at least 100
years old, and many of them are still used as aids to navigation and
are in need of Federal help.
By providing funds in this bill to ensure the success of the
Lakeshore we contribute to another larger success--our efforts to clean
and protect our environment and provide places for people to rest and
refresh themselves. I have been very pleased in the willingness of the
bill's managers to support
[[Page 20883]]
my efforts to draw attention to this park. They have other, bigger
parks that also have funding needs. But the managers understood my
appeal on behalf of the people of Wisconsin with these funds. They
know, as I do, that when the American people sit among the hemlocks on
Outer Island, walk along the shore, travel to Devils Island, observe
the waters of Lake Superior, they know protection of the Apostles is
worth a federal investment.
The investments in the Apostles are authorized investments, part of
the requirements that we gave the Park Service when we created the
Lakeshore. As delighted as I am that these funds have been included by
the managers, I remain concerned about the fact that this bill provides
funds and policy direction for unauthorized projects, authorizes new
projects and continues to contain a number of policy riders that affect
environmental protection. Because these riders remain, I will vote
against the bill.
I am concerned that this body is becoming habituated to the practice
of environmental legislation by rider. This leaves Members of this
body, like myself, who are very concerned about legislation which has
the potential to adversely effect the implementation of environmental
law, or change federal natural resource policy, with limited options.
We must, by either striking the riders, or trying to modify their
efforts, do the work of the authorizing committees on the floor of this
body. With limited floor time on spending bills, and with the pressure
to pass appropriations bills or risk shutting down or disrupting
important Government programs, we do not do the best by the environment
that we can and must do in our legislative efforts.
I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending
bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially
environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the
federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law.
For more than two decades, we have been a remarkable bipartisan
consensus on protecting the environment through effective environmental
legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the
American people to protect the quality of our public lands and
resources. That responsibility requires that the Senate express its
strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in
spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially
beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced
by the federal agencies that carry out Federal law.
Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72
counties. When I hold these meetings, the people of Wisconsin continue
to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending
bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being
made without the benefit of an up or down vote.
When this bill passed the Senate initially on July 18, 2000, I was
one of two Senators to vote against it because of legislative riders. I
know that the bill managers worked long and hard to keep a number of
the most controversial riders, many of which I was concerned about, off
of this bill and I commend them for that. However, I am also concerned
that there is a category of riders to which we have become habituated:
riders on Alaska red cedar, riders on mining regulations, riders on
grazing permits. There are also new authorizing provisions in this
bill, such as developing forensic laboratory service fees for Fish and
Wildlife investigations into wildlife mortality, and a new program to
develop a reduced fee program for developing a reduced fee program to
accommodate nonlocal travel through the National Park System. Why
aren't these matters being discussed in the authorizing committees?
These issues may have merit, but I think they should be handled by the
committees of jurisdiction.
We cannot continue to put the Appropriations Committee in the
position of having to decide which of these riders are more or less
important. These measures need to be referred to the authorizing
committees, and we need to restore the trust of the American people
that we are proceeding with the people's business in a fashion which
allows for open debate and actual deliberation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in strong
support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4578, the Interior
and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the joint
House-Senate conference committee, I appreciate the difficult task
before the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member to
balance the diverse priorities funded in this bill--from our public
lands, to major Indian programs and agencies, energy conservation and
research, and the Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done
a masterful job meeting important program needs in this final bill.
The pending conference report provides an unprecedented $18.9 billion
in new budget authority and $11.9 billion in new outlays to fund the
Department of Interior and related agencies. When outlays from prior-
year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into
account the Senate bill totals $18.9 billion in BA and $17.4 billion in
outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Senate bill is exactly at the revised
section 302(b) allocation for both BA and in outlays filed by the
Appropriations Committee earlier today.
I would particularly like to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd
for their commitment to Indian programs in this year's Interior and
related agencies appropriation bill. They have included increases of
$160 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs education construction, $214
million for the Indian Health Service, and nearly $102 million for the
operation of Indian programs.
I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for bringing
this important measure to the floor with significant resources totaling
$1.6 billion to address the aftermath of the devastating summer and
fall forest fires, including my initiative to undertake hazardous fuels
reduction activities within the urban/wildland interface to protect our
local communities--the so-called Happy Forests initiative.
This bill also includes an important, bipartisan compromise to
establish a new Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure
Program that will dedicate $12 billion over the next six years to
conservation programs. This is an unprecedented commitment to
conservation efforts by the Federal Government. I am pleased to support
this initiative in its final form.
I appreciate the consideration given by my colleagues to several
priority items for my constituents in New Mexico, which are included in
the final bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the final version of the fiscal year
2001 Interior and related agencies Appropriations bill, and I ask
unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 4578, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2001, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget authority..................... 18,883 59 18,942
Outlays.............................. 17,284 70 17,354
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... 18,883 59 18,942
Outlays.............................. 17,284 70 17,354
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... 14,769 59 14,828
Outlays.............................. 14,833 83 14,916
President's request:
Budget authority..................... 16,413 59 16,472
Outlays.............................. 15,967 70 16,037
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 14,723 59 14,782
Outlays.............................. 15,164 70 15,234
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 15,875 59 15,934
Outlays.............................. 15,591 70 15,661
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... ......... ......... .........
Outlays.............................. ......... ......... .........
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... 4,114 ......... 4,114
Outlays.............................. 2,451 -13 2,438
President's request \1\
Budget authority..................... 2,470 ......... 2,470
Outlays.............................. 1,317 ......... 1,317
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 4,160 ......... 4,160
Outlays.............................. 2,120 ......... 2,120
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 3,008 ......... 3,008
[[Page 20884]]
Outlays.............................. 1,693 ......... 1,693
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comparison between the conference report and the President's
request is skewed because the conference report includes $1.5 billion
in emergency firefighting funds that the President indicated he would
request, but for which OMB never submitted a formal request to the
Congress, so the amount is not reflected in the President's request.
AAAAAANote.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals
adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am in line for time, but I would be
happy to yield to the Senator for 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I just need the 30 minutes that were reserved for me. I
would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have
many times in the last couple of months, to speak about an issue that
is so important for so many Members in the Senate, and our colleagues
on the House side, and to supporters everywhere, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act.
We will be voting on the Interior appropriations bill in just a few
moments. I plan, with all due respect to those who have worked on this
bill--and I acknowledge their hard work--to vote no because it fails to
embrace the principles outlined in the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act.
I express my respect for the members of the Appropriations Committee.
They have a very tough job. They are charged with a great
responsibility. While we have disagreed over this particular issue, we
have worked together as we have tried and continue to try to reach a
bipartisan compromise over this great battle for a legacy for our
environment.
In particular, I thank Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, our chairman,
and Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, our ranking member, who
have been very attentive to the calling and the requests of the CARA
supporters in this regard. While we have disagreed on this issue, it
has not been personal. My remarks today are intended strictly to be
constructive and hopefully to help us chart a course to navigate in the
future on this important issue.
I will read into and submit for the Record the excellent comments
from individuals and Governors and mayors reflected in newspapers
around our country, literally from the west coast to the east coast,
from the south to the north, from interior communities to coastal
communities, literally thousands and thousands of positive editorials
and articles written about what we are attempting to do. From the State
of Illinois, we have had some of our best editorials on this subject,
of which the Presiding Officer has been a supporter.
From the Seattle Post, May 18, a few months ago this year, talking
about CARA:
It is a bold approach to environmental conservation and
restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the
squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of
Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to
be it.
From the Providence Journal, RI, September 19:
Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that this
measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days of an
election-year session. Citizens should press Congress to get
it on to the desk of President, who would sign it.
While time is short, where there is a will there is a way, and the
people of Rhode Island surely believe that.
From the Los Angeles Times, September 18:
This measure should be plucked from the pack and made law.
Chicago Tribune, from the home State of the Presiding Officer:
As Congress churns through its last days before
adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be
left in the dust, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or
CARA.
The New York Times just last week:
Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two
of the most important conservation bills in many years. One
bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee
$45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental
purposes, including wilderness protection.
Again, from my own paper, the New Orleans Times Picayune, which a few
months back, actually, in its frustration in trying to communicate our
message, said:
Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why
Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of
this environmental money generated by offshore revenues and
maybe that is because their states aren't disappearing.
From the Tampa Tribune:
The Conservation Reinvestment Act is a necessary and
sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its
natural heritage. It deserves Senate support.
Finally, from the Detroit Free Press, one of our most supportive
editorials, in June of this year:
One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the
ability to focus on smaller projects than the Federal
Government normally would, including urban green spaces,
walkways, small slices of important habitat. For those with
visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of selective
preservation of natural spots in the path of development,
CARA is a dream come true--if the Senators controlling its
fate will set it free.
I don't think CARA is going to get set free in the vote that we are
going to have in just a few minutes, but that is the process. We will
continue our fight. We will continue to talk about this important
issue, and we will be organized and ready for next year.
In addition, there are still days left in this session where CARA
could be, or something more like it, set free so that we can begin and
can continue some of the very important environmental work going on in
the country.
Let me say, not all of that environmental work takes place in
Washington, D.C. Not all of that environmental work takes place among
Federal agencies, although they have a role. A lot of this work takes
place in our hometowns all across the Nation, with our Governors'
offices, with our mayors and our county commissions, on ball fields and
soccer fields, on cleanup days and Earth Days all over the Nation. That
is the hope that CARA would bring that will be left on the table today.
I will submit all of these for the Record in my closing remarks.
In addition, let me make the point that some people have claimed that
the CARA legislation was just helping coastal States. I will submit for
the Record a wonderful editorial today from a place right in the middle
of our Nation, the Kansas City Star, about the Conservation
Reinvestment Act, realizing that time is short, but I want to read what
they say from Kansas and Missouri:
This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent
bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the
one approved by Congress.
Let us try to unite and find the will to salvage what we can, and
perhaps there is a possible way to do that.
Let me read for the Record, as I begin closing, a letter to the
editor of all the ones that were received, and there were literally
hundreds written by many distinguished people from around our country,
the one we received that just stood out above all the others was a
wonderful letter written by Lady Bird Johnson and by the distinguished
leader, Laurance Rockefeller, who is the uncle to our colleague from
West Virginia whom we so admire and respect and for whom we have such
affection. Laurance Rockefeller is 98 years old. I will read into the
Record what Lady Bird and Laurence Rockefeller said about the actions
we should be taking now:
The 20th century can rightly be called America's
conservation century. From President Theodore Roosevelt
forward, Americans
[[Page 20885]]
began to embrace their land rather than just use it. This
ethic of conservation has created, protected and preserved
tens of millions of acres of open space in America,
encompassing everything from national parks to neighborhood
soccer fields.
But conservation is not something that concludes just
because a century does. We are not done, nor will we ever be.
While protecting our natural resources is often a quiet,
steady exercise, sometimes moments of great opportunity
arise. We are at such a moment now.
They go on to write:
The U.S. Senate has before it legislation that would do
more to protect America's heritage than anything in a
generation. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is in the
true spirit of the early conservationists: It plans for the
future while solving the immediate; it provides for
recreation as well as preservation; it ensures significant
state and local input and control; and it has bipartisan
support. The House has passed the bill and the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee has approved it. With the
administration supporting the legislation, all that is needed
is Senate action in the remaining days of this Congress.
CARA's origins stretch back to 1958, when President
Eisenhower created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission to conduct a three-year inquiry into America's
growing outdoor needs. Its findings suggested a new approach:
Not only should the Federal Government step up its lagging
land acquisition program to round out our National Park
System, but it should also embark on a new venture to provide
matching funds that state and local governments could use to
meet a broader set of outdoor needs.
In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law a bill
creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which not only
affirmed these commitments but set American conservation on a
course it still follows.
The foresight embedded in LWCF--an emphasis on Federal/
state/local partnerships, long-term planning, permanent
acquisition and urban recreation--was strengthened later in
the 1960s by tapping money from offshore oil and gas leases
to fund LWCF projects. The wisdom of doing so was strikingly
simple: Utilize the exploitation of one public natural
resource in order to protect and conserve another. Congress
had made a promise and found a way to keep it. And for years,
the LWCF worked wonders. More than 37,000 projects have been
sparked by the initiative, helping states and localities
acquire 2.3 million acres of parkland and adding 3.4 million
acres of new Federal lands to our national bounty. The LWCF
has funded open space in literally every county in America,
and is responsible for everything from helping preserve Civil
War battlefields to purchasing land for Rocky Mountain
National Park to building the baseball field down the street
from your house.
After 15 years of generally faithful adherence to LWCF's
unique bargain, Presidential administrations and Congress
began to redirect large chunks of fund revenues from their
intended purposes to other budget items. Since 1980, more
than $11 billion has been diverted from these projects,
creating a staggering backlog of Federal, state and local
land protection needs.
They continue and write:
We urgently need to restore the promise. That's what CARA
will do. CARA represents the first good opportunity in 20
years to set our conservation path back on track. It not only
fully funds the LWCF, but also addresses critical needs in
wildlife management, urban parks, coastal protection--
Which is so important to my State and to many of our States,
particularly Mississippi, Alabama, and all along the east and west
coasts--
and historic preservation. Most important, it establishes a
dependable source of funding for these programs. The
prescience of those who created the fund was that
conservation especially could not be a haphazard thing;
population growth, the inexorable march of development and
simple wear and tear on resources require a permanent
commitment. CARA returns us to that premise, providing
approximately $3 billion a year and a firm precedent for
future funding.
CARA returns us to another important ideal: bipartisanship.
Sometimes that is in too short supply here in Washington.
Republican Don Young of Alaska and Democrat George Miller
of California did a masterful job of steering CARA through
the House, winning a 315-102 vote. In the Senate, Republican
Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New
Mexico brought the bill out of committee with support from
Senators of both parties. In these gridlocked times, CARA's
bipartisan treatment is a reminder that policy can sometimes
overcome politics.
They conclude by saying:
We hope the full Senate will heed that reminder and act on
CARA now.
We have worked as partners on conservation issues for almost four
decades. Our hope has always been that American leaders would act so
that their children--all children--would have something to look forward
to. By reviving the Land and Water Conservation Fund before Congress
goes home this year, it can provide just that.
Unfortunately, the bill before us does not do what this vision
outlined. It does do many good things, but it falls short of this
vision. In the last 10 minutes that I have, I want to finalize my
comments by making just a few more points and submit a letter for the
Record.
According to the Webster's Dictionary, ``legacy'' means something
handed down from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past, or to
bequeath.
For more than 3 years, many in this body, dozens of Members of the
House of Representatives, hundreds of mayors and Governors, thousands
of environmentalists and wildlife groups, and millions of Americans
have been calling for a true environmental legacy.
Those of my colleagues who will, in a few minutes, support the
Interior appropriations conference report will do so for many good
reasons. My great friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, spoke eloquently
yesterday about the money in this bill to fight the wild fires raging
across the western plains. That is a very good reason to support this
bill.
As the temperature gets ready to dip across America this winter,
there is great need for a home heating oil reserve, and that is in this
bill. That is a very good reason to support it.
In my State of Louisiana, the Cat Island Refuge, which is the oldest
cypress forest in North America--and it may be the only one left--gets
money in this bill. The New Orleans Jazz Commission and the Cane River
National Heritage Area, the oldest settlement in the Louisiana
Purchase, are reasons to support this bill.
However, if anyone here is looking for a true legacy, a long-term
commitment to our vanishing coastlines, our disappearing wildlife, and
our crumbling parks and historic treasures, you will not find that in
this bill.
The true legacy would have been the Conservation Reinvestment Act--a
bill which has bipartisan support by a vast majority of the Congress
and support from the President of the United States. However, today we
will be asked to vote on what really amounts to sort of a CARA
cardboard cutout--one that kind of looks like the real thing, but it is
really flimsy and hollow, one which fails to deliver the great promise
that we had at this opportunity for our children and our grandchildren.
For 3 years, a monumental and historic coalition built around this
bill and congressional leaders designed it in a way to merit support
across the aisle and across the Nation.
Early on, some environmentalists charged it was a pro-drilling bill.
So we clarified the language to make sure it was drilling neutral to
gather their support.
I think--and there are some of my colleagues on the floor who can
attest to this--that perhaps we failed to go as far as we should have.
But I believe we made great strides in meeting the concerns of some of
those who claimed that this bill would have compromised private
property rights and would have allowed the Federal Government to buy up
land without willing seller provisions and congressional approval.
We worked mightily to meet those objectives, and we believe the
compromise that we came up with was fair and good along these lines.
I know for the past few years I have cajoled, bargained, and spoken
to so many of my friends and colleagues to listen to the merits of this
proposal. I am sure on more than one occasion when they saw me coming,
they ran the other way. But I believe this is so important that we
should take this step now.
When I am asked how we can afford to do this, my answer is simple:
How can we afford not to?
Since 1930, Louisiana has lost more than 1,500 square miles of marsh.
The State loses between 25 and 30 miles each year--nearly a football
field of wetlands every 30 minutes in my State.
By 2050, we will lose more than 600 square miles of marsh and almost
400 square miles of swamp.
[[Page 20886]]
That means the Nation will lose an area of coastal wetlands about the
size of Rhode Island--about the size of your State, Mr. President. We
are about ready to lose it.
In the past 100 years, as so eloquently spoken about yesterday by our
colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, southern Florida's
Everglades have been reduced to one-fifth their former size.
In the past 30 years, the population of blue crabs in the Chesapeake
Bay has been barely hanging on, much to the dismay, I know, of Senator
Mikulski and Senator Sarbanes, who fight vigorously for renewal in the
Chesapeake.
In the middle of this century, a boater could look down into Lake
Tahoe's depths and see 100 feet. Today that is more like 60, or 70, and
dropping every day. Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer know that CARA
could be one of the answers--not the only answer but truly one of the
answers to help.
These facts are staggering. More importantly, it will take decades to
turn it around.
So let's begin now.
I ask each of my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of our
Governors, our mayors, and our natural resource officials. All of these
local officials are charged just as we are with developing long-range
strategies to combat vanishing coastlines, disappearing wildlife, and
crumbling treasures. But if we don't enact CARA, or something very
close to it, a funding stream they can count on year in and year out,
their efforts will be marginalized.
The Gulf of Mexico does not wait for congressional approval to claim
30 square miles of Louisiana every year. Hurricanes do not lobby
congressional appropriators before they claim precious beaches in
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the eastern seaboard. Mother nature
does not testify in front of Congress before she floods our parks, eats
away at the Everglades, and takes her toll on our historic treasures.
Let us look closely at what we are doing here today. I ask that we
not be lulled into believing that this is anything more than a minor
downpayment on a debt we owe to our children.
In the past 2 years, I think we have made much progress in
recognizing the contribution of the coastal States--particularly States
such as Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--which generate
these offshore revenues in the first place.
Because I have received assurances from both leaders, Senator Lott of
Mississippi, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota, that both coastal
impact assistance and wildlife protection can be addressed in other
bills in this Congress, I have withdrawn my objections to final passage
of this bill.
Although CARA supporters will lose the vote today, we will grow
stronger. We will come back energized and ready to fight for what our
country really needs--a true environmental legacy. The coalition knows
that this is a downpayment. And, like all who are owed a debt, we will
come to collect.
Winston Churchill once said:
Want of foresight . . . unwillingness to act when action
would be simple and effective . . . lack of clear thinking,
confusion of counsel until the emergency comes . . . until
self-preservation strikes its jarring gong . . . these are
features which constitute the endless repetition of history.
Colleagues, let us heed these words. Let us come next year prepared
with a willingness to act. Let us think clearly before the emergencies
come. Let us not wait until our environmental preservation hangs in the
balance. And let us listen to the cause of the American people--people
from my State, people from your State, people from all of our States
who say they need something on which they can depend--a steady stream
of revenue; a partnership that they can depend on to help preserve what
is best about America while protecting private property rights, while
protecting the great balance between land ownership and land
maintenance, while protecting the great needs of our coastline and our
interior.
We need a bill that America can grow on and depend on and prosper
from in the decades ahead.
I thank again the appropriators for their hard work. I thank the
authorizers for their tremendous vision.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of wonderful people who need to be thanked for their efforts
and, in doing so, not conceding that there is not still some time left
to make some corrections and improvements but recognizing that the time
is short and we will continue to pursue this avenue. But this is a list
of coalition members from the National Wildlife Federation; Sporting
Goods Manufacturers Association; National Governors' Association; the
Nature Conservancy; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources;
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation; International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies that worked so hard on this effort; U.S.
Soccer Foundation; National Wildlife Federation; Coastal Conservation
Association; Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America; Trust for Public
Lands; Coastal States Organization, which Jack Caldwell helped to head
up; National Coalition of State Historic Preservation Officers,
particularly the Governor of Oregon who was so helpful, and many other
Governors; the Wilderness Society; Southern Governors Association; my
Governor, Governor Foster, who lent a hand early on; Land Trust
Alliance; and the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
Those are just a few. There are so many more and I know my time is
probably up.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names
of many of the staff people who helped make this possible.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CARA Coalition Members
Mark Van Putten, Jodi Applegate, Jim Lyon, Steve Schimburg--
National Wildlife Federation
Sandy Briggs--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Jena Carter, Diane Shays--National Governor's Association
Tom Cassidy, Jody Thomas, David Weiman--The Nature
Conservancy
Sidney Coffee--Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Tom Cove--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Jane Danowitz--Americans for our Heritage and Recreation
Glenn Delaney, Naomi Edelson, Max Peterson--International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Jim Range--International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies/The American Airgun Field Target Association
Gary Taylor--International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies
Herb Giobbi--U.S. Soccer Foundation
Pam Goddard--National Wildlife Federation
Bob Hayes--Coastal Conservation Association
Myrna Johnson--Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America
Lesly Kane--Trust for Public Land
Tony MacDonald--Coastal States Organization
Nancy Miller--National Coalition of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Andrew Minkiewicz, Kevin Smith--Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon
Rindy O'Brien--The Wilderness Society
Beth Osborne--Southern Governor's Association
Bob Szabo--Van Ness--Feldman Law Firm
Russell Shay--Land Trust Alliance
Mark Davis--Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
Actively Supportive Members and Staffs
Senator Thomas Daschle--Mark Childress, Eric Washburn
Senator Trent Lott--Jim Ziglar
Senator Bingaman--Minority Energy Committee Staff: Bob Simon,
Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Mark Katherine Ishee, Kyra
Finkler
Senator Murkowski--Majority Energy Committee Staff: Andrew
Lundquist, Kelly Johnson
Senator Mike DeWine--Paul Palagyi
Senator John Breaux--Fred Hatfield, Stephanie Leger, Mallory
Moore
Senator Max Baucus--Brian Kuehl, Norma Jane Sabiston, Jason
Schendle, Aylin Azikalin, Alyson Azodeh
All democratic colleagues on Energy Committee and Senator
Fitzgerald.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I end by saying that sometimes it takes
a bold act to receive something on which we can really build. CARA is a
bold act.
In a bill with $15 billion, asking for a few hundred million for
States and local governments, a few hundred million for our coastal
communities, a few hundred million for wildlife, was not too much to
ask. I am very hopeful in
[[Page 20887]]
the years ahead we can meet the promise of CARA.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed excerpts of editorial
support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Why CARA? Why Now?
Excerpts of Editorial Support for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
``It's a bold approach to environmental conservation and
restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the
squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of
Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to
be it.'' Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 18, 2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act has the magic to
get through Congress in an election year: money for lots of
states, creative compromises and an odd-couple pair of
sponsors from the right and left.''--Seattle Times, May 9,
2000.
``Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that
this measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days
of an election- year session. Citizens should press Congress
to get it onto the desk of President Clinton, who should sign
it.''--Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, September 19, 2000.
``This measure should be plucked from the pack and made
law.''--Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2000.
``By passing the act, the Senate will demonstrate that in
the current prosperity, America is not forgetting its other
riches, those bestowed on it by nature.''--San Jose Mercury
News, September 17, 2000.
``As Congress churns though its last days before
adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be
left in the dust: the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or
CARA.''--Chicago Tribune, September 16, 2000.
``Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two
of the most important conservation bills in many years. One
bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee
$45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental
purposes, including wilderness protection.''--The New York
Times, September 13, 2000.
``One of the most important and comprehensive pieces of
conservation legislation in U.S. history deserves immediate
passage by the Senate. It is a bill most Americans have never
heard of: The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA.''--
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 11, 2000.
``This is a rare piece of legislation. Its purpose is clear
and simple. Its funding is ready. Its public benefit would be
immense, and so would its public support, if anyone could
hear about it through the blare of electioneering. All it
needs is attention by our senators in the next three
weeks.''--San Diego Union-Tribune, September 7, 2000.
``Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why
Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of
the environmental money generated by offshore oil revenues.
And maybe that's because their states aren't
disappearing.''--The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune, July 18,
2000.
``Back in the '60s, Congress set aside $900 million yearly
from offshore oil revenue for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to finance purchases of important natural beauty spots.
But over the years Congress routinely robbed the fund to
spend the money elsewhere, and Iowa was routinely shut out
when the remainder was divided. CARA restores the fund and
adds much more.''--The Des Moines Register, July 8, 2000.
``This landmark legislation deserves a chance, and it will
be a shame if opponents manage to use the clock or
unreasonable arguments to kill it. While senators out West
worry about the federal government gaining more control over
land, those of us who live in Louisiana worry about the acres
of coast that are crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico. One fear
is speculation, the other is all too real.''--The (New
Orleans) Times-Picayune, September 19, 2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a necessary and
sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its
natural heritage. It deserves the Senate's support.''--The
Tampa Tribune, July 7, 2000.
``CARA is considered to be the most significant
conservation funding legislation any Congress has ever
considered.''--Times Daily (Florence, Alabama), July 10,
2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a strong and
balanced realization of the philosophy that government
revenues generated by exploiting natural resources ought to
be spent, in large part, on protecting resources elsewhere.
That's philosophy that Congress has long honored on paper,
and should now put into practice.''--The (Minneapolis) Star
Tribune, July 3, 2000.
``One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the
ability to focus on smaller projects than the federal
government normally would, including urban green spaces,
walkways and small slices of important habitat. For those
with visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of
selective preservation of natural spots in the path of
development, CARA is a dream come true--if the senators
controlling its fate will set it free.''--Detroit Free Press,
June 27, 2000.
``The most important land conservation bill in many years
is now before the United States Senate, and time is running
out.''--The New York Times, June 27, 2000.
``It's a reasonable, bipartisan way for America to create
long-term funding for conserving our natural heritage.''--The
(Salem, Oregon) Statesman Journal, June 14, 2000.
``CARA is a good program that promotes local initiative
toward parks, resource conservation and historic
preservation. We hope our senators change their positions and
give the support it deserves.''--The Idaho Statesman, June
13, 2000.
``We need to make it clear that we, the American people,
want the Senate to pass the most significant wildlife, parks
and recreation legislation in over 30 years.''--The Pueblo
(Colorado) Chieftain, June 11, 2000.
``This is a quality-of-life bill for the future, one that
holds enormous promise for the protection of dwindling
natural and cultural resources. Passage means benefits for
the current generation of Americans, and a chance to continue
those gains for generations yet to come.''--The Buffalo (New
York) News, May 22, 2000.
``So long as good sense continues to prevail, this
legislation may signal the beginning of an era, none too
soon, in which environmental impact has a more prominent seat
at the table.''--Winston-Salem Journal, May 19, 2000.
____
[From the Kansas City Star, Oct. 5, 2000]
Conservation Money
The proposed Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would
transfer millions of dollars from federal off-shore oil
leases to financially starved local and state parks and
wildlife programs, is in trouble.
Thanks to a deal devised by congressional negotiators on
the Interior Department appropriations bill, the House has
approved a pale version of the landmark legislation that
earlier had been endorsed by two-thirds of the House, more
than half of the Senate and President Clinton.
The President has endorsed this inferior agreement, saying
that ``while we had hoped for even more'' he wanted to praise
the conservation, wildlife and recreation groups, as well as
citizens, who worked so hard for the conservation act.
This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent
bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the
one approved by Congress. It falls far short of the original
that has been pushed by conservation groups, cities, counties
and states.
Under a strong bipartisan effort, Congress has been on the
verge of restoring the money to its rightful uses. Of the $3
billion CARA would provide, Missouri annually stands to gain
$34.7 million and Kansas $17.3 million for natural resource
preservation and parkland acquisition. Kansas and Missouri
cities and counties could use their share of the money to
improve state and local parks, purchase land for parks, and
other recreational purposes.
The substitute version falls short in the money it would
guarantee over the long term. In one example, $350 million
annually for nongame wildlife programs has been cut to $50
million.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom
Daschle have announced their intention to push to restore
CARA to its former self. They are backed by the nation's
governors, who have sought significant conservation funding
for state needs. The original version is the one that should
be passed.
Approval of CARA could be one of the most significant
victories of this Congress.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to take the remaining time of the
Senator from Arizona, which I believe is 4 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator allow me to use 5 minutes
of my time as the ranking member on the subcommittee?
Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I trust that the distinguished Senator will not leave the
floor. I hope he will follow me immediately. If he is in great haste, I
will be glad to yield to him.
Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the short time available before the
Senate votes on final passage of the Interior appropriations conference
report, I want to again urge my colleagues to support this measure. It
is a good compromise that balances the needs of our parks, our forests,
our wildlife refuges, and our trust responsibilities to American
Indians, against the resources made available to us. That task--the
task of reconciling identified needs with limited resources--is not
easy.
I am particularly pleased with the level of funding in this bill for
fossil energy research. The new power plant improvement initiative,
along with the other fossil energy research programs in the Department
of Energy, are critical to this nation's energy security.
[[Page 20888]]
Working to curtail our reliance on imported oil, and ensuring that our
current fleet of power plants are efficient and environmentally sound,
should be the cornerstone of the next administration's energy policy. I
can assure the next president, whomever he may be, that I, for one, am
ready to assist in that endeavor.
Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment to thank the chairman of
the full committee, Senator Ted Stevens, for his interest in this bill,
for his continued support, and for his willingness to work with Senator
Gorton and me to ensure that we were able to get to this point. In
particular, I am grateful for his help in making additional resources
available to the Interior subcommittee. Without those resources, we
could not have crafted this bill.
Finally, Mr. President, let me again thank my colleague, the
subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton. He and his staff have truly been
a pleasure to work with.
When I talk of staff, let me briefly mention my own staff person,
Peter Kiefhaber. I believe this is his first bill, first major bill, to
assist me on this floor throughout the markup, throughout the hearings.
He has done a masterful job as a new person in that position. I thank
him and I congratulate him.
I yield the floor now. I yield my remaining time to Senator Gorton.
I, again, thank the distinguished Senator for yielding when he had
the floor, to allow me to make this brief statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask to take the 4 minutes that was available to the
Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the opportunity to visit just a moment on a
subject that is very close to my heart and very close to my interests.
I am from Wyoming, a State that has open space throughout a great deal
of the State. It is the eighth largest State in the United States and
still the smallest population. I grew up near Yellowstone Park. Those
are things I feel very strongly about.
I want to do two things--one, to comment on the good proposal of the
Senator from Louisiana and her passionate defense of it. I understand
that. I respect that a great deal. There are some things that are
disadvantageous about CARA that we have talked about. One, of course,
is the idea it makes it mandatory spending for 15 years. This is an
entitlement. As we look at our budget now, about a third of our budget
is up to the Congress to allocate. The rest of it is entitlements.
I came from serving in the Wyoming Legislature where the legislature
now only has control over 25 percent of the dollars. I think that is a
dangerous position, and entitlements become a real problem.
Also, as we look toward the land acquisition, there are a number of
things we need to be concerned about in this year's budget. From this
administration, there was more interest on the purchase plan than the
maintenance plan. We have 379 parks in this country, most of which are
in desperate need of infrastructure help, but it seems as if the more
popular thing to talk about is the acquisition of more land. Fifty
percent of my State belongs to the Federal Government; 85 percent of
Nevada in the west along the Rocky Mountain area, most of the land now
belongs to the Federal Government.
We asked in committee if we could have some kind of protection in
this allocation of CARA of $45 billion, that we would not have any more
Federal land; that, indeed, if Federal lands were to be purchased, we
would have an opportunity to dispose of some Federal land so there
would be basically no net gain. It seems to me that is reasonable. The
supporters of CARA were not willing to talk about that.
In conclusion, I think there is a great deal of merit in the bill
before the Senate. It isn't, of course, what everyone wants. There are
more expenditures to it than some like. It does reflect help however,
for the losses that were incurred because of the forest fires--6.6
million acres in the West burned this year and the costs associated and
the losses associated there.
I am going to support this bill. I am pleased. I thank the chairman
for his good work in getting this bill before the Senate.
I will comment on the fact that not only in this bill but in a number
of bills there are authorizations for things I think are
inappropriately authorized in appropriations bills. In this bill there
are some parks, for example, and set-asides which certainly ought to
come from the authorizing committee, not from the Appropriations
Committee.
I understand what happens. We get toward the end of the year, and
there are things there, people want something to happen and we are in
danger of having a lot of that happen in the next week or so. I hope it
does not. We have a system where there is an authorization and there is
an appropriation.
I don't think anyone in this place is more anxious to have dollars
available to do something with conservation, to do something with
preservation, to do something with easements, to do something with
maintenance of the land we already have, but I think we have to make
sure those bills, indeed, have the composition that makes them the
kinds of things that we need to have in this Congress and that is to
have them authorized yearly or at least in shorter spans than 15 years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I make some general remarks, I will
respond to the three--and I think there have only been three--critics
of this bill.
For the better part of 3 days, the Senate has indulged in the remarks
of the Senator from Illinois over one item out of many hundreds in this
bill. Normally speaking, items such as the Lincoln Library are included
in bills such as this because the Senators from the States concerned
believe they are important and because we believe they are reasonable
national priorities. I think I can assure the Senator from Illinois and
the body that, had I known we were going to go through this process,
there would have been no money for this project in this bill at all. It
may very well be there will be no more tomorrow.
I do think a library for Abraham Lincoln's papers in Springfield, IL,
is an appropriate project. The State of Illinois and various local
entities and individuals are providing the great majority of the money
that is going into that project. The Senator from Illinois has engaged
in a filibuster, required the vote of 89-8 on cloture, all over the
bidding practices with respect to the way in which that project is
undertaken, as to whether or not they ought to be Federal bidding
practices or the State of Illinois' bidding practices--bidding
practices of the State of Illinois that I believe he had something to
do with creating while he was a member of the legislature of that body.
Even under the bill as it appears here, the Secretary of the Interior
has the authority to review the design, method of acquisition, and the
estimated cost, and can deal with anything that the Secretary believes
to be untoward in this entire question. But I have to say that to spend
3 days of the time of the Senate on this internal dispute involving
Members of Congress and others from the State of Illinois was an
imposition on the time of the Senate at any time, but especially when
the Senate is attempting to finish many important bills of which this
is one, but only one. We will go forward with it at this point. We will
pass the bill at this point. I believe the President of the United
States will sign it at this point. But I can certainly not remember any
other instance in which a Member from a State that is getting a benefit
from the bill has looked so carefully at the teeth of a gift horse.
The second question I raise is about some of the criticisms from my
good friend, the Senator from Arizona. He complains about money in this
bill for carriage barn rehabilitation at the Longfellow National
Historic Site. That is a national park site. That is
[[Page 20889]]
the very kind of thing that we must rehabilitate. Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow, when he lived at his place, had a carriage barn. I don't
know whether the Senator from Arizona feels we should let it fall down,
but my own view is our first duty is to maintain the national park
sites that we have at the present time. The Senator from Wyoming has
just referred to that. How that constitutes pork, or a reason to vote
against this bill, is, I must say, beyond my understanding.
He complains about dollars for the southeast Alaska disaster fund
that he claims were not included in either the House or the Senate
bill. In fact, they were included in the Senate bill under a different
account number.
He complains about $30 million for site-specific earmarks or
emergency funds, one quarter of which turn out to be--slightly more
than one quarter--for hazardous fuels reduction activities carried on
by Northern Arizona University.
When I was on the floor, he was complaining about the rehabilitation
of a fish hatchery in White Sulfur Springs, WV, which was requested by
my good friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Again, I
am puzzled why it is we should not provide such office rehabilitation
at a site that is a specific function of the people of the United
States.
In other words, I don't find those criticisms to have any particular
merit whatsoever. This is our business. It is the business of this bill
to see to it that the lands and historic sites and facilities of the
United States of America are properly maintained. I think one of the
great shortcomings, one of the overwhelming shortcomings that we have
had in the last few years is that we have not been maintaining these
sites to the extent they ought to be maintained. One of the goals,
which I have accomplished in this bill, is to increase the amount of
money for that maintenance, both in the regular bill and in this
supplement to this bill that is the third item of controversy here
today.
This bill is criticized by the Senator from Louisiana as not
including the full authorization for the so-called CARA bill, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. She is certainly correct; it does
not. That bill is an almost $3-billion-a-year entitlement for some 15
years, the net result of which is that the items included in it are
deemed to be more important, should that bill pass the Congress of the
United States, than saving the Social Security system, than education,
than health care, or any of the other items for which we appropriate
every year. In my view, it is utterly inappropriate as an entitlement
that automatically comes off the top, before all the other priorities
of the people of the United States.
On the other hand, many of the items preferred in that CARA
legislation are highly worthy items, items for which this subcommittee
chairman is delighted to have what now amounts to a greater
authorization. Many of them will be more liberally funded in the future
as a result of the proposals that are a part of this bill now.
It is said--it was said in that criticism--that this bill sends all
the money through the Federal bureaucracy rather than CARA sending it
directly to the States. First, it doesn't send all the money through
the Federal bureaucracy. Many of these programs are existing programs
that result in formula grants to the States, and others are competitive
grants to the States. At this point, the Congress can, through its
authorizing committees, change the distribution formula for any one of
these programs, either to make them more direct or more focused. CARA,
of course, doesn't send all its money directly to the States, either.
It does include large amounts for payment to coastal States but they
are for new programs which are not even authorized at this point and
will not be unless some bill of that nature is passed.
Second, this is criticized by some conservatives for not providing
protections for private property. The Interior bill funds currently
authorized programs. It doesn't authorize them; it funds currently
authorized programs and therefore, by definition, includes every
protection for private property that exists in any one of those
authorizing laws. If there are shortcomings in this field, it is not
the fault of the Appropriations Committee but of the very authorizing
committee that presented CARA to us in the first place.
For Federal land acquisitions that are funded by this CARA-lite, in
future years everyone is going to be subject to the same process as is
used at the present time. They are all going to go through
appropriations committees. I can assure my colleagues, I cannot think
of a case where this committee has approved a project that did not have
the support of the relevant Members of Congress, except maybe for this
one in Illinois, which has been the subject of debate for some 3 days.
So that objection is simply not valid.
It is also pointed out this bill does not provide States and local
governments with a predictable funding stream. You bet your life it
does not, and it was not so designed. Why should we give a predictable
funding stream for grant programs to State and local governments in
precedence to the very programs for which we are directly responsible?
We do not have a fully predictable or legally enforceable funding
stream for schools. We don't have it for most of our health care
programs. We don't have it for research and development programs. We
don't have it for a wide variety of the programs that are subject to
debate every year. It is just for that reason that we do not have it.
They should be subject to debate and revision with respect to
priorities every year. That is why we have a Congress.
On the other hand, this new title does provide a decidedly increased
likelihood that these grant programs will be sustained and will
increase in future years.
What this bill does is to say that if you do not spend this money on
the programs outlined in this bill, you cannot spend it on something
else, but it will go to reducing the national debt. It is only a couple
months. Members on both sides of the aisle vociferously were saying
that a reduction of the national debt was the most important single
economic activity in which we could engage. Chairman Greenspan was
quoted constantly on the floor of the Senate. We forgot that when some
decided we needed these ``predictable funding streams,'' that is to
say, entitlements which come directly out of debt reduction.
I have never been able to see the logic of a 15-year guaranteed
funding stream that could not easily be adjusted if the programs were
ineffective or if we went into economic times in which there were
higher priorities.
Those are some of the critiques of the particular proposal,
additional portions of which are likely to be included in the
appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice, particularly the oceans
portions of it which will be debated later.
Finally, Senator Graham from Florida criticized the bill for not
providing adequate funds for national parks. While CARA would have
guaranteed an extra $100 million per year for the National Park
Service--Mr. President, I am allowed to take time from Senator Stevens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. The answer is, of course, CARA did not either. CARA gave
money to the National Park Service above the line but not below the
line, and very likely future Congresses will simply reduce the
discretionary portion of that account by the amount guaranteed in CARA
itself.
It was at my insistence that this CARA-lite does include an item, I
believe $150 million a year, for national park maintenance. I think
that is one of the most important elements of the bill itself.
The vote on cloture indicated the broad support for this bill, as did
the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. For
that overwhelming bipartisan support, I owe particular thanks to
Senator Byrd for helping me in developing the conference agreement and
shaping it in a way that merits the support of Members on both sides of
the aisle. His new staff minority clerk, Peter Kiefhaber,
[[Page 20890]]
has been a tremendous asset during the course of his first year. He has
been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff and Scott
Dalzell, who has been with us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
I thank my own exemplary staff: Bruce Evans, who is sitting here with
me, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Christine Drager, and Joe Norrell, as
well as our detailee, Sheila Sweeney, and Kari Vander Stoep of my
personal staff. All have also worked so many hours on this bill that I
do not dare count them for fear of feeling ashamed. They have worked
extremely hard, but they have been successful and have every reason to
be gratified with their work.
I note for the record this is the last year in which I will be
privileged to work with my counterpart chairman, Congressman Ralph
Regula from the House of Representatives. He will have another
subcommittee next year, and I tell you, I will miss him. I have never
dealt with anyone in this body or in the other body with whom I have
had a more positive and affirmative, constructive working relationship,
often with a great many laughs because of his marvelous sense of humor.
Ralph Regula will have left a substantial legacy of increased priority
for the maintenance of our Federal lands and facilities and a great
approach in a matter of principle.
In summary, this is a popular bill that has every right to be popular
because it meets with many of the needs of deferred maintenance for
past neglect. It has many projects in it that are of great importance
to Members on both sides of the partisan divide in this body and our
significant national priorities as well, and will get us through
another year with respect not just to these natural resources used in
energy research and cultural institutions in the United States but in a
way I think worthy and which I recommend heartily to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--13
Breaux
Brownback
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Helms
Inhofe
Landrieu
McCain
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--4
Feinstein
Jeffords
Kennedy
Lieberman
The conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE HEATING OIL RESERVE
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think Senator Domenici will be
seeking recognition. First, I want to take 2 minutes to alert my
colleagues to what I think is a very significant issue.
Much has been made of late about the status of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and the recommendation by Vice President Gore that we
withdraw 30 million barrels out of the SPR so we can build up our
heating oil reserve. Let me tell you what is happening to that.
The administration forgot a very important detail when they put that
oil up to bid for the refiners. They didn't mandate that the crude oil
be refined into heating oil or that it be used to build inventories
here in the United States for the benefit of the Northeast States that
need that heating oil inventories built up.
What will happen to the crude oil or refined product? It will go into
the marketplace, and it is going to Europe because Europe is paying a
higher price for heating oil than the United States. Currently, 167,000
barrels a day of distillate is exported.
Let me tell you what came out of the Houston Chronicle, and I quote:
The buyers can do what they wish with the oil, such as sell
or swap it, said Department of Energy spokesperson Drew
Malcomb, although whoever ends up with the oil has to get it
out of storage by the end of November.
The extra crude won't result in any additional heating oil
because all the heating oil facilities already are operating
at maximum capacity, Brown said.
There you have it. You have an administration that said we had an
emergency, we had to go into SPR, address our heating oil situation,
while sending a message to the Mideast that we are reducing our savings
account. Then we find we may not build up our domestic heating oil
inventories at all with this oil, it is going up for sale into the
market and ending up in Europe because the administration didn't
mandate that if you bought the oil, you had to keep it here in the
United States.
Senator Stevens and I have experienced some demands relative to our
inability to move our oil out of our State.
It is inconsistent to me that the administration could make such a
poor business deal. We have not accomplished anything with SPR. We have
simply increased our exports of heating oil. I think it is a charade.
I thank my colleague from New Mexico. But I did want to call that to
your attention.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article from the Houston Chronicle entitled ``Oil from Reserve in
High Demand'' and two tables on distillate exports.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Oil From Reserve in High Demand--Bidders Grab 30 Million Barrels
(By Nelson Antosh)
Trading companies and refiners looking for a good deal on
crude have snapped up all 30 million barrels that the federal
government is releasing from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The Energy Department announced Wednesday that 11
companies, some of them with names little known even within
the industry, had submitted the best bids for the oil being
held underground in Louisiana and Texas.
The buyers in effect promised to return to storage 31.56
million barrels between August and November of next year,
thus paying a premium of about 5 percent.
[[Page 20891]]
But by using the futures market, the successful bidders
will be able to pay back with oil cheaper than what it is
today, even if the real market price for crude may be higher
by then.
``A good transaction for value,'' said Mary Rose Brown of
Valero, a San Antonio-based company that will be refining its
federal crude. The difference between Wednesday's futures and
the payback cost is $3.25 per barrel, she said.
The futures price for next October is $28.53, said Kyle
Cooper of Salomon Smith Barney in Houston, who reasons that
all the reserve sale does is ``move around crude.''
In contrast to next October, the sweet crude contract for
next month settled Wednesday on the New York Mercantile
Exchange for $31.43 per barrel.
The buyers can do what they wish with the oil, such as sell
or swap it, said DOE spokesman Drew Malcomb, although whoever
ends up with the oil has to get it out of storage by the end
of November.
Valero will be taking 1 million barrels of sour crude from
the Bryan Mound storage site near Freeport and splitting it
between its refineries in Texas City and Freeport.
That crude will be co-mingled with other supplies and be
made into a full range of products, including gasoline.
The extra crude won't result in any additional heating oil
because all the heating oil facilities already are operating
at maximum capacity, Brown said. Valero even shifted some of
its distillate output at a New Jersey refinery from premium-
priced jet fuel into home heating oil.
``The product will go where the market is,'' said Malcomb,
although he said his agency would prefer that it be refined
into heating oil and be shipped to the Northeast.
Vitol, a trading company in Houston that also owns a
refinery in Canada, will get 1.05 million barrels of sweet
crude out of a storage site in Louisiana and 550,000 sour
barrels out of Bryan Mound.
The company will apply for an export license, but logically
it is a better value if sold along the Gulf Coast, said a
Vitol employee who preferred not to be identified.
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, a Houston-based venture
that is a major refiner, was the high bidder on 2.4 million
barrels of sour crude and 1.5 million barrels of sweet crude.
The DOE did not release the amounts that individual
companies promised to return to the reserve, because that
could influence any future sales.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter of New York was the high bidder
on 2 million barrels.
Lesser known names were Euell Energy of Aurora, Colo.,
which was the high bidder on 3 million barrels, Burhany
Energy Enterprises of Tallahassee, Fla., also with 3 million
barrels, and Lance Stroud Enterprises of New York with 4
million barrels.
Equiva Trading, which is a Houston-based alliance between
Shell and Texaco, will get 2.5 million barrels. A spokesman
could not be reached late Wednesday.
Elf Trading, also based in Houston, is getting 1 million
barrels.
The largest quantity, 6 million barrels, was won by BP Oil
Supply Co., in Warrenville, Ill.
``Every barrel we can get into the market in the next few
weeks reduces the risk of a shortage of heating oil and
diesel fuel this winter,'' said Secretary of Energy Bill
Richardson in a news release. ``This is good for consumers
and good for our nation's long-term security,''
Some have criticized releasing oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve as a political ploy to get more votes in
the Northeast, where heating oil is widely used.
TABLE 5. U.S. YEAR-TO-DATE DAILY AVERAGE SUPPLY AND DISPOSITION OF CRUDE OIL AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, JANUARY-JUNE 2000
[Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Monthly, August 2000; in thousand barrels per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supply Disposition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Unaccounted
Field Refinery Imports for crude Stock Crude Refinery Exports Products
production production oil a change b losses inputs supplied c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Oil.......................... E 5,851 ........... 8,655 432 64 0 14,787 87 0
Natural Gas Liquids and LRGs....... 1,956 754 204 ........... 59 ........... 357 83 2,414
Pentanes Plus.................. 307 ........... 28 ........... 6 ........... 133 4 192
Liquefied Petroleum Gases...... 1,649 754 176 ........... 53 ........... 225 79 2,222
Ethane/Ethylene............ 746 29 23 ........... 6 ........... 0 0 791
Propane/Propylene.......... 549 597 124 ........... 8 ........... 0 60 1,201
Normal Butane/Butylene..... 163 121 13 ........... 34 ........... 120 19 125
Isobutane/Isobutylene...... 191 7 17 ........... 6 ........... 105 0 105
Other Liquids...................... 177 ........... 642 ........... 63 ........... 807 47 -98
Other Hydrocarbons/Oxygenates.. 339 ........... 62 ........... 4 ........... 367 30 0
Unfinished Oils................ ........... ........... 348 ........... 23 ........... 427 0 -102
Motor Gasoline Blend. Comp..... -162 ........... 231 ........... 37 ........... 16 16 0
Aviation Gasoline Blend. Comp.. ........... ........... 0 ........... -1 ........... -3 0 3
Finished Petroleum Products........ 218 16,146 1,282 ........... 70 ........... ........... 775 16,801
Finished Motor Gasoline............ 218 7,842 347 ........... 76 ........... ........... 109 8,223
Reformulated............... ........... 2,533 176 ........... 5 ........... ........... 1 2,703
Oxygenated................. 561 107 1 ........... -1 ........... ........... 1 669
Other...................... -343 5,202 170 ........... 71 ........... ........... 107 4,851
Finished Aviation Gasoline..... ........... 17 (s) ........... -1 ........... ........... 0 19
Jet Fuel....................... ........... 1,570 129 ........... 22 ........... ........... 27 1,650
Naphtha-Type............... ........... (s) 2 ........... (s) ........... ........... (s) 2
Kerosene-Type.............. ........... 1,570 127 ........... 22 ........... ........... 27 1,648
Kerosene....................... ........... 58 3 ........... -10 ........... ........... 1 70
Average exports per day:
Distillate Fuel Oil............ ........... 3,414 274 ........... -97 ........... ........... 152 3,634
0.05 percent sulfur and ........... 2,364 139 ........... -1 ........... ........... 35 2,469
under.....................
Greater than 0.05 percent ........... 1,049 136 ........... -96 ........... ........... 117 1,164
sulfur (Heating oil only).
Residual Fuel Oil.............. ........... 657 212 ........... 7 ........... ........... 141 721
Naphtha For Petro. Feed Use.... ........... 164 104 ........... (s) ........... ........... 0 268
Other Oils For Petro. Feed use. ........... 203 154 ........... (s) ........... ........... 0 357
Special Naphthas............... ........... 102 11 ........... -1 ........... ........... 21 94
Lubricants..................... ........... 187 14 ........... -1 ........... ........... 27 174
Waxes.......................... ........... 15 2 ........... (s) ........... ........... 3 14
Petroleum Coke................. ........... 704 1 ........... 1 ........... ........... 289 416
Asphalt and Road Oil........... ........... 508 29 ........... 75 ........... ........... 4 458
Still Gas...................... ........... 652 0 ........... 0 ........... ........... 0 652
Miscellaneous Products......... ........... 53 (s) ........... (s) ........... ........... (s) 53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 8,201 16,900 10,783 432 256 0 15,952 992 19,117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Unaccounted for crude oil represents the difference between the supply and disposition of crude oil. Preliminary estimates of crude oil imports at the
National level have historically understated final values by approximately 50,000 barrels per day. This causes the preliminary values of unaccounted
for crude oil to overstate the final values by the same amount.
b A negative number indicates a decrease in stocks and a positive number indicates an increase in stocks.
c Products supplied is equal to field production, plus refinery production, plus imports, plus unaccounted for crude oil, minus stock change, minus
crude losses, minus refinery inputs, minus exports.
(s) = Less than 500 barrels per day.
E = Estimated.
LRG = Liquefied Refinery Gas.
-- = Not Applicable.
Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.
Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Forms EIA-810, ``Monthly Refinery Report,'' EIA-811, ``Monthly Bulk Terminal Report,'' EIA-812,
``Monthly Product Pipeline Report,'' EIA-813, ``Monthly Crude Oil Report,'' EIA-814, ``Monthly Imports Report,'' EIA-816, ``Monthly Natural Gas
Liquids Report,'' EIA-817, ``Monthly Tanker and Barge Movement Report,'' and EIA-819M, ``Monthly Oxygenate Telephone Report''. Domestic crude oil
production estimates based on historical statistics from State conservation agencies and the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Export data from the Bureau of the Census and Form EIA-810, ``Monthly Refinery Report.''
[[Page 20892]]
THESE ARE B-B EXPORTED--AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, ENERGY INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Distillate
----------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----
January 1998............................................. 133
February 1998............................................ 79
March 1998............................................... 129
April 1998............................................... 186
May 1998................................................. 121
June 1998................................................ 149
July 1998................................................ 161
August 1998.............................................. 150
September 1998........................................... 107
October 1998............................................. 75
November 1998............................................ 54
December 1998............................................ 145
January 1999............................................. 117
February 1999............................................ 116
March 1999............................................... 159
April 1999............................................... 191
May 1999................................................. 187
June 1999................................................ 180
July 1999................................................ 123
August 1999.............................................. 130
September 1999........................................... 162
October 1999............................................. 192
November 1999............................................ 170
December 1999............................................ 212
January 2000............................................. 132
February 2000............................................ 112
March 2000............................................... 211
April 2000............................................... 178
May 2000................................................. 127
June 2000................................................ 149
July 2000................................................ 132
August 2000.............................................. 168
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distillate fuel exports (Mbld), heating oil and diesel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have up to 20 minutes as
if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Sessions would like to follow me
with 5 minutes, if there is no objection.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator
from New Mexico wishes to speak for how long?
Mr. DOMENICI. Up to 20 minutes.
Mr. REID. We have the Senator from Alabama, and we have Senator Bryan
who wishes 10 minutes. I ask that, using normal procedure, we have a
Republican and a Democrat. I ask that Senator Bryan be the last speaker
for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume we need Senator Sessions'
concurrence.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is all right with me. I respect that. Senator
Bryan will be the last. I defer to him.
Will the Senator restate the agreement? The Senator from New Mexico
has 20 minutes, Senator Bryan has 10 minutes, and I have 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TAX RELIEF PROPOSALS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put a little editorial up here, and I
hope I made it big enough that those who photograph what we talk about
here can see it.
I want to read this paragraph in yellow, and I want to speak to Vice
President Gore's constant harping about the 1 percent of the American
taxpayers getting too much of a tax break. I would like to do that for
about 10 or 12 minutes.
But first, let me suggest to the middle-class American people who
have been waiting for a tax cut that if you elect Vice President Gore,
you can wait perhaps forever because, as this editorial says, he might
say over and over and over--maybe as many times as he said ``1
percent'' the other night--that he is for middle-income Americans
getting a tax break.
But this is the Washington Post--not the Washington Times or the
Albuquerque Journal--that says:
If Mr. Gore believes middle-class people need a tax break,
he might better give them one--and let them decide how to
spend the money. If he believes the Government should do more
to promote education, he could do so more effectively with
truly targeted spending programs rather than with tax credits
that, for example, go to those who could and would pay for
tuition in any case along with those who need the help. But
for political reasons, the Democrats, as in 1992 and 1996,
believe they need to cloak their programs in the language and
form of tax cuts. One result would be an ever more complex
Tax Code.
The truth of the matter is that the Vice President of the United
States spoke the other night about the unfairness of the tax proposals
of George W. Bush.
I just want to start by correcting one thing for sure. There are no
middle-income tax cuts in Vice President Gore's proposal--the last time
he spoke to it, the second time he spoke to it, and the time he sent us
an 81-page budget. There are no middle-class tax cuts. Why? Because he
chooses to say to the American people: If you do this with your money,
you get a credit; if you do that with your money, you get a credit.
But for those who do not do this or that because they don't have any
children to put in day care or they don't have any of the other things
they need that he wants to give them tax credit for, the overwhelming
percentage of the middle class gets zero.
That is maybe what we ought to be talking about whenever he says 1
percent. Perhaps we ought to say middle-class people, zero; middle-
class Americans, zero--maybe 16 times, as he did the other night in
referring to ``1 percent.''
Having said that, I want to talk about the progressive taxes the
American people pay and the progressive system we live under because I
believe there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who
have not been told what our Tax Code is and have not been told what
George W. Bush's tax proposals would do. Let me try that for a few
minutes.
I just told you what the Washington Post said about his tax
proposals. In essence, even when he chooses to help--that is, the Vice
President--the middle-class Americans, he chooses, I say to my friend
from Alabama, to tell them how to spend the tax cut.
That is the essence of the difference between the across-the-board
cut of George W. Bush and the Vice President, although he has much less
on the tax side, in any event--the Vice President--but he chooses to
say: Mr. and Mrs. America, I don't want you to have a $1,500 tax cut if
you are making $60,000 or $50,000. What I want you to do, if you want
to take advantage of what I want you to do, if you do one of these five
or six things as we have said, you will get a tax break.
If you are Mr. and Mrs. America, you might say: I don't need any of
those taxes. Why don't you just give me my money and let me spend it?
That is one of the very big differences between the two parties at
this point, as indicated by this editorial.
In 1992 and 1996, Vice President Gore again chose in behalf of his
colleagues to say: We want to give you a tax cut, but do not
misunderstand; you have to use it our way or you don't get it.
Is there anybody in America who thinks a tax cut should be used only
the way the Federal Government wants them to use it? I don't think they
even understand a tax cut to be that. But you can rest on it, that is
what he is talking about--not a single middle-income tax cut--zero. I
repeat.
I would like to talk a little bit on what has happened to the Tax
Code of the United States.
Mr. President and fellow Senators, we have the fairest and most
progressive Tax Code any country has ever lived under. Let me tell you
what it does today.
If anyone wants one of these, I will gladly give them one. The
Internal Revenue Service gives us the information, and the Joint
Committee on Taxation, which is a combined committee, gave us this
information.
Let me talk about the 1 percent.
Fellow Americans, 1 percent of the taxpayers of America--1 percent--
currently pay a shocking 33 percent of the taxes.
Let me repeat, Mr. President. On the income tax side, the top 1
percent of Americans pay 33 percent of the taxes that America collects
from income. They are rather wealthy. They make $250,000 and over, and
1 percent pays 33 percent of the taxes.
Let me right off the bat give you an astonishing number. If you are
to adopt George W. Bush's across-the-board tax cut, guess what percent
the top 1 percent will pay then? Remember I said, right now under our
very progressive code, they pay 33 percent of all the taxes we collect.
I say to my friend from Alabama, it is a startling revelation. After
we cut
[[Page 20893]]
everybody across the board, as George Bush suggests, the top 1 percent
will pay 34 percent total taxes. In other words, their portion of the
total taxes will go up 1 percent, not come down. Isn't that
interesting?
So everyone understands who is rich and who isn't and who pays a lot
of taxes and who doesn't, let's talk about the top 10 percent of
taxpayers. Most people watching and most people visiting are in that
bracket because the top 10 percent of the taxpayers are people earning
$79,000 or higher. How much of the total taxes collected by America
from income does the top 10 percent pay? I am sure, unless someone has
studied it, in your wildest guess you will not conclude this. Sixty-
seven percent of the income taxes collected come from the top 10
percent of the people in this country who are earning $79,000. Imagine.
Can anyone imagine a fairer system if you want to tax people who earn
money than to have 1 percent of the population that makes substantial
money pay 33 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent of 79 and
higher pay 67 percent? Frankly, it is obvious to me our Vice President
is, once again, running on an issue that has been tried before, and we
are very grateful as a nation that it has never worked. He is
practicing the art of class warfare. He wants to make sure Americans do
not trust the capitalist system where people might make more money, one
versus another, depending on what they are doing, what they have
invested in, and for what they have taken a risk. He wants to make the
issue that the top 10 percent, which pays 33 percent of the taxes, does
not deserve to be looked at when we look at cutting taxes for
Americans.
I am quite sure that sooner or later the American people are going to
catch on that everybody who pays taxes gets a tax break. So nobody will
have a misunderstanding, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax
break. I think that is pretty fundamental. There are many millions of
Americans working for a living who do not pay any U.S. income tax.
Right off the bat, when you speak about giving other people who are
earning less tax breaks, we have to understand a very large percentage
of Americans don't pay any taxes. They may think they are paying a lot
because they are paying Social Security taxes, and neither candidate is
recommending, from what I can tell, that we dramatically reduce the
Social Security--other than George W. Bush saying let's investment 2
percent. Otherwise, I haven't heard anybody saying that onerous Social
Security tax is the one that ought to be fixed.
Let me repeat, when the tax plan is in place under Mr. Bush, the top
1 percent will pay $4 trillion in taxes when we have finished the tax
across-the-board cut. Let's give that again: That top 1 percent will
pay $4 trillion in income taxes, and it will be 34 percent of the new
income taxes that we are taking in.
What will that $4 trillion buy that 1 percent of Americans are paying
in taxes? It will buy all of the following: All of our defense
programs, welfare, food stamps, child nutrition, State child health
insurance. We just picked some programs. That top 1 percent will pay
for all of that out of what they pay in income taxes.
If Mr. Gore continues to refer to this top 1 percent as public enemy
No. 1, then I can only say that the top 1 percent are high-income
folks; the top 10 percent earn $79,000 and above. One group pays 33
percent of the taxes; and the other group pays 67.
What should we do? Should we say because they pay 67 percent of the
taxes but they make $79,000 or more they should get no tax reduction?
If you are going to have a tax reduction because you have a giant
surplus, let's be fair and say the American Tax Code is fair. We ought
to continue to be fair, leave it as fair as it was, but make sure we
understand the top 10 percent deserve some tax relief, since they are
paying 67 percent of the tax.
Let me also suggest that the bottom rung of wage earners and
taxpayers in America--so there is no misunderstanding about my
progressivity comment that we have a progressive code--the bottom 50
percent pay 4 percent; the bottom 50 percent of our earners pay 4
percent of the taxes of America.
I think we have a pretty fair system. In fact, it is very heavily
skewed towards those people making $79,000 or more. But George Bush,
from what I can analyze, intends to leave it the same. It will come out
like it is in terms of progressivity, excepting that those in the top 1
percent, by a coincidence of reducing the total tax take, will end up
paying 34 percent instead of 33--even if we give them a tax break.
I do believe it is rather authentic when the Washington Post says to
Vice President Gore, if you want to give the middle income a tax cut,
give it to them. Don't tell them what they must use it for in order to
get a tax credit or tax break. That is not very American. Why should
the Government tell wage earners, people who are making money in the
American system, what they must do with their income if they want a tax
break? I thought if you were going to give it back, you would give it
back to them so they can spend it.
I will discuss another issue, Mr. Vice President. I don't come today
to the floor to talk about the case of the schoolgirl in Florida who
had to stand for one of her first days of classes this fall because
$150,000 worth of computers had yet to be unboxed. That is one of the
statements made by our Vice President in his debate. It is now, today,
authentic, that is not a true statement. The people from that school
and that school district have denied it. I think by this hour the Gore
campaign has said it is a mistake.
The Vice President said essentially in his own words that the
analysis of his budget from the budget experts who work for this
Senator, the chairman of the Budget Committee, although they happen to
work for me, what they produced as the estimate of the cost of his
budget ideas would use up the entire surplus and $700 to $900 billion
of the Social Security surplus. He said something like, it is not worth
the paper.
I have analyzed with this same staff many budgets. They have come out
as right as anyone around. They said before the Vice President put his
entire package together, that if every single program he advocates
would get funded--it is 200 or more new programs--there will be between
20,000 and 30,000 new Federal employees.
Incidentally, when the Vice President takes great credit for
shrinking the Government and says we have reduced the number of people
working for the Government, it would be good to note that 90 percent of
the shrinkage of Federal employees is because the military was reduced.
Between 85 and 90 percent of that entire personnel reduction is from
military reductions.
But let's get back to this. That budget staff said there are 200 new
programs in the Vice President's ideas for America. They also suggested
to me it is a new era of big government, excessive government, and
obviously huge increases in what government will do.
I laid that before the Senate in this report. It is as correct today
as it was then. And, indeed, we have now seen Vice President Gore's
plan all in one package. They reanalyzed it and said their original
estimate is right, that he would have to spend the surplus to pay for
his entire budget. We will have that report next week in an edition
similar to this one, in which each program is analyzed and we tell the
American people either the Vice President is suggesting myriad programs
he does not intend to do or intends to do less than he said because if
he is going to do what he says in his last written proposal, you cannot
do those programs without spending all of the surplus and part of--not
all of it but part of the surplus that belongs to Social Security.
I close by saying the Vice President Tuesday night talked a lot about
the lockbox. Isn't it amazing that Democrats, including the Vice
President, talk about the lockbox as if they invented it; they pursued
it; they are the ones who really advocated it and kept it alive. I want
to say this is one time when Senator Domenici has to say: That is not
true. It came out of the Budget Committee and I was the first Senator
to suggest it. The proposal I suggested has never been voted on to
[[Page 20894]]
this date because it is a real lockbox. It really makes it tough to
spend either Social Security--and if you want to use the same format
for Medicare, that is fine. But let's get it straight. We have been
trying to get a lockbox passed up here from our side. Whatever we
propose is either too strict, too rigid, doesn't have enough
flexibility for the Treasury Department, or something. But let's make
sure everybody understands we started the idea; we pursued it with
great vigor. It is now part, I believe, of what we believe. Whether we
get it passed or not, in our form, I believe everybody around here is
going to be frightened to death if a Budget Committee says: Hey, this
budget is spending Social Security surplus money. I believe we have
that ingrained in our minds because the public expects it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Nevada takes the
floor, I ask unanimous consent following the Senator from Alabama,
Senator Durbin be recognized for a half hour in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post features an
article entitled ``Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved.''
It is a story about one of the Nation's high-profile National
Basketball Association stars who is about to release a rap CD that
encourages gun violence, degrades women, and blatantly bashes people
because of their sexual orientation. The National Basketball
Association, the Philadelphia 76ers, his team, Mr. Iverson's record
label, his coach, and every fairminded person should condemn this kind
of so-called entertainment for the trash that it is. Clearly, these are
not the kind of messages that one of the NBA's leading and most
talented players should be sending to tens of thousands of kids who
watch him play and may idolize him.
I fully respect Mr. Iverson's first amendment rights, but clearly the
message he is sending encourages violence and implicitly condones it,
hardly the kind of conduct one would expect from a celebrity whose
conduct is admired by many of the Nation's youth.
What makes this particularly objectionable is the fact that Mr.
Iverson and many of his other incredibly talented colleagues in the NBA
are specifically marketed by the NBA itself as superheroes to our kids.
The NBA is ultimately in a business to make money, and that is fine.
They use their stars to promote their teams. But one would hope the NBA
would exercise good judgment in choosing the athletes they select to
promote because many of these athletes use their stardom to, again,
promote themselves and to use that same kind of marketing appeal. And
when the message, as in this case from Mr. Iverson, is both hateful and
dangerous and is absorbed by all too many of our Nation's youth, it is
a vicious cycle that the NBA should end immediately.
The NBA has the power to pick and choose which athletes they are
going to market and promote. They should exercise sound judgment and
discretion before encouraging this kind of promotion and the
reprehensible message it sends.
A few weeks ago I joined with many of our colleagues, both in
committee and on the floor, in condemning some of the media produced in
Hollywood, some of the videos, some of the violence that so often
invades the Nation's television audience. We should also condemn this
kind of conduct as well. When the NBA promotes these questionable
athletes, they assist them in their quest to become wealthy media
darlings, and that only helps other media outlets such as record
companies and movie studios to exploit their now already famous
personalities. In fact, Mr. Iverson's record company is apparently
planning to use the NBA's very well publicized All-Star weekend to
release the uncensored--and one could only conclude even more
objectionable--version of his soon-to-be-released CD.
Again, it is ultimately going to have to be up to the NBA as to who
they promote and market and who they do not. But they need to realize
if they continue to promote and market athletes who use their league-
endorsed celebrity to promote or incite violence or the degradation of
more than half the Nation's population, they will continue to bear a
great deal of responsibility for the consequences of these actions.
I find it somewhat incredible that the Philadelphia 76ers' own coach
has said, according to the Washington Post article, that he does not
have a problem with Mr. Iverson's CD. That is nothing more than a cheap
copout, and the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and his coach should
immediately condemn this outrageous, dangerous, and hateful message.
Let me give an example of one of the lyrics that is on this CD. Mr.
Iverson says on his CD if someone is ``man enough to pull a gun/Be man
enough to squeeze it.''
In addition, he also advocates the murder of gay men on his new CD.
I am told that a wire report has been circulated this afternoon
indicating that Mr. Iverson has apologized to gay men and to women for
the hateful language contained in his CD. I call upon Mr. Iverson to do
more than that; to ask, as a responsible American, as a role model,
which he styles himself to be: Let's not issue this CD. Let's recall
it. That would be the kind of conduct we should ask and expect of Mr.
Iverson.
There are many athletes in America who do provide the kind of role
model all Americans can endorse--the Cal Ripkens and the Tiger Woods in
the World. These are the kind of people who send a very positive
message about the value of the work ethic and the commitment to
standards. All of us admire that kind of conduct. If Mr. Iverson is
deemed to be a role model for America's youth, I suggest that the youth
of America is in serious trouble.
Michael Wilbon also had a very interesting response to this subject
in the Post this morning. I commend it to my colleagues as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved
(By Michael Wilbon)
Like a lot of other folks who care about basketball, I keep
waiting for Allen Iverson to grow up. I keep waiting for him
to lift some weights and get stronger so that he can better
withstand the pounding he takes. I keep waiting, hoping for
him to realize that games are often won at the previous day's
practice, which he may or may not have attended. I keep
hoping that he is old enough now--25--to understand there's a
world of difference between being a great talent and a great
player, between somebody who's got game and a champion. I
keep waiting for Iverson to understand that the notion of
being a role model goes way beyond a lot of people walking
around town wearing your jersey.
But here we are, at the start of NBA season No. 5, and
Iverson seems no closer to getting any of this than he did
four years ago. Maybe he's further away. My vigil appears to
be in vain.
NBA camps have just opened, and Iverson is in the news
already, again for the wrong reasons. The story with sizzle
is the controversy over a soon-to-be-released rap CD on which
Iverson does what the majority of thug rappers do: He
demonstrates that he, too, can bash gays, degrade women and
talk about shooting somebody. That's the genre. It's pretty
clear how this breaks down; if you're under 30 (regardless of
race, nationality, gender), chances are overwhelming you're a
lot more open to thug rap than if you're over 40. I'm 41, and
most rap doesn't speak to me, doesn't move me whatsoever. But
I do listen to it enough to know that lyrics Iverson's
spewing on ``Non-Fiction'' are fairly common.
That doesn't mean people won't be offended, and
legitimately so. Iverson's rap on gays, as reported earlier
this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Come to me with
faggot tendencies/You'll be sleepin' where the maggots be.''
He also raps, ``Man enough to pull a gun/Be man enough to
squeeze it.''
This is a young man who in the same breath will tell you he
is a role model? Sadly, he is probably right on the mark. And
sadly, the hip-hop community seems to get a pass on gay-
bashing and misogynist behavior.
Given what this kid has been through in his life, and that
the present environment existed long before he came along,
many of
[[Page 20895]]
us have extended Iverson the benefit of the doubt. He's about
used it up. It's not about his twisted lyrics, specifically.
It's about squandering talent, it's about being a self-
absorbed egomaniac whose position in the culture isn't nearly
as big as he thinks it is. It's about never listening to
anyone, and having no regard for anything that doesn't
revolve around him and his. Kinda like the very dead
Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac, which I'm sure Iverson would take
as a compliment.
I thought Iverson was getting somewhere when he said
earlier this week, ``The whole time I've been in the NBA, I
haven't been professional at all. I always looked at it like
it was just basketball. This year will definitely be the best
season I've had since I've been in the NBA. I owe it to
myself and my family and my teammates to be a better player.
``I'm concentrating on basketball. I haven't been working
on my game as serious as I should've. I have the raw talent.
this is going to be the most important year of my career
because all eyes are on me this year. Everybody's wanting to
see if I can be the captain, if I can be a leader, if I can
be professional besides playing basketball, and if I'm up to
the challenge. I'm ready for it because it's something I can
do.''
But the longer you listen to Iverson, the more you realize
he's disconnected from the world we live in, even the world
he lives in. The attitude is: I can be late or miss practice
whenever I want because I'm Allen Iverson, The Answer, and
the team don't have nothin' if it ain't got me. And if you
make a big deal out of me cussin' the coach and standing up
my teammates and getting fined 50 times in one season, then
you must be a punk 'cause I'm tough and you ain't.
Iverson is ticked off because the 76ers tried to trade him
because he repeatedly is late to practice, if he shows at
all. You know what his take is? ``That's embarrassing to hear
that an organization is thinking about trading its franchise
player because he's tardy to practice.''
Of course, it never occurred to him that it ought to be
embarrassing for the franchise player to be tardy repeatedly.
That wouldn't cross his mind. ``You're going to send me to
the worst team in the league?'' he asked incredulous at the
possibility of going to the Los Angeles Clippers, apparently
unaware that players a whole lot more accomplished than he is
(Wilt and Kareem to name two) were traded in their prime.
Truth be told, the Clippers don't want Iverson. Several
teams have turned down the chance to trade for him and here's
why: They're afraid he'll never get with the program--
anybody's program. He plays his heart out every time he puts
on a uniform. For those 48 minutes, there isn't anything he
won't do to win a basketball game. He'll sacrifice his body,
he'll do the dirty work some superstars don't want to do. But
the great players in any sport know it only starts there. And
that's what Iverson hasn't grasped. You know what he said
this week about his repeated tardiness, which by the way has
angered his teammates?
``Yeah, I was late to practice, but, believe me, [the
number of] times that I heard nobody would put up with that.
I'm not even brave enough to miss that many practices.''
So how many, Allen? ``I don't know; I wasn't counting.
Don't nobody complain about the effort I give in a game.
[Given the injuries and pounding he takes] it's bad enough I
had to come to the game.''
Iverson went on to say he was ``hurt hearing some of the
things the fans were saying, some of the things people on the
coaching staff were saying. I thought a lot of people in this
organization were my friends and I found out the hard way
that there's no friends in this business besides your
teammates.''
I guess those would be the teammates for whom he won't come
to practice on time. I guess those would be the friends who
have begged him for years to get his act together to try to
realize there are obligations that come with an $80 million
contract. If they're not sucking up to him, they're against
him, they don't understand him, they're not as tough as he
is.
Folks under 30 are tired of people my age wanting Iverson
to be Bird or Magic or Jordan, and that's understandable.
Different time, different place, the world evolves. But I'm
looking at Kevin Garnett now, at Ray Allen, at Tim Duncan, at
Shaq and Kobe Bryant. There is a new generation of players
trying to be all they can be. And they have fully developed
lives outside of basketball.
Iverson, meanwhile, raps one thing, but his actions speak
even louder. It's everybody else's fault, it's the coach's
fault, it's the system's fault. He says he is going to
change. It reminds me of Bob Knight saying he was going to
change. I'm hoping Iverson is different because he's more
than 30 years younger than Knight; he can grow up if he
wants. But maybe it's more important for him to talk loud
while saying nothing.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, again, let me urge the NBA and the
Philadelphia 76ers to step forward and be heard. They will say: Look,
we cannot control Mr. Iverson's conduct. That may be true. But they
have an obligation, a responsibility to speak out and to condemn such
conduct, even if they are unable to control it. So far, either they
have, by silence, acquiesced, or they have to acknowledge that they
find nothing wrong with the CD.
I find that both troubling and tragic if that is the standard we are
to follow.
Again, the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and their coach ought to
speak out loud and clear and indicate this is not the kind of conduct
they expect from one of their star athletes and to be as critical of it
as I know Americans are in general.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe some of our other
colleagues have reserved time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for
sharing those serious concerns. It was not long ago that a group of us
wrote the major department stores in the country asking them not to
sell this violent material to minors, and they responded as good
corporate citizens.
They said: We have a constitutional right to sell it, but we are not
going to do it. Either we are not going to sell it at all, or we are
going to make sure children produce an ID so we know they are old
enough to buy the material. I thought that was a good corporate
response.
Yes, the NBA may not legally be able to stop this stuff, but they
ought to express their concern about it. The Senator makes a valid
point, and I salute him for it.
(The remarks of Mr. SESSIONS pertaining to the introduction of S.
3169 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
____________________
ORGAN DONATION IN AMERICA
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I address the issue that I would
like to speak to this evening, I would first like to acknowledge a
press conference which was held today, and one which I believe could
have some significance across the United States. It was a press
conference here on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol. In attendance were
Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senator DeWine of Ohio--both
Republican Senators--as well as my Democratic colleague, Senator Carl
Levin and I.
What would bring together two Democrats and two Republicans in rare
agreement here in the close of a session? It is an issue which,
frankly, transcends party and transcends region. It is the issue of
organ donation in America.
Mr. President, 72,000 of our friends and neighbors are sitting by a
telephone across America at this very moment waiting for the phone to
ring to be told that there is an organ available to be donated to them
which could save their lives--72,000. In my home State of Illinois,
there are 4,500 such people. Sadly, 300 of them will die before they
receive the phone call that an organ is available.
So last year I joined with Senators Frist, DeWine, Levin, and
Kennedy, and half a dozen other Senators from both sides of the aisle,
to try to address this on a national basis. We came up with the concept
that this Thanksgiving in the year 2000 will be designated ``Give
Thanks, Give Life Week,'' where we will try to alert families across
America, as they come together for Thanksgiving, that they should take
a few moments of time in that festivity and just perhaps talk to one
another privately about their feelings about organ donation.
We were lucky to have the endorsement of this effort by the National
Football League. At 17 different NFL games on Thanksgiving Week, they
will have ``Give Thanks, Give Life'' activities.
Today, we had at this gathering on the Capitol lawn, Connie Payton,
who is the widow of the great Chicago Bear running back Walter Payton.
Of course, he died in November of last year from liver disease. He
might have been saved by a liver transplant. She has really dedicated
her life since trying to work for children and for organ donation in
his memory.
[[Page 20896]]
Connie is a wonderful lady who has been on television in public
service spots across Illinois with our Secretary of State, Jesse White,
for the past 6 or 7 months. She really is well respected for her
efforts.
Joining her were representatives of the National Football League from
the Washington Redskins and from the Tennessee Titans. It is going to
be a great opportunity across America to use what is a great family
get-together to remember the very basic: If you want to give thanks,
you can give life with an organ donation.
So I hope a lot of my colleagues in the other NFL cities will be part
of this and will participate. In Chicago, we are going to set up tables
in Soldier Field for those who want organ donation cards and to
encourage people to sign their driver's licenses. At half time we are
going to bring out a bunch of kids and older folks who successfully
received organ transplants.
At this meeting, we had Jon Hochstein, a 5-year-old boy from
Virginia. He had a heart transplant a year and a half ago, and he looks
like he will play in the NFL some day.
It is a great miracle, but it can't happen without organ donors.
Those of us who made that commitment, and have made it known to our
families, stand at least the possibility to bring a lot of joy to
families.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois and I came to the House of
Representatives together 18 years ago. I was placed on the Science and
Technology Committee, and the first subcommittee I was on was chaired
by Representative Albert Gore. One of the first hearings that he put
together as chairman of that subcommittee dealt with organ transplants.
That was 18 years ago. Maybe the Senator can remember the very noted
hearing that he held, beginning a discussion on organ transplants.
Mr. DURBIN. I was at the same hearing.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois, do you remember little
Jamie Fisk whom he brought in?
Mr. DURBIN. I do.
Mr. REID. He was yellow.
Mr. DURBIN. Jaundiced.
Mr. REID. He needed a liver transplant. As a result of that hearing,
Jamie Fisk got a liver transplant. It began a discussion in our country
that the Senator from Illinois has carried on all these years about why
we should be aware of the need for organ transplants.
I was not aware the Senator was coming to the floor today to speak
about this subject. But my mind returns to that very dramatic hearing
that went on for many hours. It was the first of its kind.
I would say, in passing, and ask the Senator if he agrees with me,
that this is like Al Gore to begin something like this. He is a
visionary. And this goes back long before anyone ever anticipated or
thought that Al Gore would be a Member of the Senate, certainly not
Vice President, and not running for the Presidency.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with you.
But I remember it well because I was lucky enough to serve on that
same subcommittee. I remember that testimony as if it were yesterday.
It was amazing that this issue was brought forward. We have done so
much.
Our Republican colleague, who is a medical doctor, Senator Bill
Frist, was a former heart and lung transplant surgeon. He came down
here. He talked about how he used to carry around in his pocket the
names of 10 or 12 people who needed an organ donation. He would go
through the hospital to see if there were any families with a loved one
who was about to pass away who would even consider that. He said since
he stopped that practice a few years ago, the number of organ
transplants has been increasing each and every year. But it can't
continue unless there are more donors.
I hope this ``Give Thanks, Give Life Week'' around Thanksgiving will
become an annual event. I want to really salute the National Football
League and Paul Tagliabue, the Commissioner, for all the support they
have given us. They have at least given it the kind of sendoff we hoped
to achieve. Connie Payton, who was here the other day; Mark Moseley,
who is a former most valuable player in the NFL; Bill Brundage, who was
also a lineman for the Washington Redskins--they all came out here to
endorse the concept.
Many times, people in sports can come forward and spur a lot of folks
to take seriously what politicians, such as ourselves, may not be able
to impress upon them. So this meeting today was a good one.
____________________
TAX CUTS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also come to the floor today to talk
about an issue that came up the other night during the course of the
Presidential debate. I did a television show last night called
``Crossfire.'' Some people probably have seen it. It was typical. It
was kind of a controlled shouting match, you might say, on
``Crossfire,'' with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other.
Mary Matalin, who is from Illinois, and has been quite well known for
her chairmanship of the campaign for George Bush's election as
President, was there representing the Republican side. Of course, we
had Bill Press on the Democratic side. We talked about the debate.
The interesting thing to me was, the analysis of the debate by these
commentators kind of came down to what I consider to be fairly
superficial questions: Did George Bush show disrespect for Al Gore when
he brought up the whole question about fundraising? Did Al Gore show
disrespect for George Bush when he shrugged or was guilty of audible
breathing?
I thought to myself at one point, is that as good as it gets in a
Presidential campaign in America? We can listen to 90 minutes of debate
and wonder if someone perhaps cleared their throat at the wrong time,
or shrugged their shoulders, or someone else brought up a word or two
that might have crossed the line.
I think it is worth a lot more for us to have these debates. I think
it is important that all of us who are in this business--Republicans
and Democrats--take it as seriously as the American people want to take
it.
What I hear from people across the country is, we are looking for
political candidates who speak candidly, honestly, openly, and
truthfully. Tell us what you believe, even if we might disagree with
it, so we can draw a conclusion about you, not just our ideas about
you.
The issue that Al Gore came to the debate to talk about is one which
was addressed a few moments ago by our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici
of New Mexico. I listened carefully because I really respect this man.
For years, when I served in the House of Representatives on the Budget
Committee, and now on the Senate Budget Committee, I have watched Pete
Domenici. He has gone after the deficit like a tiger and for years and
years was admonishing Congress to cut spending, trying to bring down
our deficit. He continues in that effort.
As a consequence, I wish he were here on the floor. I told him I was
going to bring up this issue. I wish he were here on the floor so we
could have a little debate about the proposed tax cuts of the two
candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, and the impact it would have on
America.
I think that is the point that Al Gore was trying to make the other
night in the debate. There really are two clear choices. Both parties
are for tax cuts, but they are entirely different approaches. The
American people get to take their pick whichever they think is best for
the future of this country and fairest for the taxpayers.
Frankly, I think the choice is very stark and very clear.
Let me show you, as an example, this chart, which demonstrates George
Bush's proposal. It is true, we are at the point in our history where
we are going to have a surplus; more money coming into the Federal
Treasury than going out for the next 10 years.
The amount of that surplus will be somewhere in the neighborhood of
$4.8 trillion--a huge amount of money. It sure is a far cry from just a
few years
[[Page 20897]]
back when we had, year after year, deficit after deficit. But, thank
goodness, we are now living in an era of projected surpluses. We can
start thinking about doing things with that money that will be good for
the Nation.
The first thing you have to notice out of the $4.8 trillion surplus
over the next 10 years is we have all agreed--Democrats and
Republicans--that $2.6 trillion of the $4.8 trillion will not be
touched. That is a surplus in the Social Security funds. We have said
that is off limits. Nobody gets to touch the Social Security fund. So
you start off with a 10-year surplus of $2.2 trillion, which I have
indicated on this graph.
Then we take a look at the projection, first from George Bush, as to
what you might do with that. Well, there will be a surplus as well in
the Medicare trust fund, the hospitalization plan for the elderly and
disabled, of about $360 billion. We think that should also be off the
table. We should not touch it. We know Medicare won't last forever, and
we want it to be solvent. So if you take away that amount, you are down
to $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
Then, of course, you take the proposal of George Bush for tax breaks
of $1.3 trillion, and you find that you have $500 billion left over the
next 10 years.
Then George Bush has also endorsed other Republican tax breaks, such
as the estate tax, the marriage penalty tax, the telephone tax, a whole
variety of tax breaks which total $940 billion. Now we find ourselves
in short order in the deficit category again. If you do all these
things, you are back in the deficit world.
Then take a look at proposals by Governor Bush for additional
spending on a variety of things--the military, education, whatever it
happens to be--$625 billion, and that brings the deficit to a total of
$1 trillion over the next 10 years. Then there is the proposal by
Governor Bush that suggests we should privatize Social Security. That
would cost $1.1 trillion. So add that to the $1 trillion, and now you
have $2.1 trillion. With added interest costs of these additional debts
of $400 billion at the end of 10 years, you started off with a $4.8
trillion surplus and now, at the end of it, under the George Bush plan,
you have a $2.5 trillion deficit.
None of us wants to see a return to those deficits. So the
alternative which has been proposed on the Democratic side by Vice
President Gore suggests a much more reasonable approach: Start with the
same $2.2 trillion, the non-Social Security surplus; protect the
Medicare trust fund, $1.8 trillion; targeted investments, $530 billion.
What is that for? Additional medical research at the National
Institutes of Health, more money for our schools, environmental
protection, cleaning up some of the environmental waste sites across
America. Now add in the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, which
we support on the Democratic side. You are now down to $943 billion.
Then we bring in our tax cuts, $480 billion worth of tax cuts, which
I will describe in a few minutes. Then after you have reduced interest,
you have a net of $310 billion on the plus side. You are not back in
deficit land again. You don't see the red ink on this chart. You are
still above the line. You still have a surplus.
The Vice President has suggested that we should put this in a rainy
day fund because, frankly, all of these economic projections are just
guesses about the future. If we guess wrong, we should have a rainy day
fund for emergencies. The good news is, as we address this approach, by
the year 2012, we will have eliminated, under Vice President Gore's
proposal, the publicly held national debt in America.
What does that mean? It means that the debt being held by folks who
own treasuries and securities in the Federal Government will have been
retired. And if that is retired, then it means less competition for
capital, lower interest rates, more opportunity for businesses to
expand and families to borrow money for mortgages. It also means that
our kids will not be carrying the burden of the national debt on their
shoulders. I don't think we can leave our children a better gift. Those
who would suggest that a tax cut is a much better deal miss the point.
The best deal is for us to eliminate the publicly held national debt,
have targeted tax cuts, and end up with a surplus at the end. To find
ourselves, as Governor Bush has proposed, running into all of this red
ink from his proposals would be a recipe for disaster. We would not
only still have our national debt, we would be adding to it. I don't
think that does our kids and grandchildren any good whatsoever.
When Al Gore said repeatedly the other night that the Bush tax cut
spends more for the wealthiest 1 percent than the total that he wants
to spend on education, defense, health and prescription drugs, that is
exactly what the figures show. The tax cuts proposed by George Bush for
the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, $667 billion worth of tax cuts,
are greater than the investments he wants to make in defense, health
care, education, and prescription drug benefits combined. It is his
choice. In this business of politics, it is a business of choices. I
think it is important for us to reflect for a moment on the
distribution of those tax cuts proposed by George Bush.
This was a point raised earlier by Senator Domenici. I am sorry that
we didn't have a chance to be on the floor together so we could explore
what we are talking about.
Who are the people who make the top 1 percent of income in America?
They turn out to be folks who make more than $319,000 a year. That is
$25,000 a month. I don't expect people to hold up their hands if they
happen to be in that category. When you talk about those who need a tax
cut, does it spring to your mind automatically that this is the first
group we should care about, that 40 or 50 percent of all the tax cuts
ought to go to people making over $25,000 a month? Boy, that sure
doesn't calculate in my mind.
And the Bush tax cut, the average tax cut for those people making
over $319,000 a year, is $46,000 a year. That is the Bush tax cut for
the top 1 percent. You go down to people in the lower income categories
and you see that it is small change. If you are making less than
$14,000 a year, George Bush thinks you need a tax cut, too, $42 a year.
If you are making less than $24,000 a year, it is up to $187 a year;
under $40,000 a year, $453 a year.
As you look at this, you have to ask yourself a question: Is it
really important for Members of Congress to feel the pain of the
wealthiest people in America or perhaps to identify with a lot of
middle-income and working families who are struggling with the
necessities of life?
I come to this job believing that our responsibility isn't to the
wealthiest. I think they are doing pretty well. America has been pretty
prosperous for the last 8 years, more economic prosperity than at any
time in our history. And it shows. People are living better. They are
saving more. They are enjoying a better lifestyle. To think they need a
tax cut at this moment in our history rather than to eliminate the
national debt, rather than to provide tax cuts for people in lower
income categories, is beyond me.
There are some interesting statistics, too, about what has happened
to Federal tax rates since Bill Clinton and Al Gore took over. There
was a statement made frequently by Governor Bush that he wants to cap
the total Federal tax rate at 33.3 percent. He said no one should pay
more than a third of their income in Federal taxes. That is an
interesting proposal. But as you get into it, this is what it says. Let
me give you an idea.
For middle-income families, since the Clinton-Gore administration
took office, the total Federal tax rate has dropped to 22.8 percent,
the lowest rate since 1978. So telling those folks we are not going to
let your taxes go beyond 33.3 percent, they are already doing well. Tax
rates are coming down. We want to continue to see them come down with
more targeted tax cuts. For families with incomes of $24,000, the tax
rate went from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999, the lowest
tax rate since 1968.
So when the suggestion is made that the Federal tax rate won't be any
higher than a third for anybody, it really
[[Page 20898]]
goes back to the highest income categories. That is his shorthand
version of saying: I want to give a tax cut not to working families but
to people at the highest income categories. What George Bush is
challenging is basically the idea of a progressive income tax,
something that we really agreed on almost 80 years ago in America.
We said, if you are well off and you are doing better, you should pay
a higher tax rate than people who are struggling to get by. Every
President has gone along with that from the beginning, Democrats and
Republicans alike. But the arguments coming from Governor Bush at this
point suggest he doesn't believe that. He believes we should reduce the
rate for the wealthiest people in the country and not provide similar
tax relief for those who are in lower income categories.
It would be a virtual windfall, in terms of tax benefits, for some of
the wealthiest people in America. Honest to goodness, should we be on
the floor of the Senate and in the House dreaming up ways to make Bill
Gates' life more comfortable? I don't think so. How about Donald Trump?
I think he is doing okay. I watch the way he dresses and his lifestyle.
I don't think he will need this $46,000 from George Bush. In fact, if
he receives it, he may not even notice it.
When we talk about tax cuts on the Democratic side, we are talking
about things that working families will definitely notice. Let me give
you some ideas of the things we have come up with that we think are
targeted tax cuts consistent with keeping the economy moving forward
and helping everybody, not just a few. The Republicans criticized
these, but that is what campaigns are about.
On the Democratic side we believe the No. 1 concern of working
families is paying for their children to attend college. You can look
at kids coming out of college who are $15,000, $20,000 in debt, and
higher. Parents wonder, for goodness' sakes, how can we save up enough
for this child to be able to go to college. I did a survey in Illinois.
Over the last 20 years, college tuition in public and private
universities in my State has gone up 200 to 400 percent. So it is
understandable that there would be anxiety among parents as they try to
think about how they are going to pay for college.
Well, Vice President Gore and the Democrats have suggested that up to
$12,000 of college tuition and fees should be deductible on your taxes.
You can't do that now. We think you should. That would be a helping
hand to working families who want their kids to go to college and
acquire the best skills, but they don't want them loaded down with debt
when they graduate. It is simple, straightforward, honest, and popular.
I have been across my State, which is split down the middle
politically. I have yet to run into a crowd that didn't applaud that
suggestion. They know, either through their kids or their own life's
experience, that this is the sort of thing that works. I went to
Rockford College in Rockford, IL, and I asked them, ``What is the
average indebtedness of your graduates upon graduation?'' They said,
``It's $20,000 after getting out of school.''
If the Gore plan for education expense deductions were in place, that
student would graduate with a debt of $4,000 or $5,000, instead of
$20,000. And if you have accumulated college debt, you will be able to
claim a tax credit for the interest that you have to pay on it. So I
think that is the kind of targeted tax cut that makes more sense,
rather than giving Bill Gates $46,000 a year, which he won't even
notice.
Secondly, a lot of people are concerned about day care. I understand
now with a grandson--and Senator Reid and I were talking about our
grandkids earlier. I have a 4-year-old grandson, and my daughter and
son-in-law are concerned about quality day care and the cost of it. We
want Alex to have the very best. But it gets expensive. A lot of
families can't afford the best. So we give a tax credit for day care,
but it is not adequate. It doesn't meet the need. A lot of families
struggle and worry. They are hoping that the kids they pick up at the
end of the day will be better off than when they left them, but they
are never sure.
Wouldn't it make more sense for us to have a greater tax credit for
day care? A lot of working families would applaud that. Kids in a
better environment have a better chance to be healthy and safe and to
succeed. So that is a targeted tax cut which has been supported by Vice
President Gore and supported on the Democratic side.
A third one relates to long-term care. This is one that virtually all
of us face as our parents get older and need additional attention. We
may find, perhaps, that a visiting nurse, or some sort of convalescent
care, or assisted living situation is the key for happiness for a
person you love very much, a parent who has given you their entire
lives. But it is expensive, and there are a lot of out-of-pocket
expenses involved when a conscientious family cares for an aging parent
or grandparent.
As the Democrats have proposed, I think a tax break for those engaged
in long-term care assistance for their parents and relatives is a
sensible investment. Today, at a town meeting which we have every
Thursday--Senator Fitzgerald and I--for visitors from Illinois, a young
lady talked about her little boy who suffered from autism and how,
after all of the efforts by the school district and her health
insurance, she and her husband still had to borrow from relatives and
take out of pocket to care for their disabled little boy. She said to
me: Why in the world can't I get help under the Tax Code for that?
I think she is right. Doesn't it make more sense for us to make sure
the Tax Code is sensitive to people's real needs in raising their
families?
When these folks are making a sacrifice for their children, shouldn't
we be there to help them along? That is the difference. On the
Democratic side, we target the tax cuts as I have just described. On
the Republican side, they say, no, we think the wealthiest top 1
percent in America should get 42.6 percent of the tax breaks; those
making over $300,000 a year should get $46,000 a year in tax breaks.
And, frankly, they disparage our approach as being ``too selective.''
Well, it is true; our tax cuts do go for specific purposes, but they
are purposes with which real families can identify.
So when the debate started disintegrating into a question about who
was clearing their throat, or shrugging their shoulders, or glaring at
whom, I thought there is much more at stake in this election. I hope in
the closing weeks of the election--and the Vice Presidential debate is
tonight, and the Presidential candidates will debate on two more
occasions in the next few weeks--we can get down to business here. I
think there is a clear choice on so many issues.
I haven't mentioned prescription drugs, and I would like to do that
for a moment. There is such a dramatic difference between the approach
that George Bush proposed for prescription drugs and that by proposed
by Vice President Gore. Did you know the Bush proposal, in the first 4
years, would depend on each State enacting a prescription drug benefit?
That's right. Every single State would have to enact the law and do it
their own way. That means just a handful of people will be assisted. In
Illinois, over a million people might qualify for prescription drug
help, but because of the way the law is written, only 55,000 actually
do. It is limited to a certain number of diseases and certain drugs.
Frankly, that doesn't do the job. As a consequence of that, you will
have a lot of people left behind.
Governor Bush says for 4 years we will let the States take care of
it, if they want to. Some States already have prescription drug benefit
plans. Illinois is one of them, but Texas is not. So the State of
Texas, where he is Governor, hasn't even enacted a prescription drug
benefit plan. And now George Bush says we will leave it up to the
States and they can show the initiative and leadership when it comes to
prescription drugs for 4 years. Then, at the end of 4 years, things get
very interesting under Governor Bush's plan. It is at that point he
says we will take it away from the Governors in the States and put it
in the loving and caring
[[Page 20899]]
arms of a group which we know America trusts the most--insurance
companies. Insurance companies.
So the decisions on the prescription drugs won't be made by doctors,
nurses, or health care professionals. Once again, they will be made by
clerks at insurance companies, who will decide which drugs they are
going to put in their formulary, their accepted prescription drugs, and
which ones they will not. They will decide the premiums and how much
the copay will be. You will decide on your own how much help you will
get. If you happen to be making a certain amount of money, you may not
qualify for any assistance whatsoever. That is the George Bush plan.
That is his approach. He says it gives you maximum choice. You get to
pick your own insurance company. What a break. Then your insurance
companies get to pick the drugs which you may be allowed to take.
Contrast that with the Democratic plan, supported by Al Gore. He says
this ought to be a voluntary universal plan under Medicare. There is
your choice. The private insurance companies versus Medicare. That is
the choice I think a lot of people don't understand is really before us
in this Presidential election. Gore believes in a prescription drug
benefit under Medicare that is universal, voluntary, and available for
everybody. Bush says to first give it to the States, let them work with
it for a while, and then give it to the insurance companies and let
them take it over. That is the choice. It is no choice at all. Under
the Gore plan, the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan, your doctor
will be prescribing your drugs. Medicare will help you pay for them.
Under the Bush plan, the health insurance company will decide which
drugs you can apply for and how much you pay in premiums.
I don't think that is much of a choice. I think back to 1965 when I
was a student. I can remember the debate under Medicare. The
Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare. It was Lyndon Johnson's
idea that they called socialistic, the Great Society, so forth and so
on.
Look at where we are today, 35 years later: A health insurance plan
for the elderly and disabled which has lengthened the lifespan of
senior citizens and which has brought dignity and independence to their
lives. Medicare is a system they trust. When Al Gore suggests that
prescription drug benefits should be under Medicare, seniors say: We
feel at home with Medicare. We know how it works.
Do seniors who voluntarily sign up have to pay a premium? Of course,
they pay for Medicare now. It is understandable. They will be making a
monthly payment. But look at the peace of mind they buy for $50 a
month. They realize there is a maximum amount they will have to pay
each year for prescription drugs. If a medical catastrophe comes along,
they know they are not out on a limb and unable to fill those
prescriptions if they need to.
When it comes to tax cuts and prescription drug benefits, what a
clear contrast between the two candidates for President of the United
States. Elections are about choices.
Many of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, frankly, who
didn't have much of an inclination toward these issues are now
discovering these issues. They are now newfound converts to the idea of
prescription drug benefits. They have come up with a plan, which is
interesting, about the reimportation of drugs after they have been sent
overseas. You know a lot of drugs made in the United States go to other
countries and they are sold for a fraction of the cost. The question
is, can you bring them back into the country, buy them at a fraction of
the cost in Canada and Mexico, and bring them back in the United
States? I support it.
It really shows how far this system has disintegrated when the drug
companies sell drugs in Canada for a fraction of what they cost
consumers in the United States, where the drugs were developed with
taxpayers' money through the NIH and inspection by the FDA and others.
This reimportation of drugs from other countries, as appealing as it
sounds, can't possibly solve the problem. It is impossible to believe
that American drug companies will just be shifting drugs overseas on a
wholesale basis and expect Americans to import them back into the
United States. At some point, they will slow down the sales overseas
and they will take control of the situation.
The only real answer for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare
is for the Medicare system to bargain with the drug companies for
reasonable prices and costs for these drugs. That is really a key issue
in this campaign and a key difference between the two candidates.
I know this is likely to come out tonight in the debate between our
colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, and the former Secretary of Defense,
Mr. Cheney. But I don't believe this is the end of the debate. I think
it will continue on the Senate and House floor in the closing days and
weeks of this session. Ultimately, the American people will be the
judge. We have asked the American people in many polls which approach
they prefer, and they say, hands down, that the Democrats understand
Medicare, understand prescription drug benefits, and understand how to
bring tax cuts that work for working families so that prosperity is
there for everyone and not just a few.
(Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, may I ask the
Senator a question? Did he say the top 1 percent of the people in the
Bush tax cut get almost 50 percent of all the benefits?
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Did the Senator also say there are a number of converts
during the last few months on issues that we have developed? Take, for
example, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Isn't it true that in this body,
on a straight party-line vote, there was a Patients' Bill of Rights in
name only? The majority, the Republicans, passed a Patients' Bill of
Rights. But is the Senator aware of what is in the Republicans'
Patients' Bill of Rights that is good for the American people?
Mr. DURBIN. I can respond in this regard. I know the Republican so-
called Patients' Bill of Rights was so good that the insurance
companies approved of it and embraced it and endorsed it. Frankly, it
is supposed to be a law that protects consumers against the excessive
attitude and conduct of these insurance companies. Excuse me if I am
skeptical, but this bill is endorsed by the lobby that is supposed to
be fighting for the Patients' Bill of Rights. I smell a rat. Maybe I
shouldn't use that term in light of the political campaign that is
going on. I suggest perhaps that it not a real Patients' Bill of
Rights.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator also aware that a Republican Member of the
House of Representatives, a medical doctor from the State of Iowa, who
looked at the bill we passed in the Senate, which the Republicans
passed over objection, denigrated that bill? I repeat: Is the Senator
aware that a Republican House Member from Iowa who is a medical doctor
has stated that the bill passed out of here by the Republicans is bad?
Mr. DURBIN. That is Congressman Ganske of Iowa. There was a
bipartisan coalition in the House that endorsed the Democratic bill,
the one that really works, the only one endorsed by virtually every
medical group in America that understands patients ought to have the
benefit of a doctor's judgment, not an insurance company's judgment,
when it comes to critical health care.
They have created their own Trojan horse, this phony bill on the
Patients' Bill of Rights. Honestly, I think the American people are
going to see through it.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois that it is possible to do
work around here on a bipartisan fashion. That was demonstrated by
Congressman Norwood, a Republican, and Congressman Dingell, a Democrat.
Congressman Dingell is not a medical doctor. It is a good bill. Does
the Senator agree?
Mr. DURBIN. It is a good bill. It is almost identical to the bill the
Democrats had in the Senate.
I think the Senator from Nevada is also aware that we now have a new
[[Page 20900]]
Member in the Senate from the State of Georgia who is committed to
supporting our bill. We are now at a point where we believe that bill
could pass.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that we have not been allowed, through
parliamentary maneuvers over here, to have a vote on the Patients' Bill
of Rights? But we now have, obviously, a new Member who will vote in
favor of it.
Mr. DURBIN. The Republican leadership in the Senate doesn't want to
allow a vote on the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, almost the
identical bill that passed in the House, because they know it would
pass and it would be an embarrassment to them. The Democrats would win
that battle. I don't think the people at home care whether the
Democrats win or the Republicans win. They want families to win. This
is an example where families would win, where you could have
protection.
Let me give an example. I am sure the Senator is well aware of this.
If a woman in the course of a pregnancy is going to her obstetrician,
and because there is a change of insurance companies at her employment,
she is asked to go to a different HMO, we provide that she can continue
with the same doctor's care, in whom she has confidence, through the
completion of her pregnancy. I think it is common sense and good
medical judgment. I think both sides could agree on it. That is part of
our Patients' Bill of Rights.
It says if you are going to the emergency room with a child, you
don't have to check in the glove compartment, pull out the insurance
policy, and go through it page by page to get the right hospital. It
says if somebody at an insurance company makes a wrong decision and you
lose your life or your health, they can be held accountable, as every
business and person in America is held accountable.
Those are some basics in the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights. The
Republican leadership does not want that issue to come to the floor
because they now know we have the votes to pass it. They have blocked
us every step of the way.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator also aware--which I am certain he is, but I
would like to hear his response--that the Democrats' Patients' Bill of
Rights is something unusual as far as this Senator is concerned,
because we have the support of literally every organization in America:
the AMA and the American Bar Association? I can't remember these two
organizations ever agreeing on anything. Virtually the only
organization that opposes this legislation is a health insurance
company.
Does the Senator acknowledge that?
Mr. DURBIN. That is the reason a Patients' Bill of Rights hasn't
passed in the Senate. It is not a question of what is right and
popular, what the people want, and what health care professionals say
will be best for the future of health care. It is a question of
political muscle. The insurance companies have more political muscle in
the Senate. They have stopped us from bringing this bill to the floor
for a vote.
Shortly we will adjourn and go home with a lot of unfinished
business. This is one of them. We came this close to doing it, but the
Republican leadership said: No, we are not going to allow the Patients'
Bill of Rights to come to the floor for a vote. That is an illustration
of their insensitivity to what people in this country really care
about: good health care. This Congress has not responded to it. In many
respects, this Congress couldn't care less. That is sad because it is
our responsibility, as representatives of the people of the States who
elect us to listen to their needs and to respond to them. We have been
totally unresponsive because of the efforts of the Republican
leadership.
Mr. REID. If the Senator would also answer this question; it was
brought up indirectly by the Senator's last statement. One of the
things we have not done here is do something about campaign finance
reform. As we are talking all over America, there are 30-second and 1-
minute spots being run by this group, that group, the Democratic Party,
Republican Party, and independent groups. The American public is
beginning to get almost punch drunk as to who is advertising what.
Does the Senator think it would be one of the most important things
we could do as a body and as a Congress to get this campaign finance
problem under control, such as getting rid of soft money? Does the
Senator think it would help the body politic to have campaign finance
reform? We have been prevented from this by the majority.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is right. The efforts of our colleague,
Senator Russ Feingold, and Republican Senator John McCain are well
documented. Al Gore has said: As President, the first bill we will send
the Congress is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. The first
bill he will accept is a bipartisan bill to deal with campaign finance
reform.
If we cannot come to grips with the abuses of the campaign finance
system, several things will occur. The special interest groups, which
rule the corridors of Congress and continue to rule the campaigns, will
set the agenda; and secondly, many good men and women will continue to
refuse to get into this business because they don't want to mess with
multimillion-dollar campaigns, these attack ads that come from every
direction, and the attacks on personal lives and reputation which have
become so commonplace in negative campaigning.
It is interesting to me we have a bill so clearly bipartisan. The
Republican Senator, John McCain, was very popular as a Republican
candidate for President. In fact, he carried a few States in the
Republican Presidential primary. Yet we can't even get that bill to the
floor for a vote in a Senate that is controlled by the Republican
Party.
I think the American people see through this. I think they understand
that this is not a fight over the Bill of Rights, it is a fight over
the rights of Americans to be well represented.
Mr. REID. I say we need more people like the Presiding Officer. He
has joined with us in many bipartisan matters. I hope the conversation
we have had today does not in any way reflect upon the Senator from
Oregon, who has worked with us on a number of issues. I am sure it has
caused him a problem on the other side of the aisle.
The reason I mention that is everyone thinks McCain-Feingold is a
bipartisan bill, and it is, in the sense that John McCain has stepped
way forward on this to talk about the need for campaign finance reform.
But the people willing to help him on the other side of the aisle, the
majority of them, are few and far between.
On a number of issues we have talked about today, with rare
exception, the Senator from Oregon has been willing to join in a
bipartisan fashion to pass legislation. As my friend from Illinois has
said, it is possible we could do this. All we have to do is what is
right for the American people and get rid of these very high-pressure
lobbying efforts--for example, the health insurance industry, which is
preventing us from moving forward on something like a Patients' Bill of
Rights.
Mr. DURBIN. At this point, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator
Fitzgerald of Illinois, who also voted for the Patients' Bill of
Rights. He has publicly stated he thinks it is the best approach. I
think it takes extraordinary courage sometimes to break from your party
on these issues.
The presiding Senator from Oregon has showed exceptional leadership
and courage on the hate crimes issue. This was not an easy issue, I am
sure, for him; it was not for any of us. He stood up on that issue. I
will remember that for a long time. It was exceptional. We want to make
sure we continue in that bipartisan spirit. I hope even in the closing
days we might reach out and find some bipartisan common ground to deal
with some of these important issues.
I see some of my colleagues have come to the floor, and they have
been very patient in waiting for me to finish my remarks. I yield the
floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary order before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business. Senators are
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
[[Page 20901]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am following up on the Presidential
debates of the other evening. I was thinking about what Governor Bush
was saying about his Medicare plan. He was referring to Vice President
Gore and saying: You are engaging in ``Mediscare''--``Mediscare.'' You
are trying to scare the seniors.
The more I have looked at Governor Bush's Medicare proposal for
prescription drugs, I have come to the conclusion that if his plan ever
comes into effect, the senior citizens in this country ought to be
scared. They ought to be scared about this.
Here is the difference between what Vice President Gore wants in
terms of prescription drugs and what Governor Bush wants. In my right
hand I have a Medicare card. Under the prescription drug policies of
Vice President Gore, this is all you need to get your prescription
drug. You have a Medicare card, you go to your doctor, he prescribes
the drugs, you go to your local pharmacy, and you get your drugs
filled. That is all you need--your Medicare card.
Under the Bush proposal, which goes out to the States, they have to
pass legislation, and if you make over $14,600 a year, you get nothing.
So in order to qualify for prescription drugs under the plan advocated
by Governor Bush, you would basically have to meet all of the
requirements for Medicaid in terms of showing your income, assets,
everything else.
I want to put together the sheaf of papers you would have to fill out
if you were an elderly person and you wanted to get prescription drugs
under the Bush plan. This is what you would fill out. It looks like
about 40 pages of paperwork. First of all is the tax return. You have
to take that in and show them how much you made. Then you have to do
all the documents, including instructions, applications, certificates,
estate recovery--of course, if you have some estate and you have some
assets. There is an insurance questionnaire. This is the type of
paperwork you would be faced with under the Bush proposal.
Under the Gore proposal: One simple Medicare card.
I sum it up by saying what the seniors of this country want is
Medicare; they don't want welfare. That is exactly what Governor Bush
is proposing in his Medicare prescription drug proposal.
____________________
JUDGESHIPS
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, an issue I will be talking about every day
is the issue of judgeships and the fact that we still have our judges
bottled up, especially Bonnie Campbell, who has now been waiting 217
days to be reported out of the committee. Yet we just had some judges
approved this week who were nominated in July, had their hearing in
July. They were approved. But Bonnie Campbell still sits in the
Judiciary Committee.
It is not right, it is not fair to her, it is not fair for our
judicial system. Bonnie Campbell has all of the qualifications to be a
judge on the Eighth Circuit. A former attorney general of Iowa, she did
an outstanding job there. Since 1995, she has been the first and only
director of the Office of Violence Against Women in the Department of
Justice which was created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Again, she has done an outstanding job.
There has been some good news. During that period of time, domestic
violence against women, in fact, has decreased. But the facts are we
have a long way to go. In 1998, American women were the victims of
876,340 acts of domestic violence. Domestic violence accounted for 22
percent of violent crimes against women. During those same years,
children under 12 lived in 43 percent of the households where domestic
violence occurred.
We have to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Last week, the
House passed by 415-3 the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act. Again, I doubt they would have passed it so overwhelmingly if its
only person charged with enforcing that law had done a bad job in
running the office. I did not hear one comment on the House floor, nor
have I heard one here, that in any way indicates that Bonnie Campbell
did not do an outstanding job as head of that office. She did do an
outstanding job and everyone knows she did. So now we're hearing that
the Violence Against Women Act will be attached to something else and
pass the Senate that way.
Yet perhaps the one person in this country who understands this issue
and this law better than anyone else is Bonnie J. Campbell, who has
directed that office for the last 5 years. We need people on the courts
and on the bench who understand that law and can apply it fairly across
our Nation. That is why we need Bonnie Campbell on the Eighth Circuit.
Right now we have quite a lack of women serving on our circuit
courts. Frankly, the number of women on our circuit courts is
appalling. We need more women on our circuit courts. And we need to
confirm them here. Of the 148 circuit judges, only 33 are women--22
percent. That, in itself, is scandalous.
Bonnie Campbell should be added to that list.
Again, it doesn't seem right that Bonnie Campbell would get a hearing
back in May and then remain bottled up in Committe. Lets go back to the
presidential term of George Bush. During that time, every single
district and circuit nominee who got a hearing--got a vote in
Committee. And all but one got a vote on the Senate floor.
Yet we are not allowed to vote on Bonnie Campbell's nomination on the
floor. So as I said, it is not fair to her. It is not fair to the
judicial system. It is not fair to the advise and consent clause of the
Constitution to hold her up.
Mr. President, I will again, today, as I will do every day, ask
unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee of further
consideration of this nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary
Committee from further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie
Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court, that her nomination
be considered by the Senate immediately following the conclusion of
action on the pending matter, that the debate on the nomination be
limited to 2 hours equally divided and a vote on her nomination occur
immediately following the use or yielding back of that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Is there objection?
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, every day I will come out and ask
unanimous consent to get Bonnie Campbell's name out of the committee
and on the floor for a vote. Yet the objections come from the
Republican side of the aisle. Why, I don't know. As I said, no one has
said she's not qualified. If someone wants to vote against her to be on
the Eighth Circuit, that is that Senator's right--obligation, if it is
a vote he or she feels in conscience that he or she must cast. But,
again, I say, give her a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to wrap it up in about 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. So it only seems fair and right we bring her out here and
have a vote. If people want to vote one way or the other, that is fine.
But it is not fair, 217 days.
I will end my comments again by saying the standard bearer of the
Republican Party, Governor Bush of Texas, has stated there ought to be
a 60-day deadline on judge nominations, in other words 60 days from the
day nominated to the time they get a vote in the Senate. I endorse
that. Bonnie Campbell has been sitting there 217 days. Let's bring her
out for a vote.
I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
____________________
ECONOMICS
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I will be leaving the
Senate at the end of my term. I want to
[[Page 20902]]
put a few thoughts on the record over the next few days, depending on
the time available.
I have four grandchildren--three grandsons and one granddaughter--
Ronnie Elam, Brett Elam, Blake Caldwell, and Addison McGillicuddy. The
comments I am going to make today really are from the perspective of
thinking about them and their future and the desire to see that they
will grow up in a country and in a world where their opportunities will
be equal to, if not better than, those of their parents, their
grandparents, and their great-grandparents. I want them to have a
better understanding when they reach that point when they have their
own families.
As people look back on the last several decades of the 20th century,
I want, at least from my perspective, to be able to put on the record
what I believe happened from both an economic and foreign policy
perspective, and from a national security perspective. So that is what
my comments will reflect today, my thoughts with respect to economics
primarily and some that will reflect my feelings with respect to
national defense.
So I would like to talk about economics, a topic that has been one of
my passions as a Member of the Congress. Economic policy was the very
reason I ran for the House of Representatives back in 1982. As many of
us may recall, our country remained in a deep recession at the time,
still struggling to recover from the economic policies of the 1970s.
Although it was still being phased in, President Reagan's economic
program was under attack by our friends across the aisle. But, to me,
the Reagan economic program was a bold reaffirmation of the very
purpose of America.
Many people have noted the happy coincidence that the year 1776 saw
the publication of two of the most important documents in world
history, Adam Smith's ``Wealth Of Nations'' and Thomas Jefferson's
Declaration of Independence. These works share the theme of freedom.
Smith made the case for free trade and unfettered markets, as Jefferson
put in words the concept that government exists to protect individual
liberty.
These documents rebutted, refined, and transcended the prevailing
views of 1776 Great Britain. For over a century, these principles held
firm and the United States stood tall as a beacon of hope and
opportunity for people from all points on the globe.
Ours was a society without a rigid class structure, a society that
promised equal opportunity for all based on individual enterprise and
hard work, not government privileges and connections. America had no
large bureaucracies intruding upon every sphere of commercial life. We
relied on the willingness of individuals to shoulder the risk and
responsibility that is part and parcel of private enterprise.
But this distinctly American way was challenged by two worldwide
crises in the 20th century. First came the Great Depression. Although
gross government mismanagement of the money supply and
counterproductive trade policies were the cause of this crisis,
government was put forward as the cure. This led to the proliferation
of alphabet agencies seeking to steer every aspect of the American
economy, as government assumed a new income redistribution role.
The second crisis was the rise of totalitarianism on the European
Continent. The United States won World War II, but in the process of
saving Europe from one brand of tyranny, an equally evil force came to
occupy half of Europe, and the war effort was used as the justification
for price controls and economic intervention that was unprecedented in
the United States.
The welfare state in America grew by leaps and bounds. Once it was
conceded that the Government is the guarantor of income, each
successive call for new and bigger programs became harder and harder to
resist. At the same time, the consolidation of the Soviet bloc
presented the largest threat to freedom in human history, presenting
new and costly challenges for America as the beacon of freedom.
Exaggerations of Soviet economic success fueled the call for greater
Government involvement in the U.S. economy. Over time, high tax rates
and regulatory excesses accumulated like barnacles to slow the once
mighty ship of American private enterprise.
It is hard for younger Americans to imagine how bleak our Nation's
prospects appeared before Reagan assumed the Presidency. Recurrent,
simultaneous bouts of high unemployment and high inflation confounded
most economists, who viewed the two as a tradeoff. It was thought that
to reduce unemployment you had to accept inflation and to reduce
inflation you had to accept higher unemployment. Producers and
consumers suffered from an energy crisis. And real household incomes
were shrinking as fast as ``bracket creep'' was raising everyone's tax
bill year after year. The response of the incumbent administration was
hardly inspiring--ranging from suggesting ``voluntary'' wage and price
controls to preaching that we must learn to live within limits. In
short, the American establishment was telling the American people to
accept the notion that they no longer controlled their own economic
destinies.
Starting in the 1970s, the media aggressively advanced the notion
popular in intellectual circles that America's free enterprise system
was failing. This view persisted through the 1980s. The best-seller
lists were crowded with books telling of the decline of America and
predicting that Japan would be the economic juggernaut of the 21st
century. Even in the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were
extolling the virtues of the European economic systems, of social
democracy and industrial planning. We hear echoes of this approach
today, with candidate Al Gore's Government-knows-best mentality. Gore
proposes to micromanage and fine-tune the economy, social engineering
through tax credits designed to make people behave the way the
Washington bureaucrats want them to--such as buying ``fuel-efficient''
eighteen-wheeler trucks.
Ronald Reagan's ``Program for Economic Recovery'' was the opposite of
the Government planning approach advocated by the critics of
capitalism. Reagan rejected the idea that policymakers could fine-tune
the economy, much less control it from Washington. Instead, he sought
to establish a stable environment conducive to economic growth. This
meant getting inflation under control, and reducing taxes, regulation,
and the size and scope of Government. It meant restoring the incentives
for working, saving, investing, and succeeding. It meant opening
America to the benefits and challenges of international trade.
Ronald Reagan's economic principles resonated within me. I had seen
first-hand the obvious connection between the expansion of Government
and our worsening economic performance. When I started in the banking
business in 1966, I probably spent 90 to 95 percent of my time engaged
in activities that I considered productive--designing new services to
attract business, working to increase the market share and
profitability of the bank. The rest involved Government paperwork. By
the time I left in 1982, this ratio had completely flipped: I was
spending 85 to 90 percent of my time trying to figure out how to comply
with Government regulations and mandates. There was a constant stream
of letters from the Government dictating how we should manage our
business, from the Comptroller of the Currency, the Treasury, the FDIC,
and the Federal Reserve, on topics ranging from flood insurance to so-
called truth-in-lending. I remember a letter that went so far as to
tell us the specific temperatures to set our heating and cooling
thermostats in our businesses. Some people may have forgotten this
level of Government intrusion.
In fact, others may believe it never could happen in a country such
as America, but it has. It has happened before, and if we are not
vigilant, it could happen again.
I received a letter from Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker
detailing which types of loans we could and could not make. To make the
example, I could lend a family money to add an additional bedroom to
their home. If
[[Page 20903]]
that same family wanted to add a swimming pool to their home, I was
prohibited from making that loan.
To some, this may have made sense if you believed that the Government
should be managing consumer demand, but that role made no sense to me.
With my experience in the banking business, it wasn't hard to
understand why we as a nation were having difficulty competing around
the globe, when we had moved so many of our resources away from
productive activities and into trying to comply with Government
regulations. Over the years I had come to realize that all the abstract
Keynesian theories I was taught in college ignored how the choices and
incentives of individuals are altered by government interference in the
economy. By failing to account for the real world, those theories in
practice had come pretty close to ruining the economy. But along came
Ronald Reagan, with a common sense approach that went back to basics--
free markets, free enterprise, free trade. Here was a man who had
recognized that big Government was a detriment to the economy, a man
who approached things from the perspective of freedom as opposed to
Government. I shared that perspective and recognized the importance of
President Reagan's election. On election night, November 4, 1980, I
knew that I had to get involved in this great campaign to restore
freedom--but I would have never guessed that, two decades later, I
would be standing here in the United States Senate.
Ronald Reagan clearly saw that the problem was too much government,
and the solution was more individual freedom. When he assumed the
Presidency, we suffered from high inflation and high unemployment. To
combat the first, he prescribed reigning in the rapid growth of the
money supply, asking the Fed to minimize the damage to the economy
caused by high and volatile inflation. The second problem required deep
cuts in the high tax rates that were deterring work, saving, and
investment. But the Fed delivered tight money a lot sooner than the
Congress could deliver the tax cuts, which were phased-in over 3 years.
The Fed had overreacted to the stimulus of tax cuts that had not yet
arrived, exacerbating the economic downtown, throwing the budget
seriously out of balance, and putting the third year of the Reagan tax
rate reductions in jeopardy.
In the recession of the early 1980s, the economic policies of
President Reagan that inspired me to public service came under attack.
In the now famous ``Stay the Course'' campaign of 1982, the President's
party retained control of the Senate, minimized losses in the House
despite the dire economic times, and preserved the Reagan economic
program. We also kept on track President Reagan's defense policies,
which were under attack from short-sighted critics who were unwilling
to pay the price to ensure our freedom. I am proud that my first
campaign was in that fateful year, when President Reagan's detractors
stood a chance of putting his programs in jeopardy and I was able to
make a stand in favor of his programs.
As I mentioned, the Reagan economic program was my inspiration to run
for office. As a freshman, I cut my teeth in the House by circulating a
letter vowing support for the President's veto of any bill that
tampered with the third year of the tax cuts. After I obtained the 146
signatures necessary to sustain a veto, that threat disappeared, and
the Kemp-Roth tax cuts were allowed to work. President Reagan's most
dramatic policy change was without a doubt this supply-side tax cut. It
seems also inconceivable today that just two decades ago, marginal
income tax rates were as high as 70 percent in the United States. It
was little wonder that our country was in economic decline, when its
most economically productive citizens could keep only a 30 percent
share of their additional earnings. These high tax rates not only
discouraged additional work and investment at the margin, but also
confiscated capital that could have been used for job creation by the
private sector.
By cutting income tax rates by 30 percent across-the-board, Reagan
restored a large measure of freedom to the American taxpayer--not just
the freedom to spend money that would have been taxed away, but the
freedom that results when economic decisions are no longer influenced
by high tax rates. It was not about the dollars that would have been
collected had tax rates stayed high, but the choices that would never
have been made because of these high rates--decisions to expand plant
capacities or start new businesses, for instance.
President Reagan entered the White House with one paramount spending
goal: to rebuild our national defense, since national security is the
most fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. He realized
that to provide this desperately needed public good, while cutting tax
rates to unleash the productive forces of the nation, required fiscal
restraint in the non-defense portion of the Federal budget.
The difficulties that President Reagan had in taming the
congressional urge to spend made a balanced budget and tax limitation
amendment to the Constitution one of my top priorities when I entered
Congress. It also motivated me to be the main House sponsor, along with
Dick Cheney, of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction Act, which worked
for at least a few years to hold spending down. Today, as much as ever,
I believe some super majority restriction on the ability of Members of
Congress to spend taxpayers' dollars is necessary. Unless taxes are cut
to keep the revenues from flowing into Washington, the trillions of
dollars of surpluses that are projected over the next decade will not
last--if the taxes are collected, Congress will spend them.
Reagan also initiated a sea change in monetary policy. He did not
want the Federal Reserve to manipulate the money supply in an attempt
to target interest or unemployment rates. All he wanted was price
stability, the elimination of high levels of inflation from the
economy. The Fed should not be responsible for the level of growth in
the economy--this is the role of the private sector. The best economic
environment that the Fed can provide is one in which inflation
expectations play a small or almost nonexistent role in long-term
planning. Reagan's appointees to the Federal Reserve Board, people like
Alan Greenspan, Preston Martin, Manley Johnson, Martha Seger, and Wayne
Angell, shared this view and took politics out of monetary policy.
Throughout the Reagan years, the loudest and strongest advocate of
stable prices in the Congress was Jack Kemp. Jack would talk tirelessly
about the need for ``a dollar as good as gold,'' and his intellectual
and political support for this position no doubt influenced President
Reagan's selection of Greenspan as Fed Chairman. Alan Greenspan
continues to hold sway at the Federal Reserve as part of the Reagan
legacy, and his record at containing inflation has set a high standard.
As a member of the Senate Banking Committee I have attempted to
institutionalize this approach to monetary policy, sponsoring a bill
that would make price stability, not economic growth or
``stabilization,'' the goal of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the
monetary policy initiated by President Reagan, this legislation is now
a safeguard rather than a necessity.
The prevailing attitude concerning trade has also shifted, thanks to
President Reagan--who recognized the fallacy of protectionism. In large
part, this was due to his belief in competition and free enterprise.
But his attitude was also shaped by his confidence in America. He was
neither afraid of foreign competition, nor embarrassed that imports
might be preferred over American goods. America, as a nation of
immigrants, represents the best that the world can offer. More than any
consumer good, the main export of America must be the ideal of
political and economic freedom, an ideal that is undercut by trade
restrictions.
By signing a free trade agreement with Canada, opening free trade
negotiations with Mexico, and proposing the dismantling of agricultural
trade
[[Page 20904]]
barriers in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, Ronald Reagan went on the
offensive for trade liberalization. At a time when Japan-bashing was
commonplace--when Members of Congress were literally bashing Japanese-
made electronics into pieces on the steps of the Capitol--Reagan did
not retreat from his basic free-trade principles. The remarkable
success of U.S. industries from computers, semiconductors, software,
biotechnology and many others over the past 2 decades has vindicated
Reagan's belief that American business prospers best in an open and
competitive free enterprise environment.
Today, principally as a result of the supply-side policies pursued by
the Reagan administration, the U.S. economy is healthy. Both inflation
and unemployment are low. Productivity is growing rapidly and incomes
are rising.
Any doubts that President Reagan is responsible for today's bounty
should be dispelled by considering a few fundamental questions. Would
American economic growth be as robust today if the Federal Government
still took 70 cents of every additional dollar of income from our most
productive citizens? If the typical family was hit with a 49 percent
Federal income tax rate on top of an effective payroll tax rate of 14.2
percent?
Would our economy be so strong if we were still suffering from
double-digit inflation and interest rates, due to the politicized use
of monetary policy to manipulate consumer demand? If the trend of the
last 2 decades were toward managed trade, rather than freer trade?
Would entrepreneurs and innovators abound if high inflation and high
tax rates on capital gains slashed the returns to their risk-taking?
Would the Soviet Empire have fallen if it had not been for the
military buildup, diplomatic leadership, and resolute defense of
freedom during the presidency of Ronald Reagan? Would our country be as
secure as it is today if instead of trading partners, the people of
Eastern and Central Europe were still prisoners of the Soviet bloc? If
our fellow Americans south of our border were still the potential
victims of imported totalitarianism instead of full participants in
established democracies?
Our debt to Ronald Reagan reminds me of an exchange mission I once
went on, with Tom Foley and Dick Cheney.
It was a congressional delegation that went to France in 1985. On
that trip, we spent most of our time in Paris. But for the last several
days, we went out to the French countryside. I went to a little town
called Le Mans, where I traveled around with my host, Francois, from
that district. I learned a lot about what his country was experiencing.
At the end of that tour, we did what many of us would refer to as an
old-fashioned town meeting, where I responded to questions from the
French audience for almost 2 hours. At the end of the period, I asked
Francois if it would be all right if I were to ask the audience a
question. And he was gracious in my request, and I asked them: Since I
am returning to America tomorrow, I would like to be able to tell other
people of the State of Florida what you think about our country.
The first person stood up and said: ``We think of America as a
dynamic, growing, thriving, exciting place.'' A second person that
stood up said basically the same thing. The third person to address me
was a fellow who probably was in his late 70's or early 80's. This
fellow was stooped over, his weight being supported precariously on an
old, gnarled cane. He came over closer to me, looked me directly in the
eyes, and said: ``You tell the people of America that we will never
forget that it was the American G.I. who saved our little town. You
tell them we'll never forget!''
Well, I feel that way about Ronald Reagan, my political hero, who
inspired me to enter politics. America will never forget what President
Reagan did for us. He gave us back our faith and renewed our belief in
this country. He gave America back its pride. He rebuilt America's
defenses. His economic policies reduced taxes, reduced inflation,
reduced unemployment. He put America back to work again. He reminded
America what made us a great nation--our commitment to freedom. And he
won the cold war without firing a single shot.
The citizens of America and the people of the world will never
forget.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF CHARLES A. GILLIS
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the upcoming
retirement of Mr. Charles A. Gillis, who will retire on October 20,
2000, as Branch Manager of the Gulfport Branch Office, United States
Small Business Administration (SBA). I know that I am joined by the
entire business community of South Mississippi, Charlie's colleagues at
the SBA, and all those who have had the privilege of interacting with
him over the years.
I especially want to thank Charlie for a long career of completely
devoted service to his community, the State of Mississippi, and this
Nation. I have known Charlie for many years and have seen firsthand the
substantial impact his extensive knowledge and business expertise have
had on countless small businesses and the local economy of Southern
Mississippi.
Charles Gillis' ties to the Gulf Coast run deep, as does his record
of service and achievement. He is a life-long resident of Harrison
County and a graduate of Gulfport High School. Charlie served in the
First Cavalry Division in Korea in 1951. He received his Bachelor of
Arts in Business Administration from the University of Southern
Mississippi (USM), and later completed additional graduate studies in
business at the USM-Gulf Park Campus.
Prior to serving with the SBA, Charlie was a small business
entrepreneur in his own right, as owner and operator of Gillis
Furniture in Gulfport. Moreover, Charlie served as a furniture
manufacturers representative with regular travel assignments covering
five states. Throughout his private sector career, Charlie honed the
business skills that later made him such an invaluable public sector
resource to other small business owners and operators.
Charlie began his tenure of service with the SBA in July 1982, and
has faithfully served the agency ever since. His service in the SBA's
Gulfport Branch Office is especially important to me since the branch
office was created after Hurricane Camille devastated the Mississippi
Gulf Coast and its economy in 1969, and during my service as
Administrative Assistant to then Congressman William Colmer.
Charlie has been recognized for his continuous dedication to duty and
his tireless community spirit. Over the years, he has been chosen as
one of the ``Outstanding Men in America,'' recognized as among the
``Personalities of the South,'' and selected as ``SBA District Employee
of the Year.''
In addition to personal accolades and longstanding official service,
Charlie generously has given of his time in many ways to improve his
community. He served as President of the University of Southern
Mississippi's Alumni Association, as Chairman of the Harrison County
Election Commission, and as Vice President of Governmental Affairs for
the Gulfport Area Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, Charlie is an
associate member of Delta Sigma Pi Fraternity, and serves as a Mason, a
Shriner, Rotarian, and a charter member of Trinity United Methodist
Church in Gulfport.
Charlie's constant professionalism and vast knowledge will be greatly
missed by the Small Business Administration, the South Mississippi
business community and officials at every level of government, who have
had the distinct pleasure and benefit of his insight. Whenever called,
Charlie always responds in a timely and effective manner with
eagerness, efficiency and courtesy. Although I know he will miss daily
interactions with his co-workers and colleagues, I also know that
Charlie, his wife Rose, and their family, will have many opportunities
to focus their abundance of energy and exemplary community spirit.
____________________
[[Page 20905]]
THE ACID DEPOSITION AND OZONE CONTROL ACT OF 1999 AND EPA'S ANALYSIS OF
S. 172
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express concern and
dismay over the unwarranted delay of a critical analysis of S. 172, the
Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act. This analysis thoroughly
documents the substantial benefits to be achieved, at comparatively
insignificant costs, by passing S. 172. Unfortunately, we have received
this information only after it is too late to coordinate the bill's
passage this year.
I first asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze
the impacts of S. 172 in 1998. Specifically, EPA was asked to calculate
the costs and benefits of the legislation with regard to effects on
human health, environment and the business community. EPA completed the
report in March, 2000 and submitted it to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for their review. Unfortunately, OMB withheld the analysis
for six months despite the fact that co-sponsors in both the House and
Senate requested the report's release in letters to Director Jacob Lew.
We have EPA's report today because Representative Dan Burton, Chairman
of the House Committee on Government Reform, was willing to subpoena
the report. I am disappointed that this course of events had to occur.
Nonetheless, I am quite pleased with the results of EPA's analysis.
Not only would S. 172 significantly improve visibility and the state of
ecosystems sensitive to acid rain and nitrogen loading, but it would
produce approximately $60 billion in public health benefits annually
and save 10,000 lives each year. All this for an additional cost to
utilities of $3.3 billion. What a tremendous service we could do to
society by simply passing this legislation. If we don't, an epidemic
could ensue. For example, according to EPA an DGAO, 43% of the lakes in
New York's Adirondack Park will become acidified by 2040 even with the
reductions mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Amendments.
As far back as the 1960s, fisherman in the Adirondacks began to
complain about more than ``the big one that got away.'' Fish, once
abundant in the pristine, remote Adirondack lakes, were not just
getting harder to catch--they were gone.
When I entered the Senate in 1977, there was much we needed to learn
about acid rain. So I introduced the first Federal legislation to
address our ``knowledge deficit'' about acid rain--the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1979. My bill was enacted into law as Title VII of
the energy Security Act, which Congress passed in June 1980. Title VII
established the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP),
an interagency program charged with assessing the causes and damages of
acid deposition, and reporting its findings to Congress. NAPAP spawned
tremendous academic interest in the subject of acid deposition, and our
understanding of the subject has since developed substantially.
In 1990, I helped write Title IV of Clean Air Act Amendments, which
established a ``Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Program.'' Its creation
represented a radical departure from the traditional ``command and
control'' approach to environmental regulation, common at the time.
This program was the first national, statutorily-mandated, market-based
approach to pollution control. It has been immensely successful.
We can be proud of these accomplishments, but we have a long way to
go yet. Since 1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage
to human health and sensitive ecosystems. NAPAP has reported that
forests, streams, and rivers in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great
Smoky Mountains of Tennessee, the San Gabriel and San Bernardino
Mountains of California are also now showing the effects of
acidification and nitrogen saturation. We have learned that nitrogen
oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years ago, are
significant contributors to our nation's air quality deficiencies. And
finally, we have demonstrated that legislation containing regulatory
flexibility and market incentives is highly effective.
S. 172, which I first introduced with Senator D'Amato in 1997, seeks
to build upon this new body of knowledge, combining the best and most
current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most
effective and efficient regulatory framework. Today, S. 172 is
cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Jeffords, Lieberman, Reed, Dodd,
Kerry, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Boxer, and Wyden. In the House,
the bill is sponsored by Representatives Boehlert and Sweeney, and co-
sponsored by 48 House Members.
These are my final days in this great legislative body, and I will
surely cherish the accomplishments we have made through the years.
Today, I ask my friends and colleagues to continue the push to protect
our nation's public health and environment from critical pollutants
such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. It
is my understanding that the able Chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith, has indeed made this
commitment and I commend him for it.
As I mentioned before, I am disappointed that the release of
important information regarding the effects of S. 172 was withheld for
so long. However, now that we have this information, we must act upon
it and pass legislation that goes beyond our clean air achievements so
far. The SO2 Allowance Program established by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 has achieved extraordinary benefits at costs
less than half of initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is
proven. The science indicates that we did not go far enough. The Acid
Deposition and Ozone Control Act endeavors to build upon our
accomplishments, and to begin the work which remains to be done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and two recent
articles on this issue be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Poughkeepsie Journal, Sept. 20, 2000]
Release Study on Acid Rain
Why is the government withholding documents that could shed
light on how best to deal with the ravages of acid rain?
Remarkably, that's the case now involving a federal Office
of Management and Budget report. The report likely shows a
remedy put forth by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan won't be too
financially onerous on the utility industry, a leading cause
of acid rain, according to the Adirondack Council. But it
would better protect the environment, the environmental group
states.
Acid rain occurs, in part, when polluting emissions from
utility plants are carried in the wind hundreds of miles from
their origin, often causing smog. They also can mix with
water vapor, falling as the acid rain that kills lakes and
aquatic life in the Adirondack and Catskill regions and
elsewhere.
Council officials express concern the White House is
putting the lid on the OMB study because it could show just
how ineffective government efforts to curb acid rain have
been. It also might demonstrate why more environmental
regulations must be imposed on Midwestern utilities in
particular, something that won't play well in those states
right before the national presidential election.
``OMB is stonewalling while Adirondack lakes continue to
die,'' said Timothy Burke, executive director of the council.
At issue are Moynihan's suggested changes to a federal
program intended to convince power producers to run cleaner
generating plants. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency program gives utilities a
financial incentive by allowing them to sell pollution
credits to other companies. The program has been fairly
successful in New York, allowing utilities here to reduce
pollution below the federal maximums and then sell unused
pollution credits to out-of-state utilities. By purchasing
the credits, some utilities can stay within EPA pollution
guidelines and avoid huge fines. Thus it's more cost-
effective for them to continue to buy the credits rather than
make expensive alterations to their plants to cut emissions.
Problem is, many of these utilities are located in the
Midwest and are believed to be major contributors to acid
rain. This year, New York lawmakers took it upon themselves
to close the loophole by passing a law prohibiting utilities
in this state from selling credits to utilities in the
Midwest. But that will only go so far to fight acid rain,
unless other Northeastern states follow suit.
[[Page 20906]]
solution can't wait any longer
And it's clear dramatic changes are needed soon. Hundreds
of Adirondack lakes and streams have been killed by acid
rain, and they'll never recover. And for years,
environmentalists have projected that 40 percent of the lakes
will be dead within 50 years. Most recently, the U.S. General
Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of
Congress, said the Adirondacks have been socked with so much
acid rain, the fragile mountain soil can no longer soak up
the pollutant nitrogen oxide. And that means the nitrogen
oxide is flowing into Adirondack lakes at a more rapid rate
than previously believed.
Moynihan and the rest of the state's congressional
delegation are proposing a 50-percent cut in emissions beyond
what's called for under the credit allowance program. They
would do so by halving the amount of sulfur dioxide that can
be produced through the purchase of one pollution credit.
Before congressional leaders are willing to consider the
measure further, however, they want to know the potential
costs of the legislation. Fair enough. The Adirondack Council
says the study will show the costs won't be astronomical to
the utilities, pointing out they were greatly off base on
their projections of how much the original allowance program
would cost their businesses.
The Office of Management and Budget could shed light on
this important matter. But the only way that will happen is
if President Clinton shows sufficient political courage to
order the study to be released. He should do so immediately.
____
[From the Albany, New York, Times Union, Oct. 4, 2000]
Acid Rain Bottom Line--A New EPA Study Shows Just How Affordable It Is
To Fight Pollution
How much would it cost to keep Adirondack lakes from dying
from acid rain? How much to spare thousands of Americans who
suffer respiratory illnesses caused by the smokestack
pollutants that contribute to acid rain? New York Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan put those questions to the Environmental
Protection Agency two years ago, as he and Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert, R-Utica, struggled to push through strict new
federal limits on emissions of nitrogen and sulfur that drift
from power plants in the Mid-west and South and descend on
the Northeast, causing health problems in populated areas and
killings trees and aquatic life in the Adirondacks and other
pristine regions.
Now, after an unjustified delay by the Clinton
administration that some critics are attributing to election-
year politics, the EPA report is finally public, thanks to a
subpoena issued by the House Government Reform Committee. And
the price tag turns out to be so affordable that any further
delay in reducing smokestack pollution is indefensible. The
bottom line: $1. That is how little the average household
monthly utility bill would rise if the Moynihan-Boehlert bill
were law.
But time is running short, Congress has only a few days
left to conclude its business this year, and there are no
encouraging signs that lawmakers will give the Moynihan-
Boehlert bill the prompt attention it deserves.
But they should. The EPA report not only makes a convincing
case for stricter pollution controls, but it also spells out
the benefits that the nation--not just the Northeast--stands
to reap in return. In a cost-benefit analysis sought by Mr.
Moynihan, the EPA pegs the benefits of reducing acid rain at
$60 billion, compared with $5 billion that power plants would
have to pay to meet the tighter emissions standards. That's a
$55 billion payback, as represented in savings on treating
chronic bronchitis, reducing emergency room visits for asthma
and eliminating 1.5 billion days of lost work each year
because of respiratory illnesses. There would be scenic
improvements as well as the atmosphere cleared over national
treasures like the Adirondacks and the Shenandoah and Great
Smoky Mountains national parks.
In the Adirondacks, the struggle is a life-and-death one. A
recent Times Union series found that without sharp new curbs
on acid rain, half of the Adirondack lakes will no longer be
able to support aquatic life in 40 years. Already it is too
late to save some ponds and lakes that have been contaminated
by nitrogen oxide. The pattern will continue unless prompt
action is taken. As our series noted, state leaders and the
New York congressional delegation have made a strong
bipartisan effort to combat the problem. Now it is Congress'
turn. No one state can stop acid rain on its own. But
Congress can, and should, provide the necessary federal
remedy. The EPA has just given 55 billion reasons to act now.
____________________
RAIL SERVICE ISSUES
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a subject of great
importance to our nation and its economy, that is rail transportation.
Earlier today, a few of my colleagues expressed views alleging a
failure by this Congress for not passing legislation to regulatorily
address rail service and shipper problems. As Chairman of the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I want to set the
record straight concerning the work of the Committee to address service
and shipper problems.
Since becoming Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the
Committee has held no less than six hearings during which rail service
and shipper issues were addressed. Three were field hearings, one each
in Montana, North Dakota, and Kansas. Three hearings were conducted
here in the Senate at which the topic of rail service dominated the
testimony and members' questioning. I also have publicly stated a
willingness for the Committee to hold even more hearings.
Further, Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Subcommittee, and I requested the Surface Transportation
Board (STB) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of rail service and
competitive issues. The STB is the federal agency which oversees rail
service and other matters. The Board's findings are extremely important
and they were widely discussed during our Committee hearings last year.
In addition, earlier this year the Board announced it would conduct a
proceeding to change its merger guidelines in recognition of the
drastically changed rail industry dynamic that has transformed since
the rail deregulation movement of the late 1970's and the 1980's. The
Board announced its new guidelines proposal earlier this week and will
be taking comments on the proposal through November 17.
Three very diverse bills concerning the STB's authorities have been
introduced in the Senate and another bill was submitted in the House.
However, to date no consensus on a legislative approach has been
achieved. I have had the privilege to serve in Congress nearly twenty
years and during that time I have learned that significant legislation
is always the product of careful analysis and bipartisan compromise.
Pending rail legislation and the STB's future will be no exception.
My colleagues from North Dakota and West Virginia referred to a
letter with 277 signatures seeking rail regulatory changes. I am in
receipt of that letter. But I am also in receipt of literally hundreds
of letters--letters from Governors, rail shippers, and others--strongly
opposing any rail reregulatory efforts.
To allege the Senate Commerce Committee doesn't take the issue of
rail service seriously is a gross misstatement. The fact is, and I will
repeat it, there is no consensus. A bill supported by only five members
is not a solution, but it does allow those sponsors to sound high and
mighty about their good intentions.
In order to pass a bill and send it to the President, we clearly have
a long way to go. But I remain optimistic, and as a deregulator, stand
ready to support any proposal that fairly and safely balances the needs
of shippers and carriers.
____________________
POLICE REFORM IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, an op-ed on police reform in
Northern Ireland written by my friend and colleague Senator Kennedy
appeared in the Washington Post. In that op-ed Senator Kennedy very
concisely and eloquently stated why it is so important that meaningful
police reform happens in Northern Ireland. As all of our colleagues
know full well, Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to promote peace
and reconciliation in Northern Ireland for many years. It has been an
honor to work closely with him in that effort and I commend him for his
leadership on this issue. Needless to say I agree completely with him
that the recommendations of the Patten Commission must be fully
implemented, to ensure a genuine new beginning for a police force in
Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to the Catholic community.
I hope and pray that those who are currently playing a role in the
legislative process in the British Parliament take time to reflect upon
the thoughts expressed in this very important op-ed. I would ask
unanimous consent that a copy of Senator Kennedy's article be
[[Page 20907]]
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would urge all
of our colleagues to take a moment to read it when they have the
opportunity to do so.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2000]
A Police For All in N. Ireland
(By Edward M. Kennedy)
This month Britain's House of Lords will have the
opportunity to improve the flawed legislation approved by the
House of Commons in July to reform the police force in
Northern Ireland and give it the support and respect it needs
from the Catholic community.
The case for reform is clear. The current force--the Royal
Ulster Constabulary (RUC)--is 93 percent Protestant. The vast
majority of Catholics, who make up more than 40 percent of
the population in Northern Ireland, do not support it because
it does not represent them or protect them and has too often
failed them.
Many Catholics believe the RUC has been involved in a long-
standing ``shoot-to-kill'' policy. Questions continue about
collusion of the RUC with Protestant paramilitaries in the
murder of Patrick Finucane, a defense attorney shot dead in
front of his wife and children in 1989. In 1997 RUC officers
stood by as Robert Hamill, a young Catholic, was kicked to
death by 30 Protestants shouting ``kill him'' and ethnic
slurs. The RUC was shamefully inactive when death threats
were made against another defense attorney, Rosemary Nelson,
who was later murdered when her car was blown up as she drove
to work last year. Many other examples could be cited to
demonstrate why Catholics distrust the police.
Northern Ireland's 1998 Good Friday agreement presented a
historic opportunity to change all that--to reform the police
service and make it representative of the entire community.
Under the agreement, an independent eight-member
international commission was established, led by a former
chairman of the British Conservative Party, Christopher
Patten. Its mission was to propose an alternative and create
a community-oriented, human rights-based police service that
Catholics and Protestants alike would be prepared to join. In
September 1999, the Patten Commission published its unanimous
report containing 175 recommendations for change.
The assertion has been made that in the current
legislation, the British government will implement 95 percent
of the Patten's recommendations. But quantity does not
measure quality. In fact, the most significant reforms
recommended by the commission are not adequately implemented
in the legislation.
The commission's task was to balance the desires of each
community against what is necessary to create a fair and
representative police force. The recommendations of the
Patten Commission reflected those compromises. Patten is the
compromise. It must not be diluted.
Unfortunately, the British government has done just that.
It has made unwise concessions to those of the Protestant
majority who still view the police as ``theirs,'' and to the
police themselves, who have always resisted reform. If the
new police service is to succeed, it must represent and be
accepted by the community it serves. Catholics must be
convinced they should support and join it. Otherwise, the
entire Good Friday agreement is in jeopardy.
As the legislation is considered by the House of Lords, the
British government should propose changes to implement fully
the Patten recommendations. Among the most obvious:
Name, badge and flag: As Patten recommended, to attract
Catholics, the police force should have a neutral name and
symbols. The legislation should ensure that the proposed name
change to the neutral ``Police Service of Northern Ireland''
is made for all purposes, not just some purposes. The badge
should be free of any association with Great Britain or
Ireland, and the British flag should no longer fly above
police buildings.
Oversight Commissioner: Patten recommended the appointment
of an oversight commissioner to supervise the implementation
of its recommendations. Thomas Constantine, former New York
State police chief and former head of the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, was recently named oversight
commissioner. He should be free to comment on the adequacy of
British decisions in implementing the Patten Report--not just
oversee the changes made by the government.
Accountability: Patten recommended a new policing board to
hold the police accountable and an ombudsman to investigate
complaints against and wrongdoing by the police. Restrictions
on the board's power to initiate inquiries and investigate
past complaints should be eliminated, as should the British
government's power to interfere in its work. The ombudsman
should be able to investigate police policies and practices--
not just report on them.
On June 15 British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Peter Mandelson wrote, ``I remain absolutely determined to
implement the Patten recommendations and to achieve the
effective and representative policing service--accepted in
every part of Northern Ireland--that his report aims to
secure.'' This determination has yet to be convincingly
demonstrated.
Full implementation of the recommendations of the Patten
Commission is essential to guarantee fair law enforcement and
to create a new police service that will have and deserve the
trust of all the people of Northern Ireland. It will be a
tragedy if this opportunity to achieve a new beginning is
lost.
The writer is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
____________________
PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is often said that Canada and the U.S.
share the longest undefended border in the world. While this is
repeated so often it has become a cliche, like all cliches, there is a
fundamental truth in it. In this case, the fundamental truth is a
striking geopolitical reality which Americans do not always appreciate.
The peace we enjoy in North America is largely a function of this
border.
With our neighbor to the north, we share a border of approximately
4,000 miles, a border that runs through New England and the Great
Lakes, through the great forests, plains, and mountains, and along the
Alaskan frontier of this rich North American continent. Mutually
respected sovereignty is the fundamental basis of peaceful
international discourse. But I will add that an undefended border makes
for the warmest of relations, and the greatest of respect.
Last Thursday, Canada lost perhaps its best known Prime Minister of
recent times, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau died, at the age of 80. For
the past week, our neighbors to the north have been in mourning, and I
stand today to pay my respects to the family of former Prime Minister
Trudeau and to all the citizens of the country he served with singular
dedication.
Mr. Trudeau and I did not share a common political tradition, nor did
we share a political ideology. This does not diminish my respect for
the man and his work one bit. I note, with appreciation, that one of
Mr. Trudeau's mottos was ``reason before passion,'' a principle I
certainly believe conservative lawmakers would share.
I admired former Prime Minister Trudeau for his dedication to his
country, to the rule of law, and to the betterment of the world. In his
moving tribute at his father's funeral earlier this week, Justin
Trudeau said, ``My father's fundamental belief never came from a
textbook, it stemmed from his deep love and faith in all Canadians.''
Pierre Trudeau led Canada at a tumultuous time in its history and in
the history of the world. In 1970, he was confronted with a terrorist,
separatist threat from Quebecois extremists. Prime Minister Trudeau--
who, in Canadian history, was at the time, only its third of Quebecois
descent himself--was a dedicated federalist and, even more
fundamentally, dedicated to the rule of law. He faced down the
terrorists, and since then issues of separatism have been dealt with at
the ballot box. While he successfully defended the rule of law,
Canadians recognize the advances he instituted to preserve Canada's
unique cultural diversity.
Mr. Trudeau had a different view of geopolitics than did most of the
American administrations with which he dealt. It is said that he
succeeded, at times, in aggravating U.S. presidents from Nixon to
Reagan.
Some of this had to do, in my opinion, with the nature of the
relationship between our countries. While Canada is the second largest
political land-mass in the world, its population is small,
approximately one-tenth of ours, and its economy is dwarfed by ours. In
fact, the former Prime Minister famously said once: ``Living next to
you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how
friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every
twitch and grunt.''
While Mr. Trudeau held substantively different views on the world
than many American leaders, he demonstrated that policy disputes can
exist and nations remain civilized and respectful. And that is how I
think of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
[[Page 20908]]
In closing, I wish to note another story his son, Justin, told at his
father's funeral this week. He recounted how, as a child, his father
took him one day for lunch at the cafeteria in Ottawa's Parliament.
There, young Justin saw a political rival of his father and made a
childish crack about him to his dad. His father sternly rebuked him
and, according to his son, said ``You never attack the person. You may
be in total disagreement with the person; however, you shouldn't
denigrate him.'' That day, Pierre Trudeau taught his son, who is now a
teacher, that ``having different opinions from those of another person
should in no way stop you from holding them in the greatest respect
possible as people.''
That is the principle of a civilized man, and the practice of a
civilized nation. As the world bids adieu to Pierre Trudeau, I extend
my deepest condolences to his family and to all the good citizens of
our great neighbor Canada.
____________________
THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT
ACT
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President. I would like to say a few words about the
Interior Appropriations bill and CARA. The Interior Appropriation is a
good bill. CARA is a great bill. CARA brought together a variety of
supporters from all parts of the country to develop a program that
would provide for wildlife protection, urban parks, green space,
coastal impact protection and would guarantee funding for the
development of recreation areas for years to come.
Elements of CARA have been included in the Interior bill, although
the funding for these provisions is paltry by comparison to the House
and Senate CARA bills. Other provisions may find a home in other
appropriations packages, but one of the most important elements may be
orphaned in the end. That is the provision for wildlife and habitat
protection. Just as we are cheering our success in securing a place for
wildlife, as we celebrate a growing population of eagles on the Potomac
River, we are failing to fund the programs that make this possible.
State wildlife agencies have clearly demonstrated their ability to
bring back populations of threatened and endangered species, such as
the pronghorn and the bald eagle. But they lack the resources to repeat
the success on thousands of other species.
The purpose of CARA was to provide the ounce of prevention that keeps
species from becoming threatened. CARA was to protect both game and
nongame populations. By providing dependable state based funding we
could ensure on-the-ground protection of wildlife, and continued
maintenance of habitat for all wild species. It is important to note
that there is an educational component in Title III of CARA. We are
increasingly becoming an urban nation, and it is important to provide
an introduction to wild places and wild things to our children. This
introduction will help them become the next generation of good land
stewards.
Virginians have come out for CARA. Rarely have I heard from so many
different groups who support a piece of legislation. I would like to
submit for the Record a list of the Virginia groups who support this
legislation and to thank all of the groups for the remarkable job they
have done in promoting CARA and the principles of outdoor recreation
and education. I am highlighting Title III in my remarks simply because
it is being ignored in the Interior Appropriations bill. But each and
every title in CARA was thoughtfully deliberated and negotiated. Rarely
have I seen such care taken in developing a bill, and even though
efforts to allay the concerns of some western Senators were not
successful, they were genuine, and I hope useful for future
discussions.
The Interior bill does provide substantial funding for the Lands
Legacy program, and this is important. The bill also provides a good
deal of funding for Virginia projects that are particularly worthy. But
we could have done better, we could have done more. And I regret that
the Senate has not yet risen to the occasion, that we did not complete
this important work. Senator Landrieu, like the gracious lady that she
is, has not asked CARA sponsors and supporters to withhold our support
for the Interior Appropriation, and for the sake of the Virginia
projects in the bill I will vote for the Appropriation. But, I will
pledge to keep working for the passage of CARA in the final days of the
session.
I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Virginia Organizations Supporting CARA
AFS--Virginia Chapter; American Bass Association; Anderson
Cottage Bed & Breakfast; Augusta Bird Club; Burke Center
Wildlife Committee; Carl Zeiss Optical, Sports Optics; Clarke
County Citizen Council.
Duck Island Enterprises, Inc.; Evergreen Bed & Breakfast
Inn; Fair View Bed and Breakfast; For the Birds, Inc.;
Friends of Dragon Run State Park; Friends of Shenandoah
River; Friends of the North Fork Shenandoah.
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia; High Meadows Inn; IWLA--
Maury Chapter; IWLA--Virginia Chapter; James River Basin
Canoe Livery, Ltd. Laurel Creek Nursery; Loudoun Wildlife
Conservancy; Lynchburg Bird Club; Mattaponi River Company;
Mill Mountain Zoo.
More Critters & Company; NAS--Cape Henry Audubon Society;
NAS--Fairfax Audubon Society; NAS--Virginia Beach Chapter;
Natural Resources Technology; New River Free Press; New River
Valley Bird Club; New River Valley Environmental Coalition
Newport House Bed & Breakfast.
North Bend Plantation; North Fork Nature Center; Piedmont
Productions; Prince William Natural Resources Council Public
Lands Foundation; Resource Management Associates; Responsive
Management; Ridgerunner Forestry Services; River Place at
Deltaville.
Selu Conservancy; The Alleghany Inn; The Conservation Fund;
The Friends of the North River; The Mark Addy; The Opequon
Watershed, Inc.
The Ornithological Council; The River'd Inn; The Wildlife
Center of Virginia; Thornrose House Bed & Breakfast; Trout
Unlimited (National); TWS--Southeastern Chapter; TWS--
Virginia Chapter; TWS--Virginia Tech Student Chapter.
Valley Conservation Council; Virginia American Bass
Association; Virginia Association of Soil & Water
Conservation District Virginia BASS Federation, Inc.;
Virginia Game Warden Association; Virginia Herpetological
Society; Virginia Society of Ornithology; Virginia Tourism
Corporation; Virginia Wildlife Federation; Virginia's Explore
Park; Virginians for Wilderness; Western Virginia Land Trust.
____________________
VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the
Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on
sensible gun legislation.
Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire.
Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of
those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and
we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session.
In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following
are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year
ago today.
October 5, 1999:
Norman P. Blasco, 47, Chicago, IL; Guy Colbert, 25, Detroit, MI;
Daniel Galloway, 39, San Antonio, TX; Justin Eric Googenrand, 23, St.
Paul, MN; Denise Long, 41, Nashville, TN; Shawndell Mosely, 27,
Memphis, TN; Donald Roper, 34, Oakland, CA; and Theodore Slater, 87,
Toledo, OH.
One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 41-year-old Denise
Long of Nashville, was shot and killed accidentally by a 22-year-old
co-worker who pulled out a handgun and dropped it on the floor. Her co-
worker did not have a permit to carry a handgun. She also did not have
permission to have the gun at their place of work.
We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue.
The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to
enact sensible gun legislation now.
____________________
[[Page 20909]]
PNTR
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as a strong advocate for Permanent
Normal Trade Relations with China, I feel a personal responsibility to
ensure that American companies benefit from this
continuing trade relationship. I believe most of my Senate colleagues
feel the same way. I am confident there will be many success stories,
but there are also valuable lessons to be learned from watching U.S.
companies that have tried to do business thus far.
Panda Energy International is one such company. Panda is currently
building a substantial gas-powered generator in Union County, Arkansas,
and I have been personally briefed by Panda's officials about their
difficulties in China. Panda spent six years developing a power project
near Tangshan in Hebei Province. It signed a contract to sell all of
the output from the project to the North China Power Group--an arm of
the national utility--at a price to be determined by a formula. Armed
with this contract, Panda borrowed $155 million needed to construct the
project through a public bond offering in the U.S. capital markets.
Construction for the project got underway in 1997. The project was
completed late last year, and has been in limbo since that time.
The project cannot sell power without formal approval of a tariff, or
price for its electricity, by the Tangshan municipal pricing bureau.
The Tangshan pricing bureau has been reluctant to assign a tariff that
would then set in motion the need to buy additional electricity for the
region where demand has recently diminished. At the same time, Panda
Energy is in a perilous bind, because it had to mortgage all of its
existing power plants--two in the United States and one in Nepal--as
security to guarantee the U.S. bond holders they would be repaid their
loans. The company is on the verge of defaulting on the loans.
Mr. EDWARDS. Would the Senator yield?
Mrs. LINCOLN. I would be pleased to yield to my friend from North
Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. I want to associate my self with the concern expressed
by the Senator from Arkansas. Panda Energy has a major gas-fired co-
generator in northwestern North Carolina. That plant, in Roanoke
Rapids, was the first project completed by this corporation and has
been a significant supplier of electricity to the citizens of my state
for the past ten years.
I, too, have been briefed about the difficulties Panda has faced in
their effort to improve China's electricity-generating infrastructure.
The commitment to approve and issue a formal tariff to the Panda
Project in Luannan County, that the municipal and provincial
governments agreed to, is not being honored. By failing to honor their
commitment to grant a reasonable tariff rate, these governments have
precluded the commercial generation of power. If this continues, the
U.S. bondholders will have no choice but to foreclose on what
represents the first U.S. capital markets power project financing in
China.
This is a difficult situation for both sides, but the bottom line is
that the international trading system breaks down if agreements are not
honored, especially for large infrastructure projects like this one
with long lead times. People invest money based on these agreements.
They put their companies at risk.
I would like to yield to my colleague, Senator Kerry, who has been
working on this issue for some time.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have been aware of this story since July.
Many of the bonds for this project are held through mutual funds in
which Americans have invested their savings. This is not just a
question of inequity for the U.S. developer of the project but also for
millions of Americans who are the bondholders, and many of whom are my
constituents.
In response to a letter written on August 7 to the Chinese
ambassador, the charge d'affaires indicated that he had met with both
the U.S. developer and representatives from the U.S. bondholders, had
conveyed the concern back home, and would be--quote--making efforts to
facilitate a satisfactory solution to this problem--end quote. It has
now been almost two months, and we have seen no resolution of this
problem, but rather delay and discrimination.
I note that the Democratic Leader has joined us, and I would like to
suggest to him a report by the Administration, but first I would yield
the Floor to my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not have first hand knowledge of the
situation, but it is troubling to hear of U.S. businesses running into
such difficulties. I read the written statement that the U.S. sponsor
of this project submitted to the Senate Finance Committee last spring.
Two things struck me. One is that the mediator split the difference.
He split the difference between the price for electricity proposed by
the Tangshan pricing bureau and the minimum price that the U.S.
developer of the project said it needed in order to avoid defaulting on
the project debt. The other thing that struck me is, although this was
no great result for the U.S. developer, all the developer is seeking at
this point is to have the mediator's recommendation implemented.
I would like to read a paragraph from the statement that the U.S.
sponsor of the project submitted to the Senate Finance Committee. This
is the president of the company speaking. ``I am not here to ask you or
your colleagues to grant or deny China PNTR status. I am here to relate
a story of how one U.S. company fared when it tried to supply
electricity to the Chinese. Unfortunately, we have come to find that
our experience is not all that uncommon. However, in our case, the
consequences are potentially disastrous because Panda had to guarantee
the U.S. bondholders that they would be repaid. We feel like the jilted
bride who entered into a marriage five years ago with the Chinese only
to find them trying to walk away from the marriage now that the child
has been born. This isn't fair.''
I agree, and I yield the Floor to the Democratic Leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have discussed this unfortunate
situation with several of my colleagues. I believe that it would be
very helpful to have the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of
Energy undertake a joint analysis of the facts of this situation and
report back to the Senate on their discussions with the Chinese
government within 45 days.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Wednesday, October 4, 2000, the Federal debt stood at
$5,653,380,479,214.62, five trillion, six hundred fifty-three billion,
three hundred eighty million, four hundred seventy-nine thousand, two
hundred fourteen dollars and sixty-two cents.
One year ago, October 4, 1999, the Federal debt stood at
$5,654,411,000,000, five trillion, six hundred fifty-four billion, four
hundred eleven million.
Five years ago, October 4, 1995, the Federal debt stood at
$4,980,561,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred eighty billion, five
hundred sixty-one million.
Ten years ago, October 4, 1990, the Federal debt stood at
$3,255,813,000,000, three trillion, two hundred fifty-five billion,
eight hundred thirteen million.
Fifteen years ago, October 4, 1985, the Federal debt stood at
$1,823,105,000,000, one trillion, eight hundred twenty-three billion,
one hundred five million, which reflects a debt increase of almost $4
trillion--$3,830,275,479,214.62, three trillion, eight hundred thirty
billion, two hundred seventy-five million, four hundred seventy-nine
thousand, two hundred fourteen dollars and sixty-two cents, during the
past 15 years.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
HONORING DIRECT SERVICE PROFESSIONALS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join the
Illinois chapter of the American Association on Mental Retardation in
recognizing the recipients of the 2000 Direct Service Professional
Award. These individuals are being honored for their outstanding
devotion to the effort to enrich the lives of people with developmental
disabilities in Illinois.
[[Page 20910]]
These recipients have displayed a strong sense of humanity and
professionalism in their work with persons with disabilities. Their
efforts have inspired the lives of those whom they care for, and they
are an inspiration to me as well. They have set a fine example of
community service for all Americans to follow.
These honorees spend more than 50 percent of their time in direct,
personal involvement with their clients. They are not primarily
managers or supervisors. They are direct service workers at the
forefront of America's effort to care for people with special needs.
They get up and go to work every day, with little recognition,
providing much needed and greatly valued care and assistance.
It is my pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of the following
Illinois direct service professionals: Kimberly Brown, Janelle Cote,
Margaretha Daigh, Dawn Golec, David Hamm, Pat Hartz, Sandy Hawkins,
Rhonda Housman, Kathy Lambert, Kathy Lyons, Deb Minor, Valensie
Parnell, Mary Beth Schultz, Marshall Sears, Kim Smith, Jayce Turner,
Don Van Duyse, Junior Vieux, Clifton White, and Tijuana Wright.
I know my fellow Senators will join me in congratulating the winners
of the 2000 Direct Service Professional Award. I applaud their
dedication and thank them for their service.
____________________
TAIWAN CELEBRATES NATIONAL DAY
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, next Sunday marks the eighty-
ninth birthday of the Republic of China, which now resides in Taiwan.
This representative government arose from a revolution against an
archaic imperial system. In 1911, Chinese patriots ousted the Qing
dynasty, and ignited the promise of economic and political freedom for
Chinese nationalists throughout the world.
National Day, or the shuang shi, is the most important national
holiday in Taiwan, for it celebrates not only a critical military
victory, but a wealth of principles which, to this day, guide the
governance of Taiwan--particularly: resistance to dynastic tyranny,
embrace of free market enterprise, development of western-style
political institutions, and ultimately, the evolution of a fully
thriving democratic republic. After repeated set-backs, on October 10,
1911, the revolutionary Wuch'ang Army successfully launched a revolt
against China's imperial regime. The nationalists would no longer
tolerate property seizure and suppressed individual rights. Without a
supreme sovereign reigning over the country, China plunged into a civil
war. Although never truly resolved, this conflict stalemated in 1949,
when Communists expelled Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists to
present-day Taiwan.
After emergency martial law was lifted in 1987, the groundwork was
finally laid to realize the cardinal objectives of Taiwan's founding
father, Sun Yat-sen--to establish a representative Republic of China.
In 1992, Taiwan held its first democratic legislative elections,
followed by presidential elections in 1996. In March of this year,
Taiwan held her second presidential elections, installing a wholly
independent, man of the people as the leader of Tawain--Chen Shui-bian.
This man embodies the spirit of the new Republic of China on Taiwan. As
mayor of Taipei, Chen Shui-bian cleaned up the capital city, attacking
organized crime and other illicit industries. As a political dissident,
he stood strong in the face of efforts to muzzle him. In this year's
election, he inaugurated a new political order for his people.
In addition to Chen's fair elections, Taiwan has much to celebrate.
As Taiwan enjoys her various National Day festivities--the huge
parades, dazzling entertainment, and explosive fireworks displays--let
us all celebrate the birth of true democracy in Taiwan. We salute our
friends on that great island--the people of Taiwan. Please join me in
saying to them Shuang shi kwai ler.
Honoring Our Fallen Firefighters
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, firefighters from across the Nation
who died in the line of duty will be remembered during the National
Fallen Firefighters Memorial Weekend on October 7th and 8th at the
National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. As in years past, the
National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency will sponsor the nation's tribute to these valiant
public servants.
The 106 firefighters to be honored this year include seven
Californians. On behalf of the people of my state, I want to remember
each of them in turn:
Matthew Eric Black, 20, a volunteer with the Lakeport Fire Protection
District, died on June 23, 1999 when he accidentally came in contact
with a downed power line during operations at a grass fire. His older
brother is also a firefighter.
Stephen Joseph Masto, 28, a career firefighter with the Santa Barbara
Fire Department, died on August 28, 1999 of heatstroke while working as
an EMT at a wildland fire. He received the Outstanding Cadet Award at
Rio Hondo Fire Academy and received a service award as a volunteer at
Upland Fire Department.
Tom Moore, 38, a career firefighter with the Manteca Fire Department,
died on June 16, 1999 after suffering severe trauma in a training tower
fall. He had served with the department for over 14 years and was a
well-known fire service instructor specializing in heavy/confined space
rescue and hazardous materials.
Karen J. Savage, 44, a volunteer firefighter/EMT with Hawkins Bar
Volunteer Fire Department in Burnt Ranch, died on October 16, 1999 from
injuries sustained in a vehicle accident at the scene of a wildland
fire.
Martin Michael Stiles, 40, a California Department of Corrections
inmate assigned to the Los Angeles County Fire Department Strike Team,
died on July 18, 1999 of injuries from a fall while working at a
wildland fire in Ventura County, California. A San Diego native, he was
dedicated to wildland firefighting and loved the outdoors.
Tracy Dolan Toomey, 52, a 27-year veteran firefighter with the
Oakland Fire Department, died on January 10, 1999 in the collapse of a
burning building. A Vietnam veteran, he was an avid welder and a member
of the California Artistic Blacksmith's Association.
Edward E. Luttig, 54, a member of the Sacramento Fire Department,
died on September 10, 1990 from injuries sustained 23 years earlier
while searching for survivors in an apartment fire. Sacramento
firefighters donated their time and money to support Mr. Luttig and his
family during those 23 years. His name is being added to the Memorial
at the request of his friends and former colleagues.
These fallen heroes paid the ultimate price for their devotion to
public service and safety. They are an inspiration to us all, as are
the men and women who continue to protect Americans from fire and other
emergencies.
____________________
MOTHER KATHARINE DREXEL: A TEACHER TO SOME, A SAINT TO MANY
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of
Mother Katharine Drexel. Born into one of the wealthiest families in
America in 1858, Mother Katharine turned down a life of privilege to
start the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament in 1891. She dedicated her
life to building a brighter future for underprivileged African-American
and Native American children.
In honor of her hard work and dedication to the disadvantaged and
disenfranchised, on October 1--just 45 years after her death--Pope John
Paul II canonized Mother Katharine into sainthood, the highest
recognition a Catholic can receive. She is the fifth American to reach
this honor, and only the second who was born in America.
The prestigious Xavier University of Louisiana owes its entire
existence to Mother Katharine Drexel. When founded in New Orleans in
1925, Xavier's mission was to prepare its students for positions of
leadership. Today, Xavier is widely recognized for sending more
African-Americans to medical school
[[Page 20911]]
than any college in America. Its 70 percent medical and dental school
acceptance rate is almost twice the national average, and 93 percent of
those who enter these programs earn their degree.
Xavier also ranks first nationally in the number of African-American
students who earn degrees in biology, physics, pharmacy and the
physical sciences. In fact, since 1927 Xavier has graduated nearly 25
percent of the black pharmacists practicing in the United States.
Thousands of Xavier's graduates are prominent scientists, scholars,
musicians, and community leaders in Louisiana and across the country.
Notable graduates include Department of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman,
and retired, four-star Air Force General Bernard Randolph, former head
of the Space and Defense Systems Command.
Proof of Mother Katharine's superior works lies in the achievements
of three of her former students. One of Mother Katharine's students at
Xavier was a young man who shined shoes, but wanted an education.
Today, Dr. Norman Francis is president of Xavier University and a
nationally recognized leader in higher education.
Another of her former students, Lionel Hampton, found his gift for
music under Mother Katharine's tutelage at Xavier. Hampton later earned
platinum and gold records, and became the first African-American to
play in the Benny Goodman Band. Hampton joined another jazz great and
New Orleanian, Louis Armstrong, to play for Pope Pius XII.
Mother Katharine also spread her goodwill elsewhere across the
country. When Marie Allen entered Mother Katharine's St. Michael's
Indian School in Window Rock, Arizona, she was an impoverished young
child who spoke no English. Today, Dr. Marie Allen heads the Navaho
Nation Special Diabetes Program to educate Native Americans about
diabetes, a deadly disease that plagues American Indian reservations.
Even more, over the past 10 years, 90 percent of students graduating
from St. Michael's Indian School have gone to college.
These are just three examples of the multitude of students who have
been inspired to greatness by Mother Katharine Drexel. In the midst of
a hostile culture, she used kindness and compassion to fight injustice
and indignities, and in the process forged a brighter future for
America's poor and underprivileged.
When Katharine Drexel died at the age of 97 in 1955, more than 500 of
her disciples were teaching in 63 schools on American Indian
reservations and in African-American communities. This is a true
testament to her ability to inspire and lead.
History is full of truly remarkable people whose individual acts of
kindness have left an indelible mark on our hearts, our souls and our
conscience. Mother Katharine Drexel is no different. Her actions are a
true testament to the power of strong religious faith and a moral
obligation to those less fortunate.
On behalf of the thousands of people around the world who have been
touched by her work, I pay tribute to the life and work of Mother
Katharine Drexel. She may have been a teacher to some, but Mother
Katharine is a saint to many.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. FAYE G. ABDELLAH
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to
honor Dr. Faye G. Abdellah, RN, Ed.D., Sc.D., FAAN who is currently
serving as the Dean of the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed
Services University. Dr. Abdellah will be inducted in the National
Women's Hall of Fame this weekend. Founded in 1969, the Hall is a
national membership organization in Seneca Falls, New York that honors
and celebrates the achievements of American women. She will join a list
of 157 of the most distinguished women in American history, including
Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Helen Keller, Sandra Day O'Connor, Rosa
Parks, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Dr. Abdellah is being recognized and
honored for her pioneering work altering nursing theory and practice,
for the development of the first tested coronary care unit that saved
thousands of lives, and for being the first nurse to hold the rank of
Rear Admiral (Upper Half) and the title of Deputy Surgeon General for
the United States.
Dr. Abdellah is the recipient of 79 professional and academic honors.
She holds eleven honorary degrees from universities that have
recognized her innovative work in nursing research, in the development
of the first nurse scientist, as an international expert in health
policies, and for making invaluable contributions to the health of our
nation. She has authored and co-authored more than 150 publications,
some of which have been translated into six languages.
Dr. Abdellah worked with the Surgeon General in the formation of
national health policies related to AIDS, drug addiction, violence,
smoking and alcoholism. She developed the first federal training
program for health services researchers, health services administrators
and geriatric nurse practitioners. Dr. Abdellah has worked with state
and district nursing associations, serving on many work groups and
committees developing standards of nursing practice, credentialing
activities, and providing workshops in nursing research.
As part of her international health outreach role as a nurse and
health services consultant, she has been a member of official United
States delegations on exchange missions to Russia, Yugoslavia, and
France, and designated as coordinator for nursing for the United
States-Argentina Cooperation in Health and Medical Research Project.
Dr. Abdellah has also served as a consultant to the Japanese Nursing
Association on nursing education and research on three separate
occasions.
I have had the privilege of knowing Dr. Abdellah for many years. Her
selfless devotion to duty and extraordinary accomplishments are
legendary. It is with pride that I congratulate Dr. Abdellah on her
well-deserved induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame. Our
nation can be proud of her long and distinguished service to this
country.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
executive messages referred
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 1:09 p.m. a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hayes, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
insists upon its amendment to the bill (S. 835) to encourage the
restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing
and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration
programs, and for other purposes, and ask a conference with the Senate
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. That Mr. Shuster,
Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gilchrest, Mrs. Fowler, Mr.
Sherwood, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Borski, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Filner, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr.
Blumenauer, and Mr. Baldacci, be the managers of the conference on the
part of the House.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 5212. An act To direct the American Folklife Center at
the Library of Congress to establish a program to collect
video and audio recordings of personal histories and
testimonials of American war veterans, and for other
purposes.
enrolled bills signed
The following enrolled bills, previously signed by the Speaker of the
House, were signed on today, October 5,
[[Page 20912]]
2000, by the President pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond):
S. 302. An act for the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.
S. 1794. An act to designate the Federal courthouse at 145
East Simpson Avenue in Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P.
Hansen Federal Courthouse.''
H.R. 4365. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act
with respect to children's health.
enrolled bills signed
At 3:41 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hayes, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution:
S. 366. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to
designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National
Historic Trail.
S. 1198. An act to establish a 3-year pilot project for the
General Accounting Office to report to Congress on
economically significant rules of Federal agencies, and for
other purposes.
S. 2045. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
2722. An act to improve the administrative efficiency and
effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts and
for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997.
H.R. 1800. An act To amend the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to ensure that certain
information regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney
General.
H.R. 2752. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to sell certain public land in Lincoln County through a
competitive process.
H.R. 2773. An act To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
to designate the Wekiva River and its tributaries of Wekiwa
Springs Run, Rock Springs Run, and Black Water Creek in the
State of Florida as components of the national wild and
scenic rivers system.
H.R. 4579. An act to provide for the exchange of certain
lands within the State of Utah.
H.R. 4583. An act to extend the authorization for the Air
Force Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the
District of Columbia or its environs.
H.J. Res. 110. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
The enrolled bills and joint resolution were signed subsequently by
the President pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
____
At 6:41 p.m. a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 2641. An act to make technical corrections to title X
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with amendments, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
S. 2311. An act to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE
Act programs under title XXVI of the Public Health Service
Act, to improve access to health care and the quality of
health care under such programs, and to provide for the
development of increased capacity to provide health care and
related support services to individuals and families with HIV
disease, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that the House agrees to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1143) to establish a program to provide
assistance for programs of credit and other financial services for
microenterprises in developing countries, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
H.R. 4292. An act to protect infants who are born alive.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, October 5, 2000,
he had presented to the President of the United States, the following
enrolled bills:
S. 302. An act for the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.
S. 366. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to
designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National
Historic Trail.
S. 1794. An act to designate the Federal courthouse at 145
East Simpson Avenue in Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P.
Hansen Federal Courthouse.''
S. 1198. An act to establish a 3-year pilot project for the
General Accounting Office to report to Congress on
economically significant rules of Federal agencies, and for
other purposes.
S. 2045. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
S. 2272. An act to improve the administrative efficiency
and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts
and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:
EC-11037. A communication from the Associate Administrator
for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS)'' received on October 3, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11038. A communication from the Associate Administrator
for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)'' received on October 3, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11039. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the strategic plan through fiscal year 2005; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11040. A communication from the Associate Administrator
for Equal Opportunity Programs, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Financial Assistance'' (RIN1190-AA28) received on October 3,
2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-11041. A communication from the Chief, Compliance
Division, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance''
(RIN1190-AA28) received on October 3, 2000; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11042. A communication from the Director of the Office
of Civil Rights, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance''
(RIN1190-AA28) received on October 3, 2000; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11043. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Emergency Interim Rule
to Prohibit Trap Gear in the Royal Red Shrimp Fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico'' (RIN0648-AO52) received on October 3, 2000;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-11044. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sharpchin and Northern
Rockfish in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' received on October 3,
2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-11045. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sharpchin and Northern
Rockfish in the Aleutian Islands Subarea'' received on
October 3, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-11046. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna;
Adjustment of General Category Daily Retention Limit on
Previously Designated Restricted Fishing Days'' received on
October 3, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
[[Page 20913]]
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment and an amendment to the title:
S. 1950: A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
to ensure the orderly development of coal, coalbed methane,
natural gas, and oil in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and
Montana, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 106-490).
By Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1969: A bill to provide for improved management of, and
increases accountability for, outfitted activities by which
the public gains access to and occupancy and use of Federal
land, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 106-491).
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 2448: A bill to enhance the protections of the Internet
and the critical infrastructure of the United States, and for
other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
The following executive reports of committee were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
Robert N. Shamansky, of Ohio, to be a Member of the
National Security Education Board for a term of four years.
(Reappointment)
Robert B. Pirie, Jr., of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of
the Navy.
(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that
they be confirmed subject to the nominees' commitment to respond to
requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate.)
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. John D. Hopper Jr., 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Paul W. Essex, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. John H. Campbell, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Lloyd J. Austin III, 0000
Col. Vincent E. Boles, 0000
Col. Gary L. Border, 0000
Col. Thomas P. Bostick, 0000
Col. Howard B. Bromberg, 0000
Col. James A. Coggin, 0000
Col. Michael L. Combest, 0000
Col. William C. David, 0000
Col. Martin E. Dempsey, 0000
Col. Joseph F. Fil Jr., 0000
Col. Benjamin C. Freakley, 0000
Col. John D. Gardner, 0000
Col. Brian I. Geehan, 0000
Col. Richard V. Geraci, 0000
Col. Gary L. Harrell, 0000
Col. Janet E. A. Hicks, 0000
Col. Jay W. Hood, 0000
Col. Kenneth W. Hunzeker, 0000
Col. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., 0000
Col. Gary M. Jones, 0000
Col. Jason K. Kamiya, 0000
Col. James A. Kelley, 0000
Col. Ricky Lynch, 0000
Col. Bernardo C. Negrete, 0000
Col. Patricia L. Nilo, 0000
Col. F. Joseph Prasek, 0000
Col. David C. Ralston, 0000
Col. Don T. Riley, 0000
Col. David M. Rodriguez, 0000
Col. Donald F. Schenk, 0000
Col. Steven P. Schook, 0000
Col. Gratton O. Sealock II, 0000
Col. Stephen M. Seay, 0000
Col. Jeffrey A. Sorenson, 0000
Col. Guy C. Swan III, 0000
Col. David P. Valcourt, 0000
Col. Robert M. Williams, 0000
Col. W. Montague Winfield, 0000
Col. Richard P. Zahner, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
Section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Lawrence R. Adair, 0000
Brig. Gen. Buford C. Blount III, 0000
Brig. Gen. Steven W. Boutelle, 0000
Brig. Gen. James D. Bryan, 0000
Brig. Gen. Eddie Cain, 0000
Brig. Gen. John P. Cavanaugh, 0000
Brig. Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, 0000
Brig. Gen. Keith W. Dayton, 0000
Brig. Gen. Kathryn G. Frost, 0000
Brig. Gen. Larry D. Gottardi, 0000
Brig. Gen. Stanley E. Green, 0000
Brig. Gen. Craig D. Hackett, 0000
Brig. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, 0000
Brig. Gen. Hubert L. Hartsell, 0000
Brig. Gen. George A. Higgins, 0000
Brig. Gen. William J. Leszczynski, 0000
Brig. Gen. Michael D. Maples, 0000
Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, 0000
Brig. Gen. Daniel G. Mongeon, 0000
Brig. Gen. William E. Mortensen, 0000
Brig. Gen. Eric T. Olson, 0000
Brig. Gen. Richard J. Quirk III, 0000
Brig. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, 0000
Brig. Gen. Gary D. Speer, 0000
Brig. Gen. Mitchell H. Stevenson, 0000
Brig. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., 0000
Brig. Gen. Terry L. Tucker, 0000
Brig. Gen. John R. Wood, 0000
The following named officer for appointment as the Chief of
Engineers, United States Army, and appointment to the grade
indicated while assigned to a position of importance and
responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601 and 3036:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Charles S. Mahan Jr., 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. H. Steven Blum, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. William T. Nesbitt, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. David P. Rataczak, 0000
To be brigadier general
Col. George J. Robinson, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Willie A. Alexander, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Carole A. Briscoe, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. David J. Kaucheck, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Daniel F. Perugini, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. John E. Stevens, 0000
To be brigadier general
Col. Rick Baccus, 0000
Col. Abner C. Blalock Jr., 0000
Col. John M. Braun, 0000
Brig. Gen. George A. Buskirk Jr., 0000
Col. James R. Carpenter, 0000
Col. Craig N. Christensen, 0000
Col. Paul D. Costilow, 0000
Col. James P. Daley, 0000
Col. Charles E. Fleming, 0000
Col. Charles E. Gibson, 0000
Col. Michael A. Gorman, 0000
Col. John F. Holechek Jr., 0000
Col. Mitchell R. LeClaire, 0000
Col. Richard G. Maxon, 0000
Col. Gary A. Pappas, 0000
Col. Donald H. Polk, 0000
Col. Robley S. Rigdon, 0000
Col. Charles T. Robbs, 0000
Col. Bruce D. Schrimpf, 0000
Col. Thomas J. Sullivan, 0000
Col. Brian L. Tarbet, 0000
Col. Gordon D. Toney, 0000
Col. Antonio J. Vicens-Gonzalez, 0000
Col. William L. Waller Jr., 0000
Col. Charles R. Webb, 0000
Col. William D. Wofford, 0000
Col. Kenneth F. Wondrack, 0000
Col. Ronald D. Young, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. William J. Davies, 0000
[[Page 20914]]
Brig. Gen. George T. Garrett, 0000
Brig. Gen. Dennis A. Kamimura, 0000
Brig. Gen. Bruce M. Lawlor, 0000
Brig. Gen. Timothy E. Neel, 0000
Brig. Gen. Larry W. Shellito, 0000
Brig. Gen. Darwin H. Simpson, 0000
Brig. Gen. Edwin H. Wright, 0000
To be brigadier general
Col. George A. Alexander, 0000
Col. Terry F. Barker, 0000
Col. John P. Basilica Jr., 0000
Col. Wesley E. Craig Jr., 0000
Col. James J. Dougherty Jr., 0000
Col. Ronald B. Kalkofen, 0000
Col. Edward G. Klein, 0000
Col. Thomas P. Luczynski, 0000
Col. James R. Mason, 0000
Col. Glen I. Sakagawa, 0000
Col. Joseph J. Taluto, 0000
Col. Thomas S. Walker, 0000
Col. George W. Wilson, 0000
Col. Ireneusz J. Zembrzuski, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grades indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Herbert L. Altshuler, 0000
Brig. Gen. Richard E. Coleman, 0000
Brig. Gen. B. Sue Dueitt, 0000
Brig. Gen. Michael R. Mayo, 0000
Brig. Gen. Robert S. Silverthorn Jr., 0000
Brig. Gen. Charles E. Wilson, 0000
To be brigadier general
Col. Michael G. Corrigan, 0000
Col. John R. Hawkins III, 0000
Col. Gregory J. Hunt, 0000
Col. Michael K. Jelinsky, 0000
Col. Robert R. Jordan, 0000
Col. David E. Kratzer, 0000
Col. Michael A. Kuehr, 0000
Col. Bruce D. Moore, 0000
Col. Conrad W. Ponder Jr., 0000
Col. Jerry W. Reshetar, 0000
Col. Bruce E. Robinson, 0000
Col. James R. Sholar, 0000
Col. Edwin E. Spain, 0000
Col. Stephen B. Thompson, 0000
Col. George W. Wells Jr., 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 7639
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Kerry G. Denson, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. William W. Goodwin, 0000
sThe following named officers for appointment in the United
States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) John G. Cotton, 0000
Rear Adm. (lh) Henry F. White Jr., 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
Capt. William V. Alford, 0000
Capt. John P. Debbout, 0000
Capt. Roger T. Nolan, 0000
Capt. Stephen S. Oswald, 0000
Capt. Robert O. Passmore, 0000
Capt. Gregory J. Slavonic, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Michael R. Johnson, 0000
Rear Adm. (lh) Charles R. Kubic, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Rodrigo C. Melendez, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Richard W. Mayo, 0000
The following named officer for appointment as Vice Chief
of Naval Operations, United States Navy, and appointment to
the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 601 and 5035:
To be admiral
Vice Adm. William J. Fallon, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Toney M. Bucchi, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Timothy J. Keating, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Martin J. Mayer, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps Reserve to the grade indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Jack A. Davis, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. James R. Battaglini, 0000
Brig. Gen. James E. Cartwright, 0000
Brig. Gen. Christopher Cortez, 0000
Brig. Gen. Gary H. Hughey, 0000
Brig. Gen. Thomas S. Jones, 0000
Brig. Gen. Richard L. Kelly, 0000
Brig. Gen. John F. Sattler, 0000
Brig. Gen. William A. Whitlow, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. John F. Goodman, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Thomas A. Benes, 0000
Col. Christian B. Cowdrey, 0000
Col. Michael E. Ennis, 0000
Col. Walter E. Gaskin Sr., 0000
Col. Michael R. Lehnert, 0000
Col. Joseph J. McMenamin, 0000
Col. Duane D. Thiessen, 0000
Col. George J. Trautman III, 0000
Col. Willie J. Williams, 0000
Col. Richard C. Zilmer, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps Reserve to the grade indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Andrew B. Davis, 0000
Col. Harold J. Fruchtnicht, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, 0000
(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that
they be confirmed.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I
report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS of
the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of
reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the
Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nominations beginning Donna L. Kennedy and ending
Michael D. Prazak, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 25,
2000.
Air Force nominations beginning Franklin C. Albright and
ending Lewis F. Wolf, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 25,
2000.
Air Force nomination of Warren S. Silberman, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 6, 2000.
Air Force nomination of James C. Seaman, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 12, 2000.
Air Force nominations beginning George M. Abernathy and
ending Richard M. Zink, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 21, 2000.
Air Force nominations beginning Douglas N. Barlow and
ending Gregory E. Seely, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 28, 2000.
[[Page 20915]]
Air Force nominations beginning John B. Stetson and ending
Christine E. Tholen, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 2,
2000.
Army nominations beginning John W. Alexander, Jr. and
ending Donald L. Wilson, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
10, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Bruce D. Adams and ending Vikram
P. Zadoo, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 25, 2000.
The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grades indicated under Title 10, U.S.C.,
Section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. George F. Bowman, 0000
Brig. Gen. Lloyd D. Burtch, 0000
Brig. Gen. Alfonsa Gilley, 0000
Brig. Gen. James R. Helmly, 0000
Brig. Gen. Dennis E. Klein, 0000
To be brigadier general
Col. James A. Cheatham, 0000
Col. George R. Fay, 0000
Col. Charles E. Gorton, 0000
Col. John H. Kern, 0000
Col. Charles E. McCartney, 0000
Col. Jack C. Stultz, Jr., 0000
Col. Stephen D. Tom, 0000
Army nominations beginning Daniel G. Aaron and ending
X2457, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 27, 2000.
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Bradford C. Brightman, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10. U.S.C.,
section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. H. Douglas Robertson, 0000
Army nomination of Merritt M. Smith, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 6, 2000.
Army nominations beginning James M. Davis and ending
Lanneau H. Siegling, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
6, 2000.
Army nomination of John Espinosa, which was received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
6, 2000.
Army nomination of Albert L. Lewis, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Philip C. Caccese and ending
Donald E. McLean, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
7, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Richard W.J. Cacini and ending
Carlos A. Trejo, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
7, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Melvin Lawrence Kaplan and
ending George Raymond Ripplinger, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 7, 2000.
Army nomination of * Michael Walker, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Eddie L. Cole and ending
Christopher A. White, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
12, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Jeanne J. Blaes and ending
Janelle S. Weyn, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
12, 2000.
Army nominations beginning * Patrick N. Bailey and ending *
Jeffrey L. Zust, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
12, 2000.
Army nominations beginning Timothy F. Abbott and ending *
X4076, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on September 12, 2000.
Navy nomination of Bradley S. Russell, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May
11, 2000.
Navy nomination of Douglas M. Larratt, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 25, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning Felix R. Tormes and ending
Christopher F. Beaubien, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
25, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning Ava C. Abney and ending Michael
E. Zimmerman, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 25, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning William B. Acker III and ending
John Zarem, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 26, 2000.
Navy nomination of Keith R. Belau, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
27, 2000.
Navy nomination of Randall J. Bigelow, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 6, 2000.
Navy nomination of Robert G. Butler, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Vito W. Jimenez, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Michael P. Tillotson, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Michael W. Altiser, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Melvin J. Hendricks, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Glenn A. Jett, which was received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Joseph T. Mahachek, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Robert J. Werner, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Marian L. Celli, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nomination of Stephen M. Trafton, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 7, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning Eric M. Aaby and ending Anthony
E. Zerangue, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on September 12,
2000.
Navy nominations beginning William S. Abrams II and ending
Michael Ziv, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on September 12,
2000.
Navy nomination of Jeffrey N. Rocker, which was received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
September 13, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning Jerry C. Mazanowski and ending
James S. Carmichael, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
13, 2000.
Navy nominations beginning Michael W. Bastian and ending
Steven C. Wurgler, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on September
21, 2000.
Marine Corps nominations beginning Jack G. Abate and ending
Jeffrey G. Young, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 27,
2000.
Marine Corps nomination of Gerald A. Cummings, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 7, 2000.
Marine Corps nomination of David L. Ladouceur, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 13, 2000.
By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Treaty Doc. 106-23 International Plant Protection
Convention (Exec. Report No. 106-27).
Text of Committee-Recommended Resolution of Advice and Consent
Resolved, (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
there), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC), Adopted at the Conference of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations at Rome on November
17, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 106-23), referred to in this resolution
of ratification as ``the amended Convention,'' subject to the
understandings of subsection (a), the declaration of
subsection (b) and the provisos of subsection (c).
(a) Understandings.--The advice and consent of the Senate
is subject to the following understandings, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification of the amended
Convention and shall be binding on the President:
(1) Relationship to other international agreements.--The
United States understands that nothing in the amended
Convention is to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent
with, or alters the terms or effect of, the World Trade
Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary or
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) or other relevant
international agreements.
(2) Authority to take measures against pests.--The United
States understands that nothing in the amended Convention
limits the authority of the United States, consistent with
the SPS Agreement, to take
[[Page 20916]]
sanitary or phytosanitary measures against any pest to
protect the environment or human, animal, or plant life or
health.
(3) Article xx (``technical assistance'').--The United
States understands that the provisions of Article XX entail
no binding obligation to appropriate funds for technical
assistance.
(b) Declaration.--The advice and consent of the Senate is
subject to the following declaration:
Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty,
approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and Condition (8) of
the resolution of ratification of the Document Agreed Among
the State Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe, approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997.
(c) Provisos.--The advice and consent of the Senate is
subject to the following:
(1) Report to congress.--One year after the date the
amended Convention enters into force for the United States,
and annually thereafter for five years, the Secretary of
Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
shall provide a report on Convention implementation to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate setting forth at
least the following:
(A) a discussion of the sanitary or phytosanitary standard-
setting activities of the IPPC during the previous year;
(B) a discussion of the sanitary or phytosanitary standards
under consideration or planned for consideration by the IPPC
in the coming year;
(C) information about the budget of the IPPC in the
previous fiscal year; and
(D) a list of countries which have ratified or accepted the
amended Convention, including dates and related particulars.
(2) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the amended
Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action
by the United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3161. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to
conduct a study on certain hospital costs; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3162. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to make grants to improve security at
schools, including the placement and use of metal detectors;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3163. A bill to designate the calendar decade beginning
on January 1, 2001, as the ``Decade of Pain Control and
Research''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Cleland):
S. 3164. A bill to protect seniors from fraud; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 3165. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to make
corrections and refinements in the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP health insurance programs, as revised by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 and the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 3166. A bill to amend the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to
provide individual federal agencies and the executive branch
as a whole with increased incentives to use the share-in-
savings program under that Act, to ease the use of such
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 3167. A bill to establish a physician recruitment and
retention demonstration project under the medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. TORRICELLI:
S. 3168. A bill to eliminate any limitation on indictment
for sexual offenses and make awards to States to reduce their
DNA casework backlogs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Allard
, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Crapo, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 3169. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act and the International Revenue Code of 1986 with
respect to drugs for minor animal species, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 3170. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to assist institutions of higher education to help at-risk
students to stay in school and complete their 4-year
postsecondary academic programs by helping those institutions
to provide summer programs and grant aid for such students,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr.
Stevens):
S. 3171. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the section 29 credit for producing fuel from a
non-conventional source; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 3172. A bill to provide access to affordable health care
for all Americans; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Warner,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bond, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Moynihan, and
Mr. Graham):
S. 3173. A bill to improve the implementation of the
environmental streamlining provisions of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century; read the first time.
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 3174. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a long-term capital gains deduction for individuals;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mr .
Daschle, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams,
Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Lugar, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Thomas, and
Mr. Wellstone):
S. 3175. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to authorize the National Rural Development
Partnership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. MACK:
S. Res. 367. A resolution urging the Government of Egypt to
provide a timely and open appeal for Shaiboub William Arsel
and to complete an independent investigation of police
brutality in Al-Kosheh; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. Con. Res. 142. A concurrent resolution relating to the
reestablishment of representative government in Afghanistan;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. Con. Res. 143. A concurrent resolution to make technical
corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3676;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. Con. Res. 144. A concurrent resolution commemorating the
200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in
Washington, DC; considered and agreed to.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Cleland):
S. 3164. A bill to protect seniors from fraud; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
protecting seniors from fraud act
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as the author of the Protecting
Seniors From Fraud Act, a bipartisan bill to prevent fraud against
seniors.
The Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act is extremely important because
seniors are disproportionately victims of telemarketing and sweepstakes
fraud. Even though Americans over the age of 50 account for
approximately 27% of the United States population, they comprise 56% of
the ``mooch lists'' used by fraudulent telemarketers. Unfortunately,
fraudulent telemarketers prey upon the trusting nature of seniors and
as a result seniors lose approximately $14.8 billion each year.
This can be prevented if seniors are educated about their consumer
rights and are informed about methods that are available to them to
confirm the legitimacy of an investment or product. According to a
national survey, 70% of older fraud victims say it is difficult to
identify when fraud is happening and 40% of older Americans cannot
distinguish between a legitimate
[[Page 20917]]
and a fraudulent telemarketing sales call. There is a need to educate
seniors about the dangers of fraud and how to avoid becoming a victim
of fraud. As a first step to educate seniors in my state of Indiana
about fraud prevention, I held a Special Committee on Aging field
hearing on protecting seniors from fraud.
I heard testimony from two victims of investment scams in which both
lost a large sum of their retirement. Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy lost
close to $150,000 and Mr. Owen Saltzgaver lost close to $50,000. Mr.
Saltzgaver said ``It was a scam from the beginning, I wish I knew,''
and Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy stated ``It is the first thing I think of
when I get up in the morning and the last thing I think of when I go to
sleep. I thought I could trust him.''
At this hearing I highlighted the Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act.
This bill would provide necessary resources to local programs part of
the National Association of TRIADs, a community-policing program that
partners law enforcement agencies with senior volunteers to reduce
crime and fraud against the elderly. There are 725 counties with TRIADs
nationwide. They help more than 16 million seniors. During the field
hearing, Captain Ed Friend, the leader of the TRIAD program in South
Bend, Indiana, testified about the importance of combating fraud and
how the South Bend TRIAD program has been providing seminars to Seniors
on fraud prevention. He made clear that without federal funding TRIADs'
nationwide efforts would have to cease. The authorization for Federal
funding provided in this bill should ensure the continuation of TRIADs'
efforts. In order to assist TRIAD with those efforts, this bill also
requires the Health and Human Services Department to disseminate
information to seniors on fraud prevention through the Area Agencies on
Aging and other existing senior-focused programs.
In addition to educating seniors, this bill contains provisions which
would include seniors in the crime victimization survey and would
require the United States Attorney General to conduct a study of crimes
committed against seniors. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on
this issue. These provisions would allow Congress to gather more
information on crimes against seniors in order to react with
appropriate legislative action.
Education is one of many steps that needs to be taken to prevent
fraud. I also introduced the ``Combating Fraud Against Seniors Act''
this year to increase enforcement measures and toughen penalties
against those promoting fraudulent schemes through mass-marketing.
Education and tougher penalties will hopefully protect seniors from
fraud.
Protecting seniors from fraud is of growing importance as our
population ages and more seniors save more money for their retirement.
Our seniors deserve to be informed and their investments deserve to be
secure. I urge the Senate to consider this bipartisan legislation and
pass it prior to adjournment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join today with Senators Bayh, Grams, and
Cleland in introducing the ``Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act of
2000.'' I have been concerned for some time that even as the general
crime rate has been declining steadily over the past eight years, the
rate of crime against the elderly has remained unchanged. That is why I
introduced the Seniors Safety Act, S. 751, with Senators Daschle,
Kennedy, and Torricelli over a year ago.
The Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act includes one of the titles from
the Seniors Safety Act. This title does two things. First, it instructs
the Attorney General to conduct a study relating to crimes against
seniors, so that we can develop a coherent strategy to prevent and
properly punish such crimes. Second, it mandates the inclusion of
seniors in the National Crime Victimization Study. Both of these are
important steps, and they should be made law.
The Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act also includes important
proposals for addressing the problem of crimes against the elderly,
especially fraud crimes. In addition to the provisions described above,
the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make
grants to establish local programs to prevent fraud against seniors and
educate them about the risk of fraud, as well as to provide information
about telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud to seniors, both directly and
through State Attorneys General. These are two common-sense provisions
that will help seniors protect themselves against crime.
I hope that we can also take the time to consider the rest of the
Seniors Safety Act, and enact even more comprehensive protections for
our seniors. The Seniors Safety Act offers a comprehensive approach
that would increase law enforcement's ability to battle telemarketing,
pension, and health care fraud, as well as to police nursing homes with
a record of mistreating their residents. The Justice Department has
said that the Seniors Safety Act would ``be of assistance in a number
of ways.'' I asked Senator Hatch to hold Judiciary Committee hearings
on the bill as long ago as October 1999, and again this past February,
but my requests have thus far not been granted. I ask again today for
hearings on this important and comprehensive proposal.
First, the Seniors Safety Act provides additional protections to
nursing home residents. Nursing homes provide an important service for
our seniors--indeed, more than 40 percent of Americans turning 65 this
year will need nursing home care at some point in their lives. Many
nursing homes do a wonderful job with a very difficult task--this
legislation simply looks to protect seniors and their families by
isolating the bad providers in operation. It does this by giving
federal law enforcement the authority to investigate and prosecute
operators of those nursing homes that engage in a pattern of health and
safety violations. This authority is all the more important given the
study prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services and
reported this summer in the New York Times showing that 54 percent of
American nursing homes fail to meet the Department's ``proposed minimum
standard'' for patient care. The study also showed that 92 percent of
nursing homes have less staff than necessary to provide optimal care.
Second, the Seniors Safety Act helps protect seniors from
telemarketing fraud, which costs billions of dollars every year. My
bill would give the Attorney General the authority to block or
terminate telephone service where that service is being used to defraud
seniors. If someone takes your money at gunpoint, the law says we can
take away their gun. If someone uses their phone to take away your
money, the law should allow us to protect other victims by taking their
phone away. In addition, my proposal would establish a Better Business
Bureau-style clearinghouse that would keep track of complaints made
about telemarketing companies. With a simple phone call, seniors could
fine out whether the company trying to sell to them over the phone or
over the Internet has been the subject of complaints or been convinced
of fraud. Senator Bayh has recently introduced another bill, S. 3025,
the Combating Fraud Against Seniors Act, which includes the part of the
Seniors Safety Act that establishes the clearinghouse for telemarketing
fraud information.
Third, the Seniors Safety Act punishes pension fraud. Seniors who
have worked hard for years should not have to worry that their hard-
earned retirement savings will not be there when they need them. The
bill would create new criminal and civil penalties for those who
defraud pension plans, and increase the penalties for bribery and graft
in connection with employee benefit plans.
Fourth and finally, the Seniors Safety Act strengthens law
enforcement's ability to fight health care fraud. A recent study by the
National Institute for Justice reports that many health care fraud
schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the
elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to
complain or alert law enforcement.'' This legislation gives law
enforcement the additional investigatory tools it needs to
[[Page 20918]]
uncover, investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both
criminal and civil proceedings. It also protects whistle-blowers who
alert law enforcement officers to examples of health care fraud.
In conclusion, I would like to commend Senators Bayh and Cleland for
working to take steps to improve the safety and security of America's
seniors. I call upon my colleagues to pass this bipartisan legislation
and begin the fight to lower the crime rate against seniors. I also
urge them to consider and pass the Seniors Safety Act. Taken together,
these two bills would provide a comprehensive approach toward giving
law enforcement and older Americans the tools they need to prevent
crime.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 3165. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to make corrections
and refinements in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP health insurance
programs, as revised by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999,
and for other purposes; read the first time.
Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Improvements Act of 2000
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join Senator
Moynihan and my other colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee in
introducing the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Improvements Act of 2000.
This is important, bipartisan legislation intended to address needed
health care funding and other improvements in these programs that are
so important to millions of Americans. Every year on the Finance
Committee we maintain watchful oversight of these critical programs to
make sure that beneficiary access to services is maintained, and that
payments and benefits are adjusted to meet beneficiaries' needs. This
bill would add about $28 billion in funds to these programs over the
next five years. Following are some of the highlights of this
legislation.
(1) Medicare beneficiary assistance provisions would reduce
coinsurance liability for hospital outpatient services; improve access
to Medigap coverage; permit Medicare+Choice plans to give beneficiaries
cash rebates of Part B premiums; protect access to immunosuppressive,
cancer, hemophilia and other drugs, and extend Part B premium
assistance for lower-income beneficiaries.
(2) Preventive health benefits would expand existing or add new
coverage for pap smears, colorectal cancer screening, and nutrition
therapy, and request further work on effective preventive benefits for
later consideration in Medicare.
(3) Rural health care improvements address service capacity and
access to services through increased payments for critical access,
sole-community and Medicare-dependent hospitals. The package also
includes provisions for rural health clinics, ambulance services, and
telemedicine. Rural hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home
health agencies also benefit from general financing improvements
detailed in other sections.
(4) Medicare+Choice provisions stabilize and improve funding for
beneficiaries electing to enroll in privately-offered Medicare+Choice
plans, with special attention to rural communities; restore funding for
beneficiary education campaigns; and provide additional assistance for
frail, disabled and rural beneficiaries.
(5) Hospital funding improvements increase annual payment updates;
improve disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments under Medicare
and Medicaid for providing uncompensated care to uninsured patients;
reform Medicare's DSH program to reduce disparities in the treatment of
rural and urban hospitals; add funding for rehabilition hospitals; and
protect payments for teaching hospitals.
(6) Skilled nursing facility (SNF) provisions improve funding,
maintain access to therapy services, and reduce regulatory burdens by
delaying implementation of consolidated billing.
(7) Home health and hospice provisions protect funding for home
health services by delaying a scheduled 15% cut in payments; increasing
funding for high-cost outlier cases, and making special temporary
payments to rural agencies. Hospice provisions improve funding, require
research on issues related to eligibility for the benefit and establish
a hospice demonstration program.
(8) Dialysis and durable medical equipment (DME) provisions improve
payments for DME for all Medicare beneficiaries, and for services
received by individuals with end-stage renal disease, as well as
enhancing their opportunities to participate in the Medicare+Choice
program.
(9) Additional provisions address physician, laboratory, ambulatory
surgery center and other medical services. The package also creates a
Joint Committee on Health Care Financing to provide professional
support to the Congress in addressing the burgeoning cost and
legislative complexity of the Medicare, Medicaid and State Children's
Health Insurance programs and monitoring the viability of safety net
providers.
(10) Medicaid and SCHIP provisions improve the financing of and
access to services provided by federally qualified health centers and
rural health clinics; establish policies for the retention and
redistribution of unspent SCHIP funds; increase authorization for the
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant; and add funding for special
diabetes programs for children and Native Americans.
I would like to accomplish even more this year, especially in the
Medicare program. For instance, I remain committed to securing
comprehensive drug benefits for the aged and disabled beneficiaries in
Medicare. I will continue to work towards that goal. However, I am
pleased that we were able to achieve bipartisan support for these
improvements and I will continue my efforts to build the bipartisan
consensus needed to proceed on larger Medicare reforms in the near
future.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Roth,
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, in sponsoring the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Improvement Act of 2000.
As part of the effort to balance the Federal Budget, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) provided for reduction in Medicare payments
for medical services. At the time of enactment, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimated that these provisions would reduce
Medicare outlays by $112 billion over 5 years. We now know that these
BBA cuts have been much larger than originally anticipated--some argue
twice as large, although it's difficult to determine this with any
precision.
Hospital industry representatives and other providers of health care
services have asserted that the magnitude of the reductions are having
unintended consequences which are seriously impacting the quantity and
quality of health care services available to our citizens.
Last year, the Congress addressed some of those unintended
consequences, by enacting the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA),
which added back $16 billion over 5 years in payments to various
Medicare providers, including: Teaching Hospitals; Hospital Outpatient
Departments; Medicare HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations); Skilled
Nursing Facilities; Rural Health Providers; and Home Health Agencies.
However, Members of Congress are continuing to hear from providers
who argue that the 1997 reductions are still having serious
unanticipated consequences.
To respond to these continuing problems, the President last June
proposed additional BBA relief in the amount of $21 billion over the
next 5 years. On September 20, Senator Daschle and I, along with 32 of
our Democratic colleagues, introduced a similar, but more substantial,
BBA relief package that would provide about $40 billion over 5 years in
relief to health care providers and beneficiaries. Today, along with
Senator Roth, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bipartisan BBA relief
bill to provider about $28 billion in relief over 5 years.
[[Page 20919]]
I want, in particular, to highlight that this legislation would--for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002--prevent further reductions in the special
Medicare payments to our Nation's teaching hospitals. A little
background is in order.
Medicare provides support to our Nation's teaching hospitals by
adjusting its payments upward to reflect Medicare's share of costs
associated with care provided by medical residents. This is
accomplished under two mechanisms: direct graduate medical education
(direct GME) payments; and indirect medical education (IME)
adjustments. Direct GME costs include items such as salaries of
residents, interns, and faculty and overhead costs for classroom
training. The separate IME adjustment was established in 1983 and
pertains to residency training costs that are not directly attributable
to medical education expenses, but are nevertheless associated with
teaching activities and the teaching hospital's research mission--for
example, extra demands placed on hospital staff, additional tests
ordered by residents, and increased use of diagnostic testing and
advanced technology. Prior to the BBA, the IME adjustment increased
Medicare's hospital payments by approximately 7.7 percent for each 10
percent increase in a hospital's ratio of interns and residents to
hospital beds.
The BBA included a reduction in the IME adjustment from the previous
7.7 percent to 7.0 percent in FY 1998; to 6.5 percent in FY 1999; to
6.0 percent in FY 2000; and to 5.5 percent in FY 2001 and subsequent
years. In my judgment, these cuts would have seriously impaired the
cutting edge research conducted by teaching hospitals, as well as
impaired their ability to train doctors and to serve so many of our
nation's indigent.
Last year, in the BBRA, we mitigated the scheduled reduction in FY
2000--freezing the IME adjustment at 6.5 percent; and the IME
adjustment was set at 6.25 percent for FY 2001, and 5.5 percent
thereafter. The package we are introducing today, would restore $600
million in funds for FY 2001 and FY 2002 by setting the IME adjustment
at 6.5 percent in both years. The IME adjustment would then fall to 5.5
percent thereafter--a reduction which I had hoped to cancel this year,
and sincerely hope the congress will cancel in future legislation.
I have stood before my colleagues on countless occasions to bring
attention to the financial plight of medical schools and teaching
hospitals. Yet, I regret that the fate of the 144 accredited medical
schools and 1416 graduate medical education teaching institutions still
remains uncertain. The proposals in this bill will provide critically
needed financing--at least in the short-run.
In the long-run, however, we need to restructure the financing of
graduate medical education along the lines I have proposed in the
Graduate Medical Education Trust fund Act (S. 210). What is needed is
explicit and dedicated funding for these institutions, which will
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in this era
of medical discovery. The Graduate Medical Education Trust Fund Act
would require that the public sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid
programs, and the private sector through an assessment on health
insurance premiums, provide broad-based financial support for graduate
medical education. S. 210 would roughly double current funding levels
for Graduate Medical Education and would establish a Medical Education
Advisory Commission to make recommendations on the operation of the
Medical Education Trust Fund, on alternative payment sources for
funding graduate medical education and teaching hospitals, and on
policies designed to maintain superior research and educational
capacities.
In addition to restoring much needed funding to our Nation's teaching
hospitals for the next two years, this bill would add back funding in
many vital areas of health care. Key provisions of the bill we are
introducing today would: provide full market basket (inflation)
adjustments to hospitals for 2001 and 2002; target additional relief to
rural hospitals; reduce cuts in payments to hospitals for handling
large numbers of low-income patients (referred to as ``disproportionate
share (DSH) hospital payments''); delay the scheduled 15 percent cut in
payments to home health agencies; improve funding for skilled nursing
facilities; and assist beneficiaries through preventive benefits and
smaller coinsurance payments.
Let me close by again complimenting Senator Roth on developing this
bill on a bipartisan basis and expressing my hope that the forthcoming
information negotiations with committees of the House will be similarly
conducted on a bipartisan basis.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 3166. A bill to amend the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to provide
individual federal agencies and the executive branch as a whole with
increased incentives to use the share-in-savings program under that
Act, to ease the use of such program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
information technology share-in-savings program improvement act of 2000
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill designed to
lower the cost of the government's information technology systems and
improve how those systems serve our citizens by encouraging greater use
of a ``share-in-savings'' approach to contracting for information
technology (IT).
Under a share-in-savings approach, the government contracts with a
company to provide an improved, lower cost IT service and the company
pays the up-front costs of the project, which is not the usual
practice. In return, the contractor gets paid a portion of the money
saved by the government under the new arrangement. Essentially, the
contractor bears the capital costs needed for the government to save
some money and has a strong incentive to decrease the government's
costs because they get paid a portion of any savings.
Although this approach to IT contracting is authorized as a pilot
program under the Clinger-Cohen Act, I understand the executive branch
has not made much use of this approach to date. Hence, I believe there
are opportunities for greater creativity in this area if we give the
agencies greater incentives.
Basically, my bill does three things. First, and most importantly, it
gives agencies an incentive to try a share-in-savings approach by
letting them keep up to half the government's net savings to use for
additional IT projects, rather than having all the net savings going
back to the Treasury. It's just human nature that if you ask someone to
do something risky--like a new IT system--but all the benefits go
elsewhere, they're not going to be very inclined to do it. That is,
unless they get to keep some of the benefits to improve their own
operations--which is what this bill let's them do. The point here is
that the more agency managers actually are willing to use this
approach, the more money the taxpayer will save in the long run.
There's precedent for this with regard to certain Energy Savings
Performance Contracts. Under a provision applicable to the Department
of Defense, local base commanders can keep a portion of the savings
from those contracts to purchase more energy saving equipment or even
for morale and recreation purposes.
Second, my bill gives the executive branch as a whole an incentive to
try share-in-savings contracting for IT by allowing the pilot program
to graduate to a regular authority once a significant number of
projects have been done, the approach has been found to be useful, and
guidance on how to use the authority has been issued. This gives the
top levels of the executive branch a goal to push toward.
Finally, my bill will ease implementation of share-in-savings
contracting by allowing agency program managers to approve the
projects, thereby giving them greater autonomy and streamlining the
selection process. Currently, share-in-savings IT projects must be
approved by the Administrator of Federal Procurement, a very high level
in the executive branch.
In sum, my bill will encourage greater use of the share-in-savings
approach
[[Page 20920]]
to IT contracting under the Clinger-Cohen Act by giving the agencies a
portion of the savings to reinvest; the executive branch a goal; and
the program managers more autonomy.
I had originally planned to introduce this as an amendment to the
Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill. But, because it doesn't look like
we'll have a chance to really debate that bill this year, I've decided
to introduce this bill today to get my proposal before the Senate.
Now, to give some credit where credit is due, I got interested in
this topic because of a piece I saw in Roll Call on E-Government by
Patricia McGinnis of the Council for Excellence in Government. In it
she mentioned the idea of letting agencies retain some of the IT
savings they achieve in order to reinvest it in more IT.
I also understand that the Governmental Affairs Committee recently
put up a web site to discuss potential e-government policies and
legislation. And, I was glad to learn that the share-in-savings
approach to IT is one of its topics.
So, I hope the Governmental Affairs committee will take a thorough
look at the ideas in my bill. I look forward to working with them to
find new ways to save the taxpayer money while improving the services
they are provided.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and a
letter from Ms. McGinnis in support of the amendment I'd planned be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 3166
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 ``Information Technology
Share-in-Savings Program Improvement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to provide individual federal
agencies and the executive branch as a whole with increased
incentives to use the share-in-savings program under the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and to ease the use of such
program.
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY.
Section 5311 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D
and E of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 692; 40 U.S.C. 1491)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``the heads of two executive agencies to
carry out '' and inserting ``heads of executive agencies to
carry out a total of five projects under'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) encouraging the use of the contracting and sharing
approach described in paragraphs (1) and (2) by allowing the
head of the executive agency conducting a project under the
pilot program--
``(A) to retain, out of the appropriation accounts of the
executive agency in which savings computed under paragraph
(2) are realized as a result of the project, up to the amount
equal to half of the excess of--
``(i) the total amount of the savings, over
``(ii) the total amount of the portion of the savings paid
to the private sector source for such project under paragraph
(2); and
``(B) to use the retained amount to acquire additional
information technology.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``a project under'' after ``authorized to
carry out''; and
(B) by striking ``carry out one project and''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Evolution Beyond Pilot Program.--(1) The
Administrator may provide general authority to the heads of
executive agencies to use a share-in-savings contracting
approach to the acquisition of information technology
solutions for improving mission-related or administrative
processes of the Federal Government if--
``(A) after reviewing the experience under the five
projects carried out under the pilot program under subsection
(a), the Administrator finds that the approach offers the
Federal Government an opportunity to improve its use of
information technology and to reduce costs; and
``(B) issues guidance for the exercise of that authority.
``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a share-in-savings
contracting approach provides for contracting as described in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) together with the sharing and
retention of amounts saved as described in paragraphs (2) and
(3) of that subsection.
``(3) In exercising the authority provided to the
Administrator in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
consult with the Administrator for the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs.
``(d) Availability of Retained Savings.--Amounts retained
by the head of an executive agency under subsection (a)(3) or
subsection (c) shall, without further appropriation, be
available for the executive agency for the acquisition of
information technology and shall remain available until
expended. Amounts so retained from any appropriation of the
executive agency not otherwise available for the acquisition
of information technology shall be transferred to any
appropriation of the executive agency that is available for
such purpose.''.
____
The Council for Excellence
in Government,
Washington, DC, August 10, 2000.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Council for Excellence in
Government applauds your interest in legislation to encourage
federal agencies to conduct pilot ``share-in-savings''
partnerships under the Clinger-Cohen Act. We agree that
making greater use of ``share-in-savings'' projects will lead
to successful public-private joint ventures that can produce
savings for the agencies and better results for the American
people.
In particular, we think the approach to encouraging greater
use of ``share-in-savings'' partnerships embodied in your
planned amendment to this year's Treasury and General
Government appropriations bill--allowing agencies to retain
some of the savings, and the pilots to easily graduate to a
regular authority--deserves serious consideration by
Congress.
As you move forward, you may also want to look at the work
of the General Service Administration's (GSA) Federal
Technology Center. Ken Buck, Director of Business
Innovations, Office of the Commissioner at GSA, is very
knowledgeable about the successful methods of contracting and
procurement using this approach.
In fact, the Council is working with GSA to develop case
studies of best practices using share-in-savings methods for
use by federal agencies. We will share that work with you as
soon as it is available.
Again, thanks for your leadership on this very important
issue, which will not only promote e-government but also
excellence in government.
Sincerely,
Patricia McGinnis,
President and CEO.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 3167. A bill to establish a physician recruitment and retention
demonstration project under the Medicare Program under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act; to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator
Bingaman to introduce the ``Physician Recruitment and Retention Act of
2000.''
Almost like clockwork one can pick up an Albuquerque newspaper and
read about the shortage of physicians in New Mexico and the resulting
problems. When individuals have difficulty receiving adequate medical
treatment, action must be taken.
For example, in Albuquerque an urban area of almost 700,000 there are
only two neurosurgeons besides the five practicing at the University of
New Mexico. Such a ratio can only cause one thing, severe difficulties
for patients. Thus, a patient recently waited eighteen hours in an
Albuquerque emergency room before seeing a neurosurgeon.
I would ask my colleagues the following: what good are hospitals
filled with the latest technology if there are not enough doctors? And
what good are modern medical offices if there are not enough doctors to
treat the patients in a timely manner?
The problem I have just described is not just occurring in New
Mexico, rather other states are experiencing similar problems because
of a common set of problems. I would submit the combination of high
levels of poverty and low Medicare reimbursement rates causes a twofold
problem.
First, patients often have difficulty obtaining timely care and
second, states cannot effectively recruit and retain their physicians.
Our Bill builds upon the simple proposition that if Medicare Physician
reimbursement rates are raised, patients will be the ultimate
beneficiaries.
[[Page 20921]]
The Bill we are introducing creates a two state demonstration program
to address these problems by increasing Medicare Physician
reimbursements by 5 percent for a period of three years if certain
criteria are met.
The Bill also authorizes a GAO study to determine whether: (1)
patient access to care and the ability of states to recruit and retain
physicians is adversely impacted when the enumerated factors in the
previous section are present; and (2) increased Medicare Physician
reimbursements improve patient access to care and the ability of states
to recruit and retain physicians.
Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator
Bingaman, on this very important issue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 3167
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 ``Physician Recruitment and
Retention Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. MEDICARE PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a demonstration project for the purpose of
improving--
(1) access to health care for beneficiaries under part B of
the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); and
(2) the ability of States to recruit and retain physicians.
(b) Conduct of Demonstration Project.--
(1) Demonstration sites.--The demonstration project under
this section shall be conducted in 2 sites, which shall be
statewide.
(2) Recruitment and retention of physicians.--Under the
demonstration project, the Secretary shall increase by 5
percent payments for physicians' services (as defined in
section 1861(q) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(q)) under section 1848 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
to physicians furnishing such services in any State that
submits an application under paragraph (3) that is approved
by the Secretary under paragraph (4).
(3) Application.--Any State wishing to participate in the
demonstration program shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and in such form as
the Secretary may reasonably require.
(4) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the applications
of 2 States that, based upon 1998 data, have--
(A) an uninsured population above 20 percent (as determined
by the Bureau of the Census);
(B) a population eligible for medical assistance under the
medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) above 17 percent (as determined by
the Health Care Financing Administration);
(C) an unemployment rate above 4.8 percent (as determined
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics);
(D) an average per capita income below $21,200 (as
determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis); and
(E) a geographic practice cost indices component of the
reimbursement rate for physicians under the medicare program
that is below the national average (as determined by the
Health Care Financing Administration).
(5) Duration.--The demonstration project under this section
shall be conducted for a period of 3 years.
(c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive such
requirements of the medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) to the extent
and for the period that the Secretary determines is necessary
for carrying out the demonstration project under this
section.
(d) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the demonstration project conducted
under this section to determine whether the access of
beneficiaries under the medicare program to health care and
the ability of States to recruit and retain physicians is--
(A) adversely impacted by the factors described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of subsection (b)(4); and
(B) improved by increased payments to physicians under
subsection (b)(2).
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary
completes the demonstration project under this section, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a
report on the results of the study conducted under paragraph
(1) to the appropriate committees of Congress.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI:
S. 3168. A bill to eliminate any limitation on indictment for sexual
offenses and make awards to State to reduce their DNA casework
backlogs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sexual assault Prosecution act of 2000
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual
Assault Prosecution act of 2000. This legislation will ensure that no
rapist will evade prosecution when there is reliable evidence of their
guilt.
As the law is written today, a rapist can walk away scot-free if they
are not charged within five years of committing their crime. This is
true when if overwhelming evidence of the offender's guilt, such as a
DNA match with evidence taken from the crime scene, is later
discovered. Some states, including my home state of New Jersey, have
recognized the injustice presented by this situation and have already
abolished their statutes of limitations on sexual assault crimes, and
many other states are considering similar measures. Given the power and
precision of DNA evidence, it is now time that the federal government
abolish the current statute of limitations on federal sexual assault
crimes.
The precision with which DNA evidence can identify a criminal
assailant has increased dramatically over the past couple decades.
Because of its exactness, DNA evidence is now routinely collected by
law enforcement personnel in the course of investigating many crimes,
including sexual assault crimes. The DNA profile of evidence collected
at a sexual assault crime scene can be compared to the DNA profiles of
convicted criminals, or the profile of a particular suspect, in order
to determine who committed the crime. Moreover, because of the
longevity of DNA evidence, it can be used to positively identify a
rapist many years after the actual sexual assault.
The enormous advancements in DNA science have greatly expanded law
enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute sexual assault
crimes. Unfortunately, the law has not kept pace with science. Given
the precise accuracy and reliability of DNA testing, however, the legal
and moral justifications for continuing to impose a statute of
limitations on sexual assault crimes are extremely weak. To that end, I
am introducing the ``Sexual Assault Prosecution Act of 2000'' which
will eliminate the statute of limitations for sexual assault crimes.
This legislation will not affect the burdens of proof and the
government will still have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
before any person could be convicted of a crime.
Currently, the statute of limitations for arson and financial
institution crimes is 10 years and is 20 years for crimes involving the
theft of major artwork. If it made sense to extend the traditional
five-year limitations period for these offenses, surely it makes sense
to do so for sexual assault crimes, particularly when DNA technology
makes it possible to identify an offender many years after the
commission of the crime. By eliminating this ticking clock, we can see
to it that no victim of sexual assault is denied justice simply because
the clock ran out. I look forward to working with each and every one of
you in order to get this legislation enacted into law.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 3168
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 ``Sexual Assault Prosecution
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. SEXUAL OFFENSE LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3283, by striking ``sexual or''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3296. Sexual offenses
``An indictment for any offense committed in violation of
chapter 109A of this title may be found at any time without
limitation.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page 20922]]
``3296. Sexual offenses.''.
SEC. 3. AWARDS TO STATES TO REDUCE DNA CASEWORK BACKLOG.
(a) Development of Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in coordination with the Assistant Attorney
General of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department
of Justice, and after consultation with representatives of
States and private forensic laboratories, shall develop a
plan to grant voluntary awards to States to facilitate DNA
analysis of all casework evidence of unsolved crimes.
(2) Objective.--The objective of the plan developed under
paragraph (1) shall be to effectively expedite the analysis
of all casework evidence of unsolved crimes in an efficient
and effective manner, and to provide for the entry of DNA
profiles into the combined DNA Indexing System (``CODIS'').
(b) Award Criteria.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation,
in coordination with the Assistant Attorney General of the
Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice,
shall develop criteria for the granting of awards under this
section including--
(1) the applying State's number of unsolved crimes awaiting
DNA analysis; and
(2) the applying State's development of a comprehensive
plan to collect and analyze DNA evidence.
(c) Granting of Awards.--The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in coordination with the Assistant Attorney
General of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department
of Justice, shall develop applications for awards to be
granted to States under this section, shall consider all
applications submitted by States, and shall disburse all
awards under this section.
(d) Award Conditions.--States receiving awards under this
section shall--
(1) require that each laboratory performing DNA analysis
satisfies quality assurance standards and utilizes state-of-
the-art DNA testing methods, as set forth by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in coordination with the Assistant
Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice;
(2) ensure that each DNA sample collected and analyzed be
made available only--
(A) to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement
purposes;
(B) in judicial proceedings if otherwise admissible;
(C) for criminal defense purposes, to a criminal defendant,
who shall have access to samples and analyses performed in
connection with any case in which such defendant is charged;
or
(D) if personally identifiable information is removed, for
a population statistics database, for identification research
and protocol development purposes, or for quality control
purposes; and
(3) match the award by spending 15 percent of the amount of
the award in State funds to facilitate DNA analysis of all
casework evidence of unsolved crimes.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, for
awards to be granted under this section.
______
Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Allard, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Crapo, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 3169. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
the International Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to drugs for minor
animal species, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
minor animal species health and welfare act of 2000
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a
problem that unfortunately goes largely unnoticed except by those who
are directly affected. Livestock and food animal producers, pet owners,
zoo and wildlife biologists, and animals themselves are facing a severe
shortage of approved animal drugs for minor species.
Minor species include thousands of animal species, including all
fish, birds, and sheep. By definition, they are any animals other than
cattle, horses, chickens, swine, turkeys, dogs and cats, the most
common animals. There are millions of those animals. A similar shortage
of drugs and medicines for major animal species exists for diseases
which occur infrequently or which occur in limited geographic areas.
Due to the lack of availability for these minor-use drugs, millions of
animals go untreated or treatment is delayed. Unnecessary animal
physical and human emotional suffering results, and human health may be
threatened as well.
Without access to these necessary minor-use drugs, farmers and
ranchers will also suffer. An unhealthy animal left untreated can
spread disease throughout an entire stock. This causes severe economic
hardship to struggling ranchers and farmers.
For example, sheep ranchers lost nearly $45 million worth of
livestock alone in 1999. The sheep industry estimates that if it had
access to effective and necessary drugs, growers' reproduction costs
for their animals could be cut by up to 15 percent. In addition,
feedlot deaths from disease would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent, adding
approximately $8 million to the revenue of the industry.
The catfish industry is the No. 2 agriculture industry in Alabama.
Though it is not the State's only aquacultural commodity, catfish is by
far its largest. The catfish industry generates enormous economic
opportunity in the State, particularly in west Alabama, one of the
poorest regions of the State and where I grew up.
The catfish industry estimates its losses at $60 million a year,
attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. Indeed, it
is not uncommon for a catfish producer to lose half his stock in a pond
due to disease. The U.S. aquaculture industry overall, including food
fish and ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different
species. Unfortunately, this industry has only five drugs that are
approved for treating these diseases. This results in tremendous
economic hardship and suffering.
Because of limited market opportunity, low profit margins, and the
enormous capital investment required, it is seldom economically
feasible for drug manufacturers to pursue research and development and
then seek approval of it by FDA for drugs used in treating these minor
species and for infrequent conditions and diseases in all animals. As a
result, a group of people have come together, an effective professional
coalition, to deal with this problem.
I, along with Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, Senator Allard,
Senator Crapo, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Johnson resolve to improve
this situation by introducing the Minor Animal Species Health and
Welfare Act of 2000. This legislation will allow animal drug
manufacturers the opportunity to develop and obtain approval for minor-
use drugs which are vitally needed by a wide variety of animal
industries.
Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the Food and Drug
Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the
availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all
animals. It actually creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers
to invest in product development and obtain FDA marketing approvals.
This legislation creates a program very similar to the very
successful human orphan drug program that has dramatically increased
the availability of drugs to treat rare human diseases over the past 20
years. Besides providing benefits to livestock producers and animal
owners, this measure will develop incentives and sanctioning programs
for the pharmaceutical industry, while maintaining and ensuring public
health.
The Minor Animal Species Health and Welfare Act will not alter FDA
drug approval responsibilities that ensure the safety of animal drugs
to the public. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine currently
evaluates new animal drug products prior to approval and use. This
rigorous testing and review process provides consumers with the
confidence that animal drugs are safe for animals and consumers of
products derived from treated animals.
Current FDA requirements include guidelines to prevent harmful
residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection of
resistant pathogens. Any food animal medicine or drug considered for
approval under this bill would be subject to these same assessments.
The Minor Animal Species Health and Welfare Act is supported by 25
organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
American Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association,
and the National Aquaculture Association. It is vital legislation.
This act will reduce the economic risks and hardship which fall upon
ranchers and farmers as a result of diseases. It will benefit pets and
their
[[Page 20923]]
owners and benefit various endangered species of aquatic animals. The
act will also promote the health of all animal species while protecting
human health and will alleviate unnecessary animal suffering.
This is commonsense legislation which will benefit millions of
American pet owners, farmers, and ranchers. It is the result of a
tremendous cooperative effort by virtually every entity concerned with
this problem. They have worked with the Food and Drug Administration
and continue to work with the FDA on this bill.
I believe we are on the verge of taking a big step to facilitate the
introduction of more drugs that help treat animals in our country. I
thank the people who have all worked to make this a reality. I
particularly thank Mary Alice Tyson on my staff who has worked so hard
on this project.
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. 3169
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 ``Minor Animal Species Health
and Welfare Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) There is a severe shortage of approved animal drugs for
use in minor species.
(2) There is a severe shortage of approved drugs for
treating animal diseases and conditions that occur
infrequently or in limited geographic areas.
(3) Because of the small market shares, low-profit margins
involved, and capital investment required, it is generally
not economically feasible for animal drug manufacturers to
pursue approvals for these species, diseases, and conditions.
(4) Because the populations for which such drugs are
intended are small and conditions of animal management may
vary widely, it is often difficult or impossible to design
and conduct studies to establish drug safety and
effectiveness under traditional animal drug approval
processes.
(5) It is in the public interest and in the interest of
animal welfare to provide for special procedures to sanction
the lawful use and marketing of animal drugs for minor
species and minor uses that take into account these special
circumstances and that ensure that such drugs do not endanger
the public health.
(6) Exclusive marketing rights and tax credits for clinical
testing expenses have helped encourage the development of
orphan drugs for human use, and comparable incentives will
help encourage the development and sanctioning for lawful
marketing of animal drugs for minor species and minor uses.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Definitions.--Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(kk) The term `minor species' means animals other than
cattle, horses, swine, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats,
except that the Secretary may amend this definition by
regulation.
``(ll) The term `minor use' means the use of a drug--
``(1) in a minor species, or
``(2) in an animal species other than a minor species for a
disease or condition that occurs infrequently or in limited
geographic areas, except that the Secretary may amend this
definition by regulation.
``(mm) The term `species with no human food safety concern'
means an animal species, or life stage of an animal species,
that is not customarily used for food for humans and does not
endanger the public health.''.
(b) Minor Use Animal Drugs.--Chapter V of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER F--ANIMAL DRUGS FOR MINOR USES
``designation of drugs for minor uses
``Sec. 571. (a) Prior to the submission of an application
for approval of a new animal drug under section 512(b), a
manufacturer or sponsor of such drug may request that the
Secretary designate such drug as a drug for a minor use. The
Secretary shall designate such drug as a drug for minor use
if the Secretary finds that such drug is or will be
investigated for a minor use and the application for such
drug is approved under section 512. A request for a
designation of a drug under this subsection shall contain the
consent of the applicant to notice being given by the
Secretary under subsection (c) respecting the designation of
the drug.
``(b) The designation of a drug as a drug for a minor use
under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that--
``(1) if an application was approved for the drug under
section 512(c), the manufacturer of the drug will notify the
Secretary of any discontinuance of the production of the drug
at least 1 year before discontinuance; and
``(2) if an application has not been approved for the drug
under section 512(c) and if preclinical investigations or
investigations under section 512(j) are being conducted with
the drug, the manufacturer or sponsor of the drug will notify
the Secretary of any decision to discontinue active pursuit
of approval of an application under section 512(b).
``(c) Notice respecting the designation of a drug under
subsection (a) shall be made available to the public.
``protection for drugs for minor uses
``Sec. 572. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b):
``(1) If the Secretary approves an application filed
pursuant to section 512 for a drug designated under section
571 for a minor use, no active ingredient (including any salt
or ester of the active ingredient) of which has been approved
in any other application under section 512, the Secretary may
not approve or conditionally approve another application
submitted under section 512 or section 573 for such drug for
such minor use for a person who is not the holder of such
approved application until the expiration of 10 years from
the date of the approval of the application.
``(2) If the Secretary approves an application filed
pursuant to section 512 for a drug designated under section
571 for a minor use, which includes an active ingredient
(including an ester or salt of the active ingredient) that
has been approved in any other application under section 512,
the Secretary may not approve or conditionally approve
another application submitted under section 512 or section
573 for such drug for such minor use for a person who is not
the holder of such approved application until the expiration
of 7 years from the date of approval of the application.
``(b) If an application filed pursuant to section 512 is
approved for a drug designated under section 571, the
Secretary may, during the 10-year or 7-year period beginning
on the date of the application approval, approve or
conditionally approve another application under section 512
or section 573 for such drug for such minor use for a person
who is not the holder of such approved application if--
``(1) the Secretary finds, after providing the holder
notice and opportunity for the submission of views, that in
such period the holder of the approved application cannot
assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug
to meet the needs for which the drug was designated; or
``(2) such holder provides the Secretary in writing the
consent of such holder for the approval or conditional
approval of other applications before the expiration of such
10-year or 7-year period.
``conditional approval for minor use new animal drugs
``Sec. 573. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
person may file with the Secretary an application for
conditional approval of a new animal drug for a minor use.
Such person shall submit to the Secretary as part of an
application--
``(A) reports of investigations which have been made to
show whether or not such drug is safe for use;
``(B) information to show that there is a reasonable
expectation that the drug is effective for its intended use,
such as data from a pilot investigation, data from an
investigation in a related species, data from a single
investigation, data from an investigation using surrogate
endpoints, data based on pharmacokinetic extrapolations, data
from a short-term investigation, or data from the
investigation of closely-related diseases;
``(C) the quantity of drug expected to be manufactured and
distributed on an annual basis;
``(D) a commitment that the applicant will conduct
additional investigations to support approval of an
application under section 512 within the time frame set forth
in subsection (d)(1)(A);
``(E) reasonable data for establishing a conditional dose;
and
``(F) the information required by section 512(b)(1)(B)-(H).
``(2) A person may not file an application under paragraph
(1) if the person has filed a previous application under
paragraph (1) for the same drug and conditions for use that
was conditionally approved by the Secretary under subsection
(b).
``(b)(1) Within 180 days after the filing of an application
pursuant to subsection (a), or such additional period as may
be agreed upon by the Secretary and the applicant, the
Secretary shall either (A) issue an order conditionally
approving the application if the Secretary then finds that
none of the grounds for denying conditional approval
specified in subsection (c) applies, or (B) give the
applicant notice of an opportunity for an expedited informal
hearing on the question whether such application is
conditionally approvable.
``(2) A drug manufactured in a pilot or other small
facility may be used to demonstrate the safety and
effectiveness of the drug and to obtain conditional approval
for the drug prior to manufacture of the drug in a larger
facility, unless the Secretary makes
[[Page 20924]]
a determination that a full scale production facility is
necessary to ensure the safety or effectiveness of the drug.
``(c)(1) If the Secretary finds, after due notice to the
applicant and giving the applicant an opportunity for an
expedited informal hearing, that--
``(A) the investigations, reports of which are required to
be submitted to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a), do
not include adequate tests by all methods reasonably
applicable to show whether or not such drug is safe for use
under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
the proposed labeling;
``(B) the results of such tests show that such drug is
unsafe for use under such conditions or do not show that such
drug is safe for use under such conditions;
``(C) the methods used in, and the facilities and controls
used for, the manufacture, processing, and packing of such
drug are inadequate to preserve its identity, strength,
quality, and purity;
``(D) upon the basis of the information submitted to the
Secretary as part of the application, or upon the basis of
any other information before the Secretary with respect to
such drug, the Secretary has insufficient information to
determine whether such drug is safe for use under such
conditions;
``(E) evaluated on the basis of the information submitted
to the Secretary as part of the application and any other
information before the Secretary with respect to such drug,
there is insufficient information to show that there is a
reasonable expectation that the drug will have the effect it
purports or is represented to have under the conditions of
use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed
labeling;
``(F) upon the basis of information submitted to the
Secretary as part of the application or any other information
before the Secretary with respect to such drug, any use
prescribed, recommended, or suggested in labeling proposed
for such drug will result in a residue of such drug in excess
of a tolerance found by the Secretary to be safe for such
drug;
``(G) based on a fair evaluation of all material facts,
such labeling is false or misleading in any particular;
``(H) such drug induces cancer when ingested by humans or
animal or, after tests which are appropriate for the
evaluation of the safety of such drug, induces cancer in
humans or animal, unless the Secretary finds that, under the
conditions for use specified in proposed labeling and
reasonably certain to be followed in practice--
``(i) such drug will not adversely affect the animals for
which it is intended; and
``(ii) no residue of such drug will be found (by methods of
examination prescribed or approved by the Secretary by
regulations, which regulations shall not be subject to
subsections (c)) in any edible portion of such animals after
slaughter or in any food yielded by or derived from the
living animals; or
``(I) another person has received approval under section
512 for a drug with the same active ingredient or ingredients
and the same conditions of use, and that person is able to
assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug
to meet the needs for which the drug is intended;
the Secretary shall issue an order refusing to conditionally
approve the application. If, after such notice and
opportunity for hearing, the Secretary finds that
subparagraphs (A) through (I) do not apply, the Secretary
shall issue an order conditionally approving the application.
``(2) In determining whether such drug is safe for use
under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
the proposed labeling thereof, the Secretary shall consider,
among other relevant factors, (A) the probable consumption of
such drug and of any substance formed in or on food because
of the use of such drug, (B) the cumulative effect on man or
animal of such drug, taking into account any chemically or
pharmacologically related substance, (C) safety factors which
in the opinion of experts, qualified by scientific training
and experience to evaluate the safety of such drugs, are
appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data, and
(D) whether the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or
suggested in the proposed labeling are reasonably certain to
be followed in practice. Any order issued under this
subsection refusing to approve an application shall state the
findings upon which it is based.
``(d)(1) A conditional approval granted by the Secretary
under this section shall be effective for a 1-year period.
The Secretary shall, upon request, renew a conditional
approval for up to 4 additional 1-year terms, unless the
Secretary by order makes a finding that--
``(A) the applicant is not making appropriate progress
toward meeting approval requirements under section 512, and
is unlikely to be able to fulfill such requirements and
obtain such approval under such section before the 5 year
maximum term of the conditional approval expires;
``(B) excessive quantities of the drug have been produced,
without adequate explanation; or
``(C) another drug with the same active ingredient or
ingredients for the same conditions of use has received
approval under section 512, and the holder of the approved
application is able to assure the availability of sufficient
quantities of the drug to meet the needs for which the drug
is intended.
``(2) If the Secretary does not renew a conditional
approval, the Secretary shall provide due notice and an
opportunity for an expedited informal hearing to the
applicant.
``(e)(1) The Secretary shall, after due notice and
opportunity for an expedited informal hearing to the
applicant, issue an order withdrawing conditional approval of
an application filed pursuant to subsection (a) if the
Secretary finds--
``(A) that experience or scientific data show that such
drug is unsafe for use under the conditions of use upon the
basis of which the application was conditionally approved;
``(B) that new evidence not contained in such application
or not available to the Secretary until after such
application was conditionally approved, or tests by new
methods, or tests by methods not deemed reasonably applicable
when such application was conditionally approved, evaluated
together with the evidence available to the Secretary when
the application was conditionally approved, shows that such
drug is not shown to be safe for use under the conditions of
use upon the basis of which the application was conditionally
approved;
``(C) on the basis of new information before the Secretary
with respect to such drug, evaluated together with the
evidence available to the Secretary when the application was
conditionally approved, that there is not a reasonable
expectation that such drug will have the effect it purports
or is represented to have under the conditions of use
prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling;
``(D) that the application contains any untrue statement of
a material fact; or
``(E) that the applicant has made any changes from the
standpoint of safety or effectiveness beyond the variations
provided for in the application unless the applicant has
supplemented the application by filing with the Secretary
adequate information respecting all such changes and unless
there is in effect a conditional approval of the supplemental
application, which supplemental application shall be treated
in the same manner as the original application.
If the Secretary finds that there is an imminent hazard to
the health of man or of the animals for which such drug is
intended, the Secretary may suspend the conditional approval
of such application immediately, and give the applicant
prompt notice of the Secretary's action and afford the
applicant the opportunity for an expedited informal hearing.
Authority to suspend the conditional approval of an
application shall not be delegated below the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs.
``(2) The Secretary may also, after due notice and
opportunity for an expedited informal hearing to the
applicant, issue an order withdrawing the conditional
approval of an application with respect to any new animal
drug under this section if the Secretary finds--
``(A) that the applicant has failed to establish a system
for maintaining required records, or has repeatedly or
deliberately failed to maintain such records or to make
required reports in accordance with a regulation or order
under subsection (h), or the applicant has refused to permit
access to, or copying or verification of, such records as
required by paragraph (2) of such subsection;
``(B) that on the basis of new information before the
Secretary, evaluated together with the evidence before the
Secretary when the application was conditionally approved,
the methods used in, or the facilities and controls used for,
the manufacture, processing, and packing of such drug are
inadequate to assure and preserve its identity, strength,
quality, and purity and were not made adequate within a
reasonable time after receipt of written notice from the
Secretary specifying the matter complained of; or
``(C) that on the basis of new information before the
Secretary, evaluated together with the evidence before the
Secretary when the application was conditionally approved,
the labeling of such drug, based on a fair evaluation of all
material facts, is false or misleading in any particular and
was not corrected within a reasonable time after receipt of
written notice from the Secretary specifying the matter
complained of.
``(3) Any order under this subsection shall state the
findings upon which it is based.
``(f) The decision of the Secretary under subsections (c),
(d), or (e) shall constitute a final agency decision for
purposes of judicial review.
``(g)(1) When an application filed pursuant to subsection
(a) is conditionally approved, the Secretary shall by notice
publish in the Federal Register the name and address of the
applicant and the conditions and indications of use of the
new animal drug covered by such application, including any
tolerance and withdrawal period or other use restriction and,
if such new animal drug is intended for use in animal feed,
appropriate purposes and conditions of use (including special
labeling requirements and any requirement that an animal feed
bearing or containing the new animal drug be limited to use
under the professional supervision of a licensed
veterinarian) applicable to any animal feed
[[Page 20925]]
for use in which such drug is conditionally approved, the
expiration date of the conditional approval, and such other
information, upon the basis of which such application was
conditionally approved, as the Secretary deems necessary to
assure the safe and effective use of such drug.
``(2) Upon withdrawal of conditional approval of such new
animal drug application or upon its suspension, the Secretary
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register.
``(h)(1) In the case of any new animal drug for which a
conditional approval of an application filed pursuant to
subsection (a) is in effect, the applicant shall establish
and maintain such records, and make such reports to the
Secretary, of data relating to experience, and other data or
information, received or otherwise obtained by such applicant
with respect to such drug, or with respect to animal feeds
bearing or containing such drug, as the Secretary may by
general regulation, or by order with respect to such
application, prescribe on the basis of a finding that such
records and reports are necessary in order to enable the
Secretary to determine, or facilitate a determination,
whether there is or may be ground for refusing to renew the
conditional approval under subsection (d) or for invoking
subsection (e). Such regulation or order shall provide, where
the Secretary deems it to be appropriate, for the
examination, upon request, by the persons to whom such
regulation or order is applicable, of similar information
received or otherwise obtained by the Secretary.
``(2) Every person required under this subsection to
maintain records, and every person in charge or custody
thereof, shall, upon request of an officer or employee
designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee
at all reasonable times to have access to and copy and verify
such records.
``(i)(1) The label and labeling of a drug with a
conditional approval under this section shall state that fact
prominently and conspicuously.
``(2) Conditions of use that are the subject of a
conditional approval under this section shall not be combined
in product labeling with any conditions of use approved under
section 512.
``(j)(1) Safety and effectiveness data and information
which has been submitted in an application filed under
subsection (a) for a drug and which has not previously been
disclosed to the public shall be made available to the
public, upon request, unless extraordinary circumstances are
shown--
``(A) if no work is being or will be undertaken to have the
application conditionally approved,
``(B) if the Secretary has determined that the application
is not conditionally approvable and all legal appeals have
been exhausted,
``(C) if conditional approval of the application under
subsection (c) is withdrawn and all legal appeals have been
exhausted, or
``(D) if the Secretary has determined that such drug is not
a new animal drug.
``(2) Any request for data and information pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall include a verified statement by the
person making the request that any data or information
received under such paragraph shall not be disclosed by such
person to any other person--
``(A) for the purpose of, or as part of a plan, scheme, or
device for, obtaining the right to make, use, or market, or
making, using, or marketing, outside the United States, the
drug identified in the application filed under subsection
(a), and
``(B) without obtaining from any person to whom the data
and information are disclosed an identical verified
statement, a copy of which is to be provided by such person
to the Secretary, which meets the requirements of this
paragraph.
``(k) To the extent consistent with the public health, the
Secretary shall promulgate regulations for exempting from the
operation of this section new animal drugs, and animal feeds
bearing or containing new animal drugs, intended solely for
investigational use by experts qualified by scientific
training and experience to investigate the safety and
effectiveness of animal drugs. Such regulations may, in the
discretion of the Secretary, among other conditions relating
to the protection of the public health, provide for
conditioning such exemption upon the establishment and
maintenance of such records, and the making of such reports
to the Secretary, by the manufacturer or the sponsor of the
investigation of such article, of data (including but not
limited to analytical reports by investigators) obtained as a
result of such investigational use of such article, as the
Secretary finds will enable the Secretary to evaluate the
safety and effectiveness of such article in the event of the
filing of an application pursuant to this section. Such
regulations, among other things, shall set forth the
conditions (if any) upon which animals treated with such
articles, and any products of such animals (before or after
slaughter), may be marketed for food use.
``index of legally marketed unapproved minor use animal drugs for minor
species with no human food safety concern
``Sec. 574. (a)(1) The Secretary shall establish an index
of unapproved minor use new animal drugs that may be lawfully
marketed for use in minor species with no human food safety
concern.
``(2) Such index is intended to benefit primarily zoo and
wildlife species, aquarium and bait fish, reptiles and
amphibians, caged birds, and small pet mammals as well as
some commercially produced species such as cricket,
earthworms and possibly nonfood life stages of some minor
species used for human food such as oysters and shellfish.
``(3) Such index shall conform to the requirements in
subsection (d).
``(b)(1) Any person may submit a request to the Secretary
for a preliminary determination that a drug may be eligible
for inclusion in the index. Such a request shall include--
``(A) information regarding the proposed species,
conditions of use, and anticipated annual production;
``(B) information regarding product formulation and
manufacturing; and
``(C) information sufficient for the Secretary to determine
that there does not appear to be human food safety,
environmental safety, occupational safety, or bioavailability
concerns with the proposed use of the drug.
``(2) Within 90 days after the submission of a request for
a preliminary determination under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall grant or deny the request, and notify the
submitter of the Secretary's conclusion. The Secretary shall
grant the request if it appears that--
``(A) the request addresses the need for a minor use animal
drug for which there is no approved or conditionally approved
drug, and
``(B) the proposed drug use does not appear to raise human
food safety, environmental safety, occupational safety, or
bioavailability concerns.
``(3) If the Secretary denies the request, the Secretary
shall provide due notice and an opportunity for an expedited
informal hearing.
``(4) If the Secretary does not grant or deny the request
within 90 days, the Secretary shall provide the Committee on
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate with the
reasons action on the request did not occur within such 90
days.
``(5) The decision of the Secretary under this subsection
shall constitute a final agency decision for purposes of
judicial review.
``(c)(1) With respect to a drug for which the Secretary has
made a preliminary determination of eligibility under
subsection (b), the submitter of that request may request
that the Secretary add the drug to the index established by
subsection (a). Such a request shall include--
``(A) a copy of the Secretary's preliminary determination
of eligibility issued under subsection (b);
``(B) a qualified expert panel report that meets the
requirements in paragraph (2);
``(C) a proposed index entry;
``(D) proposed labeling;
``(E) anticipated annual production of the drug; and
``(F) a commitment to manufacture, label, and distribute
the drug in accordance with the index entry and any
additional requirements that the Secretary may prescribe by
general regulation or specific order.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a `qualified expert
panel report' is a written report that--
``(A) is authored by a panel of individuals qualified by
scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and
effectiveness of animal drugs for the intended uses and
species in question and operating external to the Food and
Drug Administration;
``(B) addresses all available target animal safety and
effectiveness information, including anecdotal information
where necessary;
``(C) addresses proposed labeling;
``(D) addresses whether the drug should be limited to use
under the professional supervision of a licensed
veterinarian; and
``(E) addresses whether, in the expert panel's opinion, the
benefits of using the drug outweigh its risks, taking into
account the harm being caused by the absence of an approved
or conditionally approved new animal drug for the minor use
in question.
``(3) Within 180 days after the receipt of a request for
listing a drug in the index, the Secretary shall grant or
deny the request. The Secretary shall grant the request if
the Secretary finds, on the basis of the expert panel report
and other information available to the Secretary, that the
benefits of using the drug outweigh its risks, taking into
account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or
conditionally approved new animal drug for the minor use in
question. If the Secretary denies the request, the Secretary
shall provide due notice and the opportunity for an expedited
informal hearing. If the Secretary does not grant or deny the
request within 180 days, the Secretary shall provide the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate with the reasons action on the request did not occur
within such 180 days. The decision of the Secretary under
this paragraph shall constitute a final agency decision for
purposes of judicial review.
``(d)(1) The index established by subsection (a) shall
include the following information for each listed drug:
``(A) The name and address of the sponsor of the index
listing.
``(B) The name of the drug, its dosage form, and its
strength.
[[Page 20926]]
``(C) Labeling.
``(D) Production limits or other conditions the Secretary
deems necessary to prevent misuse of the drug.
``(E) Requirements that the Secretary deems necessary for
the safe and effective use of the drug.
``(2) The Secretary shall publish the index, and revise it
monthly.
``(e)(1) If the Secretary finds, after due notice to the
sponsor and an opportunity for an expedited informal hearing,
that--
``(A) on the basis of new information before the Secretary,
evaluated together with the evidence available to the
Secretary when the drug was listed in the index, the benefits
of using the drug do not outweigh its risks, or
``(B) the conditions and limitations of use in the index
listing have not been followed,
the Secretary shall remove the drug from the index. The
decision of the Secretary shall constitute final agency
decision for purposes of judicial review.
``(2) If the Secretary finds that there is an imminent
hazard to the health of man or of the animals for which such
drug is intended, the Secretary may suspend the listing of
such drug immediately, and give the sponsor prompt notice of
the Secretary's action and afford the sponsor the opportunity
for an expedited informal hearing. Authority to suspend the
listing of a drug shall not be delegated below the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
``(f)(1) In the case of any new animal drug for which an
index listing pursuant to subsection (a) is in effect, the
sponsor shall establish and maintain such records, and make
such reports to the Secretary, of data relating to
experience, and other data or information, received or
otherwise obtained by such sponsor with respect to such drug,
or with respect to animal feeds bearing or containing such
drug, as the Secretary may by general regulation, or by order
with respect to such listing, prescribe on the basis of a
finding that such records and reports are necessary in order
to enable the Secretary to determine, or facilitate a
determination, whether there is or may be ground for invoking
subsection (e). Such regulation or order shall provide, where
the Secretary deems it to be appropriate, for the
examination, upon request, by the persons to whom such
regulation or order is applicable, of similar information
received or otherwise obtained by the Secretary.
``(2) Every person required under this subsection to
maintain records, and every person in charge or custody
thereof, shall, upon request of an officer or employee
designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee
at all reasonable times to have access to and copy and verify
such records.
``(g) The labeling of a drug that is the subject of an
index listing shall state, prominently and conspicuously,
that the drug is legally marketed but not approved.
``(h) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
implement this section. Such regulations shall address, among
other subjects, the composition of the expert panel,
sponsorship of the expert panel under the auspices of a
recognized professional organization, conflict of interest
criteria for panel members, and the use of advisory
committees convened by the Food and Drug Administration.
``(i) To the extent consistent with the public health, the
Secretary shall promulgate regulations for exempting from the
operation of this section new animal drugs intended solely
for investigational use by experts qualified by scientific
training and experience to investigate the safety and
effectiveness of animal drugs. Such regulations may, in the
discretion of the Secretary, among other conditions relating
to the protection of the public health, provide for
conditioning such exemption upon the establishment and
maintenance of such records, and the making of such reports
to the Secretary, by the manufacturer or the sponsor of the
investigation of such article, of data (including but not
limited to analytical reports by investigators) obtained as a
result of such investigational use of such article, as the
Secretary finds will enable the Secretary to evaluate the
safety and effectiveness of such article in the event of the
filing of a request for an index listing pursuant to this
section. Such regulations, among other things, shall set
forth the conditions (if any) upon which animals treated with
such articles, and any products of such animals (before or
after slaughter), may be marketed for food use.
``grants and contracts for development of animal drugs for minor uses
``Sec. 575. (a) The Secretary may make grants to and enter
into contracts with public and private entities and
individuals to assist in defraying the costs of qualified
testing expenses and manufacturing expenses incurred in
connection with the development of drugs for minor uses.
``(b) For purposes of subsection (a) of this section:
``(1) The term `qualified testing' means--
``(A) clinical testing--
``(i) which is carried out under an exemption for a drug
for minor uses under section 512(j), 573(k), or 574(i); and
``(ii) which occurs after the date such drug is designated
under section 571 and before the date on which an application
with respect to such drug is submitted under section 512; and
``(B) preclinical testing involving a drug for minor use
which occurs after the date such drug is designated under
section 571 and before the date on which an application with
respect to such drug is submitted under section 512.
``(2) The term `manufacturing expenses' means expenses
incurred in developing processes and procedures intended to
meet current good manufacturing practice requirements which
occur after such drug is designated under section 571 and
before the date on which an application with respect to such
drug is submitted under section 512.
``(c) For grants and contracts under subsection (a), there
are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year
2001, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003.''.
(c) Three-Year Exclusivity for Minor Use Approvals.--
Section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii), (iii), and (v) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii), (iii),
and (v)) is amended by striking ``(other than bioequivalence
or residue studies)'' and inserting ``(other than
bioequivalence studies or, except in the case of a new animal
drug for minor uses, residue studies)''.
(d) Scope of Review for Minor Use Applications.--Section
512(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360b(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) In reviewing a supplement to an approved application
that seeks a minor use approval, the Secretary shall not
reconsider information in the approved application to
determine whether it meets current standards for approval.''.
(e) Presumption of New Animal Drug Status.--Section 709 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379a) is
amended by designating the existing text as subsection (a),
and by adding after such new subsection the following:
``(b) In any action to enforce the requirements of this Act
respecting a drug for minor use that is not the subject of an
approval under section 512, a conditional approval under
section 573, or an index listing under section 574, it shall
be presumed that the drug is a new animal drug.''.
(f) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 512(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(1)) is amended by striking
subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
``(A) there is in effect an approval of an application
filed pursuant to subsection (b) with respect to such use or
intended use of such drug, and such drug, its labeling, and
such use conform to such approved application;
``(B) there is in effect a conditional approval of an
application filed pursuant to section 573 with respect to
such use or intended use of such drug, and such drug, its
labeling, and such use conform to such conditionally approved
application; or
``(C) there is in effect an index listing pursuant to
section 574 with respect to such use or intended use of such
drug, and such drug, its labeling, and such use conform to
such index listing.''.
(2) Section 512(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)) is amended by adding
after ``if an approval of an application filed under
subsection (b)'' the following: ``or a conditional approval
of an application filed under section 573''.
(3) Section 503(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 353(f)) is amended as follows:
(A) In paragraph (1)(A)(ii) by striking ``512'' and
inserting the following: ``512, a conditionally approved
application under subsection (b) of section 573, or an index
listing under subsection (a) of section 574.''.
(B) In paragraph (3) by striking ``section 512'' and
inserting the following: ``sections 512, 573, or 574.''.
(4) Section 504(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 354(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``512(b)'' and inserting ``512(b), a conditionally approved
application filed pursuant to section 573, or an index
listing pursuant to section 574.''.
(5) Section 504(a)(2)(B) and (b) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 354(a)(2)(B), and 354(b)) are
amended by striking ``512(i)'' and inserting ``512(i) or
section 573(g), or the index listing pursuant to section
574.''.
(6) Section 403(a) of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) is amended by
adding at the end ``For purposes of this section, an approved
article includes a new animal drug that is the subject of a
conditional approval or an index listing under sections 573
and 574 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
respectively.''.
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate proposed regulations to implement
amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act made
by this Act within 6 months of the date of enactment of this
Act, and final regulations within 24 months of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(h) Office of Minor Use Animal Drug Development.--
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
establish within the Center of Veterinary Medicine of the
Food and Drug Administration an Office of Minor Use Animal
Drug Development (referred to in this
[[Page 20927]]
subsection as the ``Office''). The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall select an individual to serve as the
Director of such Office. The Director of such Office shall
report directly to the Director of the Center for Veterinary
Medicine. The Office shall be responsible for designating
minor use animal drugs under section 571 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for administering grants and
contracts for the development of animal drugs for minor uses
under section 575 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, and for serving as liaison with any party interested in
minor use animal drug development.
(2) For the Office described under paragraph (1), there are
authorized to be appropriated $1,200,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
SEC. 4. CREDIT FOR CLINICAL TESTING EXPENSES FOR CERTAIN
ANIMAL DRUGS FOR MINOR USES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 45C the following new section:
``SEC. 45D. CLINICAL TESTING EXPENSES FOR CERTAIN ANIMAL
DRUGS FOR MINOR USES.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the minor
use animal drug credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to 50 percent of the
qualified animal clinical testing expenses for the taxable
year.
``(b) Qualified Animal Clinical Testing Expenses.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified animal clinical testing expenses.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the term `qualified animal clinical testing
expenses' means the amounts which are paid or incurred by the
taxpayer during the taxable year which would be described in
subsection (b) of section 41 if such subsection were applied
with the modifications set forth in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Modifications.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
subsection (b) of section 41 shall be applied--
``(i) by substituting `animal clinical testing' for
`qualified research' each place it appears in paragraphs (2)
and (3) of such subsection, and
``(ii) by substituting `100 percent' for `65 percent' in
paragraph (3)(A) of such subsection.
``(C) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified animal clinical testing expenses' shall not
include any amount to the extent such amount is funded by any
grant, contract, or otherwise by another person (or any
governmental entity).
``(D) Special rule.--For purposes of this paragraph:
``(i) section 41 shall be deemed to remain in effect for
periods after June 30, 2000; and
``(ii) the trade or business requirement of section
41(b)(1) shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of a
taxpayer that owns animals and that conducts clinical testing
on such animals.
``(2) Animal clinical testing.--
``(A) In general.--The term `animal clinical testing' means
any clinical testing--
``(i) which is carried out under an exemption for a drug
being tested for minor use under section 512(j), 573(k), or
574(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (or
regulations issued under such sections),
``(ii) which occurs--
``(I) after the date such drug is designated under section
571 of such Act, and
``(II) before the date on which an application with respect
to such drug is approved under section 512(c) of such Act,
and
``(iii) which is conducted by or on behalf of--
``(I) the taxpayer to whom the designation under such
section 571 applies, or
``(II) the owner of the animals that are the subject of
clinical testing.
``(B) Testing must be for minor use.--Animal clinical
testing shall be taken into account under subparagraph (A)
only to the extent such testing is related to the use of a
drug for the minor use for which it was designated under
section 571 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
``(c) Coordination With Credit for Increasing Research
Expenditures.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
qualified animal clinical testing expenses for a taxable year
to which an election under this section applies shall not be
taken into account for purposes of determining the credit
allowable under section 41 for such taxable year.
``(2) Expenses included in determining base period research
expenses.--Any qualified animal clinical testing expenses for
any taxable year which are qualified research expenses
(within the meaning of section 41(b)) shall be taken into
account in determining base period research expenses for
purposes of applying section 41 to subsequent taxable years.
``(d) Definition and Special Rules.--
``(1) Minor use.--For purposes of this section, the term
`minor use' has the meaning given such term by section
201(ll) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Determinations under the preceding sentence with respect to
any drug shall be made on the basis of the facts and
circumstances as of the date such drug is designated under
section 571 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
``(2) Denial of credit for testing conducted by
corporations to which section 936 applies.--No credit shall
be allowed under this section with respect to any animal
clinical testing conducted by a corporation to which an
election under section 936 applies.
``(3) Certain rules made applicable.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 41(f) shall apply
for purposes of this section.
``(4) Election.--This section shall apply to any taxpayer
for any taxable year only if such taxpayer elects (at such
time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations
prescribe) to have this section apply for such taxable
year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``plus'' at end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the minor use animal drug credit determined under
section 45D(a).''.
(2) Section 280C(b) of such Code is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section 45C(b)'' and
inserting ``section 45C(b) or 45D(b)'', and
(B) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``section 45C''
each place it appears and inserting ``section 45C or 45D''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 45C
the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Clinical testing expenses for certain animal drugs for
minor uses.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
publish proposed regulations to implement amendments to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 made by this Act within 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and final
regulations within 24 months after such date.
______
Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 3170. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to assist
institutions of higher education to help at-risk students to stay in
school and complete their 4-year postsecondary academic programs by
helping those institutions to provide summer programs and grant aid for
such students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
College Completion Challenge Grants Act of 2000
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Collins in
offering legislation that will support our youth and promote their
abilities by helping them stay in college and complete their degrees.
There is no question that post-secondary education is a critical
component in individual success in today's economy. Parents understand
this reality from the day their children are born and they start
worrying about how to make college affordable. Students know it as they
work to achieve good grades and high test scores. And policymakers know
it as we work to increase Pell grants and support increased saving
options for families.
But colleges achievement is not just about being accepted at a higher
education institution. To fully see the benefits of post-secondary
education, one must complete a degree. And yet, while college
enrollment rates have been rising, 37 percent of students who enter
post-secondary education drop out before they receive a degree or
certificate. This problem is especially acute for minorities. Thirty
percent of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans drop out of college
before the end of their first year. This is almost double the rate of
white Americans.
For these students and for us as a nation, these statistics represent
a lost opportunity. Clearly, these students aspire to greater things--
to more education and better careers. But instead of fulfilling this
promise, they leave school with their potential unrealized.
Unfortunately, many of them also leave school not just with an academic
set-back, but also with substantial student loan debt, which today is
as much a reality of college attendance as is a course syllabus.
[[Page 20928]]
The legislation I am introducing today, the ``College Completion
Challenge Grants Act of 2000'', would provide vital support and
assistance to at-risk students to help them stay in school and complete
their degrees. The College Completion Challenge grant program is based
on the successful work of the Student Support Services (SSS) program,
which is one of the Turning R Into Opportunity programs. While TRIO is
better known for its early intervention programs with talented, at-risk
high school students, SSS follows through on these early efforts by
supporting at-risk, first-generation college students once they are
enrolled. The College Completion Challenge grants would supplement
these student support services by offering additional scholarship aid,
intensive summer programs, and further support services to students at
risk of dropping out. Higher education institutions participating in
SSS as well as those that provide similar support through other sources
would be eligible to apply for these additional dollars.
Mr. President, the House of Representatives has already acted on
similar legislation, which was included in the Higher Education
Technical Amendments that passed the House earlier this year. So, I am
hopeful that we too can find an appropriate vehicle to support these
students as they pursue their dreams. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Stevens):
S. 3171. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the section 29 credit for producing fuel from a non-conventional
source; to the Committee on Finance.
Energy Security for American Consumers Act of 2000
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if this country is ever going to
achieve the goal of reducing our dependency on foreign sources of oil
to at least 50 percent, we are going to have to provide incentives that
will encourage our energy industry to recover oil and gas from
nonconventional sources.
In the aftermath of the twin oil shocks of the 1970s, Congress
enacted Section 29 of the tax code which provides a tax credit to
encourage production of oil and gas from unconventional sources such as
Devonian shale, tight rock formations, coalbeds and geopressurized
brine. This credit has helped the industry invest in new technologies
which allow us to recover large oil and gas deposits that are locked in
various formations which are very expensive to develop.
Since the Clinton-Gore Administration came into office, it has sent
up various proposals all designed to eliminate the Section 29 credit.
As a result of their efforts, the Section 29 credit has not applied to
any facilities placed in service since July 1, 1998. That makes
absolutely no sense when we realize that today we are 56 percent
dependent on foreign sources of oil. Doing away with this credit sends
a direct signal to the market--this country will not lift a finger to
encourage energy development at home.
I think it is time to reverse the failed energy policies of the
Clinton-Gore administration. As part of that effort, I am today
introducing legislation that would extend the Section 29 credit until
2013 and allow it to apply to facilities that are placed in service
before 2011. I am pleased that Senators Breaux and Stevens are joining
me in this effort.
Mr. President, if we are to retain the prosperity we have enjoyed
over the last 20 years, we must have a stable and secure supply of oil
and natural gas. Section 29 is an important provision that will allow
our energy development companies to bring technologies on line to
develop new energy deposits.
Moreover, the bill expands the definition of qualifying investments
to include heavy oil. In Alaska, there are several billion barrels of
heavy oil in West Sak Prudhoe Bay that are just too costly to exploit
because of the density of the oil and the fact that it is heavily laden
with sand. Extension of the Section 29 credit could very well mean that
these billions of barrels of heavy oil could be exploited and brought
onto the U.S. energy market.
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. 3171
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 ``Energy Security for American
Consumers Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING FUEL FROM A
NONCONVENTIONAL SOURCE.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Subsection (f) of section 29 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for
producing fuel from a nonconventional source) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before ``or'' the
following: ``or from a well drilled after the date of the
enactment of the Energy Security for American Consumers Act
of 2000, and before January 1, 2011,'',
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting before ``and'' at the
end the following: ``or placed in service after the date of
the enactment of the Energy Security for American Consumers
Act of 2000, and before January 1, 2011,'', and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2013''.
(b) Reduction in Amount of Credit by 20 percent per Year
Starting in 2007.-- Subsection (a) of section 29 of such Code
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
an amount equal to--
``(A) the applicable amount, multiplied by
``(B) the barrel-of-oil equivalent of qualified fuels--
``(i) sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during
the taxable year, and
``(ii) the production of which is attributable to the
taxpayer.
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the applicable amount is the amount determined in accordance
with the following table:
In the case of taxable years beginning in caleThe applicable amount is:
2001 to 2008...............................................$3.00
2009.......................................................$2.60
2010.......................................................$2.00
2011.......................................................$1.40
2012.......................................................$0.80
2013 and thereafter........................................$0.00
(c) Credit Allowed Against Both Regular Tax and Alternative
Minimum Tax.--Paragraph (6) of section 29(b) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than subpart C and this section) and under section
1397E.''
(d) Qualified Fuels To Include Heavy Oil.--Subsection (c)
of section 29 of such Code (defining qualified fuels) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) heavy oil, as defined in section 613A(c)(6)(7).'',
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special rule for heavy oil.--Heavy oil shall be
considered to be a qualified fuel only if it is produced from
a well drilled, or in a facility placed in service, after the
date of the enactment of the Energy Security for American
Consumers Act of 2000, and before January 1, 2011.''
(e) Repeal of Superseded Subsection.--Subsection (g) of
section 29 of such Code is repealed.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 3172. A bill to provide access to affordable health care for all
Americans; to the Committee on Finance.
BASIC HEALTH PLAN ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, the Census Bureau released new
figures on the number of the uninsured. Thanks to a prosperous economy
and the Children's Health Insurance Program, the number of the
uninsured declined for the first time in more than a decade. But that
decline was small, and it is no cause for complacency. The number of
uninsured is still far too high--43 million Americans have no insurance
coverage--and any weakening in the economy is likely to send the number
higher again.
[[Page 20929]]
It's a national disgrace that so many Americans find the quality of
their health determined by the quantity of their wealth. In this age of
the life sciences, the importance of good medical care in curing
disease and improving and extending life is more significant than ever,
and denying any family the health care they need is unacceptable.
Earlier this year, along with a number of my colleagues in the House
and Senate, I introduced bipartisan legislation to extend the Child
Health Insurance Program to include the parents of participating
children and to increase the enrollment of eligible children in
Medicaid and CHIP. It received a majority vote in the Senate, but it
was defeated on a procedural motion. I hope that we will be able to
pass it promptly next year, as an initial effective step to reduce the
number of the uninsured.
Today, I am introducing an additional measure. The Basic Access to
Secure Insurance Coverage Health plan--or BASIC Health plan.
Congressman John Dingell is introducing a companion measure in the
House. Our proposal uses the model of the Child Health Insurance
Program to make subsidized coverage available--through private
insurance or Medicaid--to all Americans with incomes below 300 percent
of poverty--$25,000 a year for an individual and $42,000 a year for a
family of three.
Almost three-quarters of the uninsured are in this income range. Our
plan also includes innovative steps to encourage current and newly
eligible individuals and families to enroll. It is a major step toward
the day when access to affordable health care will be a reality for all
Americans, and I hope it will be enacted as well next year.
The need for BASIC is clear. One of our highest national priorities
for the new century must be to make good health care a reality for all
our people. Every other industrialized society in the world except
South Africa achieved that goal in the 20th century--and under Nelson
Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, South Africa has taken giant steps toward
universal health care today. But in our country, the law of the jungle
still too often prevails. Forty-three million of our fellow citizens
are left out and left behind when it comes to health insurance.
The dishonor roll of suffering created by this national problem is a
long one.
Children fail to get a healthy start in life because their parents
cannot afford the eyeglasses or hearing aids or doctors visits they
need.
A young family loses its chance to participate in the American dream,
when a breadwinner is crippled or killed because of lack of timely
access to medical care.
A teenager is condemned to go without a college education because the
family's income and energy are sucked away by the high financial and
emotional cost of uninsured illness.
An older couple sees its hope for a dignified retirement dashed when
the savings of a lifetime are washed away by a tidal wave of medical
debt.
Even in this time of unprecedented prosperity, more than 200,000
Americans annually file for bankruptcy because of uninsured medical
costs. And the human costs of being uninsured are often just as
devastating.
In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without needed
medical care.
Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take the medication that
their doctor prescribes, because they cannot afford to fill the
prescription.
Four hundred thousand children suffer from asthma but never see a
doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches never
see a doctor. Another five hundred thousand children with severe sore
throats never see a doctor.
Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life-
saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty--because they
are uninsured.
Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast
cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to
receive medical treatment before their cancer has already spread to
other parts of their bodies. As a result, they are 50 percent more
likely to die of the disease.
Overall, eighty-three thousand Americans die each year because they
have no insurance. The lack of insurance is the seventh leading cause
of death in America today. Our failure to provide health insurance for
every citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and
AIDS combined.
Today our opportunity to finally end these millions of American
tragedies is greater than ever before. Our prosperous economy gives us
large new resources to invest in meeting this critical need. Recently,
some Republicans in Congress have finally joined Democrats in urging
our country to meet the challenge of providing health coverage to the
43 million Americans who are uninsured.
The BASIC plan can be a bridge for both Republicans and Democrats to
come together. It is based on the model of the Child Health Insurance
Program, which enjoys broad bi-partisan support in every state in the
country. It emphasizes a Federal-State partnership to make care
accessible and affordable. Insurance is provided primarily through the
private sector, but without employer mandates.
The BASIC plan is designed to supplement, not replace, the current
employment-based system of health care. It will also build on Medicaid,
which effectively serves so many of the very poor, the working poor,
the disabled, and people with AIDS.
Federal subsidies under BASIC will be targeted to those without
insurance today. We should not disrupt the health coverage that 161
million Americans now receive through their employers. It makes no
sense to encourage those who already have reliable employer-based
health insurance to turn instead to a new government-subsidized
program. The cost to taxpayers would balloon needlessly, and force us
to reduce benefits in order to cut costs.
The proposal builds on and expands proven programs that are already
in place. States will provide coverage under Medicaid for all very low
income people, consistent with the mandate that already exists in
federal law to provide Medicaid coverage for all children with family
incomes below 100 percent of poverty. Medicaid's broad benefits and
minimal cost-sharing are ideal for very low income people, because they
cannot afford to contribute significantly to the cost of their own
care.
For low and moderate income individuals and families, the plan
follows the CHIP model. States will have the choice of providing
coverage through Medicaid or contracting with private insurance
companies to offer subsidized coverage to those eligible to
participate. The state would pay the insurance company a premium for
each individual enrolled. For higher income enrollees, the individual
would make a premium contribution as well.
One-third of all the uninsured today are poor, and almost three-
quarters of the uninsured have incomes below 300 percent of poverty. A
program of subsidies targeted on these low and moderate income
Americans will put affordable health insurance within reach of the vast
majority of the uninsured.
One of the biggest problems we face in expanding health insurance
coverage through such a program is assuring that those who are eligible
actually participate. We have learned a great deal from the experience
under CHIP on how to achieve this objective. We know that simple, mail-
in forms are important. We know that public information campaigns and
the involvement of community-based organizations can be valuable. We
know that programs with presumptive eligibility are effective--so that
people can be signed up right away, without waiting until the
eligibility verification process has been completed. We know that
enrolling people for a year at a time without subjecting them to
reapplications or reverification of income more often than once a year
is critical. Through steps like these, we can see that the uninsured
are not only eligible for the program but actually participate in it,
so that they actually have the financial protection and access to
timely medical care they need.
The BASIC Health plan will not require employers to contribute to the
[[Page 20930]]
cost of coverage. But it will require them to make the BASIC plan
coverage available through the workplace, and forward the premiums of
workers to the insurance company that the workers choose. This step is
a minimum obligation that responsible employers should be willing to
accept--and it can significantly increase the number of the uninsured
who actually have coverage. Eighty-two percent of uninsured Americans
today are workers or dependents of workers. Our message to all of them
is that help is finally on the way.
The cost of the BASIC place is an estimated $200 billion to $300
billion over the next ten years--approximately the cost of the
prescription drug plans that many of us have proposed under Medicare.
It's a substantial amount of the surplus, but as we know from the
success of Medicare, few if any federal dollars are better spent.
In sum, every child deserves a healthy start and life. Every family
deserves protection against the high cost of illness. All Americans
deserve timely access to quality, affordable health care. The American
people want action. It is time for all of us to make the cause of
health care for all a national priority.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the BASIC plan and a fact
sheet on the problem of the uninsured be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Need for Legislation and Summary of the ``Basic'' Health Program:
Universal Access to Affordable Quality Health Insurance
America is the only industrial country in the world, except
South Africa, that does not guarantee health care for all its
citizens. The number of uninsured declined last year for the
first time in more than a decade--but 43 million Americans
remain uninsured, and any slowdown in the economy is likely
to send the number up again. The vast majority of the
uninsured are workers or dependents of workers. The
consequences of being uninsured go far beyond vulnerability
to catastrophic medical costs. The uninsured often lack
timely access to quality health care, especially preventive
care. They suffer unnecessary illness and even death because
they have no coverage.
Growth in the Uninsured
The number of the uninsured has grown from 32 million in
1987 to 43 million this year. Except for a brief pause in
1993 and 1994, the number of uninsured has consistently
increased by a million or more each year until this year.
Even these figures understate the number of the uninsured.
During the course of a year, 70 million Americans will be
uninsured for an extended period of time.
Characteristics of the Uninsured
The vast majority of privately insured Americans--161
million citizens under 65--receive coverage on the job as
workers or members of their families. But the uninsured are
also overwhelmingly workers or their dependents. Eighty-two
percent of those without insurance are employees or family
members of employees. Of these uninsured workers, most are
members of families with at least one person working full-
time.
Most uninsured workers are uninsured because their employer
either does not offer coverage, or because they are not
eligible for the coverage offered. Seventy percent of
uninsured workers are in firms where no coverage is offered.
Eighteen percent are in firms that offer coverage, but they
are not eligible for it, usually because they are part-time
workers or have not been employed by the firm long enough to
qualify for coverage. Only 12 percent of uninsured workers
are offered coverage and decline.
The uninsured are predominantly low and moderate income
persons. Almost 25 percent are poor (income of $8,501 or less
for a single individual; $13,290 or less for a family of
three). Twenty-eight percent have incomes between 100 and 200
percent of poverty. Eighteen percent have incomes between 200
and 300 percent of poverty. Almost three-fourths have incomes
below 300 percent of poverty.
Consequences of Being Uninsured
An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the
event of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for
200,000 bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend
more than one fifth of their total income on medical costs.
The health consequences of being uninsured are often as
devastating as the economic costs:
In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without
needed medical care.
Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take medication
their doctors prescribe, because they cannot afford to fill
the prescription.
Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without
life-saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty,
because they are uninsured.
Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with
breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured
women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has
already spread in their bodies. As a result, they are 50
percent more likely to die of the disease.
The tragic bottom line is that eighty-three thousand
Americans die every year because they have no insurance.
Being uninsured is the seventh leading cause of death in
America. Our failure to provide health insurance for every
citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease,
and AIDS combined.
the proposal: summary of basic access to secure insurance coverage
health plan (``basic'' health plan)
Overview
The BASIC program builds on the bi-partisan Child Health
Insurance Program and on Vice-President Gore's proposal to
extend insurance coverage under CHIP and Medicaid to the
parents of eligible children. The Child Health Insurance
Program provides subsidized coverage through Medicaid or
private insurers contracting with state governments for low
and moderate income children. The BASIC plan extends the
availability of subsidized coverage to all uninsured low and
moderate income Americans, regardless of age or family
status. It guarantees the availability of coverage in every
state for every uninsured person, and includes provisions to
encourage enrollment by those who are eligible. The plan also
allows those who have incomes too high to qualify for
subsidies to participate in the program by paying the full
premium.
Key Provisions
Phase 1: Coverage for Children and Parents--Expansion of CHIP
and Medicaid
Eligibility levels are raised to 300 percent of poverty for
all uninsured children.
Coverage is made available to all uninsured parents of
eligible children.
Coverage is made available to legal immigrant children and
their parents.
The required benefit package for children is improved by
adding eye-glasses, hearing aids, and medically necessary
rehabilitative services for disabled or developmentally
delayed children.
Additional steps are established to encourage enrollment of
eligible children and their parents, including presumptive
eligibility, qualification for at least twelve months, and
simplified application forms.
The system of capped state allotments under CHIP is
eliminated and federal matching funds are made available for
all eligible persons enrolled in the program.
Phase II: Coverage for the Remaining Uninsured
Subsidized coverage is made available for all uninsured
single adults with incomes below 300 percent of poverty.
Coverage is phased in by income levels, beginning with those
below 50 percent of poverty in the third year of the program,
rising to 300 percent of poverty in the ninth year.
Unsubsidized coverage is available to all individuals in
families with incomes too high to qualify for subsidized
coverage, by paying the cost through premiums.
Responsibility of Employers
Eighty-two percent of the uninsured are workers or
dependents of workers. Employers will not be required to
provide coverage or contribute to the cost of coverage--but
they will be required to offer their uninsured employees an
opportunity to enroll in the program and agree to facilitate
the coverage by withholding any required premium
contributions from the employee's periodic pay.
Cost
Preliminary estimates of similar proposals indicate that
the federal cost will be $200-$300 billion over the next ten
years, beyond the amount already budgeted for expansions of
coverage under the current CHIP program.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bond, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Crapo, Mr. L.
Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Graham):
S. 3173. A bill to improve the implementation of the environmental
streamling provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; read the first time.
Environmental Streamlining Improvement Act
Today I am introducing legislation that requires the US Department of
Transportation to make substantial revisions to the recently proposed
regulations on transportation planning and environmental streamlining.
This action is necessary because the proposed regulations fail to fully
comply with the direction that Congress gave to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (US DOT) in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century--the so-called TEA--21--that we passed in 1998.
[[Page 20931]]
The proposed regulations cover the inter-related disciplines of
transportation planning and environmental protection. It is my view
that transportation system development and the environment can exist in
harmony if there is proper planning and foresight. All too often,
though, there is a lack of coordination that results in unnecessary
delays to transportation projects, or leads to wasted time and funds on
projects that never get built.
This is the problem that I, along with my colleagues, Senators Graham
and Wyden, attempted to address when we authored TEA-21's environmental
streamlining provision. Our provision, which is section 1309 of TEA-21,
required a more systematic approach to avoid conflicts, expedite
approvals, and eliminate duplicated efforts in developing
transportation projects.
Section 1309 does not weaken environmental standards or avoid
existing requirements for environmental analysis. Instead, section 1309
requires better coordination between the transportation and
environmental agencies.
Specifically, section 1309 requires that US DOT to establish a
coordinated review process among the various state and federal
agencies, to ensure concurrent rather than sequential reviews by these
agencies, and to establish a dispute resolution process so that delays
are not created by lingering, unresolved problems. We also included
other changes in TEA-21 that were intended to put greater order and
efficiency into the planning and approval of transportation projects.
Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fail to meet the requirements
of TEA-21 in two important respects: First, the regulations do not
incorporate the specific requirements of environmental streamlining
with regard to time periods for review or a dispute resolution process.
Second, the regulations create new data collection, consultation and
analysis requirements that will further complicate and delay
transportation projects.
The full Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing
two weeks ago to take testimony from the administration and the states
on the intent and effect of these regulations. the states unanimously
objected to the increased burden that would result from these proposed
regulations. Where we intended to reduce delay, state transportation
departments testified that these regulations would add years to project
development, putting us even further behind in meeting our
transportation needs.
A few weeks ago, eleven bipartisan members of my committee joined in
a letter to the Secretary of Transportation recommending that the
proposed regulations be revised and reissued. That is precisely the
subject of the legislation I am introducing today.
This bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to revise the
rules, taking into consideration the hundreds of comments received on
the current proposal, and to comply with the clear directives that US
DOT received from Congress in section 1309 of TEA-21. I hope that with
a second chance, the US DOT will craft rules that clearly meet
Congressional intent.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today Senator Smith, on behalf of Senator
Voinovich, myself and others is introducing the Environmental
Streamlining Improvement Act.
This bill ensures that the United States Department of Transportation
will issue a revised rule on TEA-21 environmental streamlining
regulations. This bill will give the USDOT another chance to follow the
statute when issuing proposed rules on planning and the environment.
The Environment and Public Works Committee has held three hearings on
the subject of environmental streamlining since the passage of TEA-21
in 1998. I am sorry to say that in the 2 years it has taken the USDOT
to issue this NPRM, they fall far short of what Congress has intended.
TEA-21 is very specific about what the regulations should do. The
proposed regulations follow neither the word nor the intent of TEA-21.
I remember working with Senators Warner, Graham, Wyden and Chafee and
with the House members to develop an agreement on environmental
streamlining. Those provisions are now Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA-
21.
I had heard from the Montana Department of Transportation and from
others about how cumbersome a process it is to complete a highway
project. Everyone who worked on TEA-21, in both the House and Senate,
wanted to include a direction to the USDOT to streamline the planning
and project development processes for the states.
We were very clear--the environment and the environmental reviews
should not get short shrift! But, we need to find a way to make it
easier to get a final decision, eliminate unnecessary delays, move
faster and with as little paperwork as possible.
I cannot over-emphasize that the planning and environmental
provisions of TEA-21 need to be implemented in a way that will
streamline the expedite, not complicate, the process of delivering
transportation projects.
That is why Congress directed the USDOT to include certain elements
in their regulations on environmental streamlining.
We included concepts to be incorporated in future regulations--like
concurrent environmental reviews by agencies and reasonable deadlines
for the agencies to follow when completing their reviews.
Certainly we did not legislate an easy task to the USDOT. Trying to
coordinate so many separate agencies is like trying to herd cats. The
whole concept of environmental streamlining--that is, to make the
permit and approval process work more smoothly and effectively, while
still ensuring protection of the environment--is one of the more
difficult challenges of TEA-21.
So I waited for the rules to come out. And waited. And two years
after the passage of TEA-21 I look at the proposed rules and I am very
disappointed.
I have identified several problems with these regulations and I would
like to mention just a few things that I see as real problems.
First, elevating the planning process participants to the roles of
decision makers. These regulations were supposed to help the States get
their jobs done better and more efficiently. Its one thing to add more
participants to the process. More involvement is a good thing.
But its another thing to give them the authority to make decisions
about how the planning process will work. This decision maker role is
currently held by State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
for a reason.
Second, what happened to ``streamlining?'' The basic elements of real
streamlining are the only things not in the regs.
Third, these regulations are supposed to answer questions--but what
is contained in the proposed regulations raises even more questions
because they are vague there they need to be precise.
Fourth, this proposal makes it even harder, if not impossible to come
to a decision. These regulations include initiatives not outlined in
sections 1308 and 1309 and in many areas would strip states of their
authority.
I would also like to mention that the Montana Department of
Transportation filed comments or wrote letters at every possible
opportunity for the public record. As I read these proposed
regulations, I see that MDT's comments were either never read by the
USDOT or ignored.
Let me close by saying that I believe the proposed rules would add
significant requirements and uncertainty to planning and environmental
review for transportation projects. In practical terms, they would
increase overhead and delay--and delay usually means increased project
costs. These proposed rules could make it difficult for States to
deliver their programs. Contracts won't get let and jobs will be lost.
I know this is a tough task. To streamline a process while ensuring
that we maintain a thorough planning and environmental review process.
But, adding requirements to the process is contrary to the course
charted by Congress.
At our last hearing, the administration testified that their intent
was to streamline the process. The bill we are
[[Page 20932]]
introducing today would allow them to make good on their intent.
Our bill requires the USDOT go back to the drawing board and
incorporate comments received from States and others and issue another
NPRM. I am confident the USDOT will do the right thing this time.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Bob Smith
of introducing the Environmental Streamlining Improvement Act today.
Last month several of my colleagues on the Environmental and Public
Works Committee, following a full committee hearing on the issue,
requested that the Administration revise its proposed rules on
environmental streamlining and transportation planning, taking into
consideration comments already submitted on the proposed rules, and
publish them in the Federal Register for an additional 120-day comment
period. This legislation is being introduced today because the
Administration has not responded to our request.
In addition to requiring the Administration to consider public
comments and to revise and re-propose rules on environmental
streamlining and transportation planning, this legislation would
prevent the Secretary of Transportation from finalizing the rules until
May 1, 2001, and require a report on changes that were made to the
revised rules.
When I was Governor of Ohio, I witnessed first-hand the frustration
of many of the various state agencies because they were required to
complete a myriad of federally-required tasks on whatever project they
initiated.
With my background as a local and state official, I bring a unique
perspective to this issue. While environmental review is good public
policy, I believe that there are more efficient ways to ensure adequate
and timely delivery of construction projects, while still carefully
assessing environmental concerns.
Congress recognized the frustration of the states and enacted
planning and environmental provisions to initiate environmental
streamlining and expedite project delivery. These programs are embodied
in Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA-21. Section 1308 calls for the
integration of the Major Investment Study, which had been a separate
requirement for major metropolitan projects, with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 1309 of TEA-21 calls
for the establishment of a coordinated review process for the
Department of Transportation to work with other federal agencies to
ensure that transportation projects are advanced according to
cooperatively determined time-frames. This is accomplished by using
concurrent rather than sequential reviews, and allows states to include
state-specific environmental reviews in the coordinated process.
Last year, I conducted two hearings as Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Transportation and Infrastructure on streamlining and project
delivery. During those hearings I stressed how important it is that the
planning and environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21 be
implemented in a way that will streamline and expedite, not complicate,
the process of delivering transportation projects. A year after these
hearings and nearly two years after the passage of TEA-21, the
Department of Transportation finally published its proposed planning
and NEPA regulations on May 25, 2000. Frankly, I am very disappointed
with how long it took to propose these rules, and I believe many of my
colleagues feel the same way. More importantly, there is a lot of
disappointment with the proposed rules in general.
I strongly believe these proposed regulations are inconsistent with
TEA-21 and Congressional intent and do little, if anything, to
streamline and expedite the ability of states to commence
transportation projects. The proposed rules create new mandates and
requirements, add new decision-makers to the process, and provide
endless fodder for all kinds of lawsuits, especially with regard to
environmental justice.
In Ohio, the process of highway construction has been dubbed: ``So
you Want a Highway? Here's the Eight Year Hitch.'' My hope has been
that in the future we could say ``So you Want a Highway? Here's the
Five Year Hitch.'' I don't see that happening with the proposal we have
before us. For that reason, I am very pleased Senator Smith has
introduced this legislation today.
______
Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 3175. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to authorize the National Rural Development Partnership, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
national rural development partnership act of 2000
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to
introduce the ``National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2000''--a
bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP or the
Partnership) and provide a funding source for the program. I am pleased
that Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Breaux, Burns, Crapo, Daschle, Enzi,
Gorton, Gramm, Grams, Gregg, Harkin, Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson,
Kennedy, Kerrey, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Bob
Smith, Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors.
The Partnership was established under the Bush Administration in
1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the Partnership has existed
for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The
current basis for the existence of the Partnership is found in the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural
Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the Conference Committee
Report on the 1996 federal Farm Bill created specific responsibilities
and expectations for the Partnership and state rural development
councils (SRDCs).
The Partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose
mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by
strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in
determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other
entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and
between federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments and
the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs
and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in
more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually
add value to the efforts and dollars of others.
On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and
Rural Revitalization, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on the
operation and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The Subcommittee
heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the US
Departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Health & Human Services,
state agencies, and private sector representatives. The hearing
established the need for some legislative foundation and consistent
funding. The legislation we are introducing accomplishes this.
This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of
the Partnership, the National Rural Development Council (NRDC), and
SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to
each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive
Congressional appropriations.
Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it
is composed of the NRDC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering
and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging
participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the
challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the
Partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decision
making.
[[Page 20933]]
This legislation also identifies the role of the federal government in
the Partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator.
Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to
participate in the NRDC and to encourage field staff to participate in
SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, state
rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal
organization of a state rural development council.
The composition of the NRDC is specified as being one representative
from each federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental
and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect
to participate in the NRDC. The legislation outlines the duties of the
Council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination
among federal agencies and between the federal, state, local and tribal
governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness,
responsiveness, and delivery of federal government programs; gather and
provide to federal agencies information about the impact of government
programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations,
and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and
develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory
impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of
participation in the Council, but only if they can show how they can
more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the
Partnership and Council.
This legislation provides that states may participate in the
Partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to
establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and
nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the states
within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to
facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and
the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness,
responsiveness, and delivery of federal and state government programs;
to gather information about rural areas in its state and share it with
the NRDC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and
programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to
facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and
participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of
federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDC and
others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the
NRDC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments;
to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise.
As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the Partnership
to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging
federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance
to the Partnership and authorizing the Partnership to accept private
contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 25 percent
match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement
with the federal government.
As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the
boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do
more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to
those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new
government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating
the many programs available for USDA and other federal agencies that
can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation,
the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed
coordination.
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. 3175
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Rural Development
Partnership Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) rural development has been given high priority
throughout most of this century as a means of achieving a
sound balance between rural and urban areas in the United
States, a balance that Congress considers essential to the
peace, prosperity, and welfare of all citizens of the United
States;
(2)(A) during the last half century, Congress has enacted
many laws and established many programs to provide resources
to rural communities;
(B) in addition, numerous efforts have been made to
coordinate Federal rural development programs; and
(C) during the last decade, the National Rural Development
Partnership and its principal components, the National Rural
Development Council and State rural development councils,
have successfully provided opportunities for collaboration
and coordination among Federal agencies and between Federal
agencies and States, nonprofit organizations, the private
sector, tribal governments, and other entities committed to
rural advancement;
(3) Congress enacted the Rural Development Act of 1972 (86
Stat. 657) and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (94
Stat. 1171) as a manifestation of this commitment to rural
development;
(4) section 2(b)(3) of the Rural Development Policy Act of
1972 (7 U.S.C. 2204b(b)(3)) directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop a process through which multi-state,
State, substate, and local rural development needs, goals
objectives, plans and recommendations can be received and
assessed on a continuing basis;
(5) the National Rural Development Partnership and State
Rural Development Councils were established as vehicles to
help coordinate development of rural programs in 1990;
(6) in 1991, the Secretary began to execute those statutory
responsibilities, in part through the innovative mechanism of
national, State, and local rural development partnerships
administered by the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Small
Community and Rural Development;
(7) that mechanism, now known as the ``National Rural
Development Partnership'', has been recognized as a model of
new governance and as an example of the effectiveness of
collaboration between the Federal, State, local, tribal,
private, and nonprofit sectors in addressing the needs of the
rural communities of the United States;
(8) partnerships by agencies and entities in the
Partnership would extend scarce but valuable funding through
collaboration and cooperation; and
(9) the continued success and efficacy of the Partnership
could be enhanced through specific Congressional
authorization removing any statutory barriers that could
detract from the benefits potentially achieved through the
Partnership's unique structure.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP.
The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1921 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 381P. NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agency with rural responsibilities.--The term `agency
with rural responsibilities' means any executive agency (as
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) that--
``(A) implements Federal law targeted at rural areas,
including--
``(i) the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known as the
Granger-Thye Act) (64 Stat. 82, chapter 9);
``(ii) the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82
Stat. 1098);
``(iii) section 41742 of title 49, United States Code;
``(iv) the Rural Development Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 657);
``(v) the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (94 Stat.
1171);
``(vi) the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (2 U.S.C. 901
et seq.);
``(vii) amendments made to section 334 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254g) by the Rural Health Clinics Act
of 1983 (97 Stat. 1345); and
``(viii) the Rural Housing Amendments of 1983 (97 Stat.
1240) and the amendments made by the Rural Housing Amendments
of 1983 to title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471
et seq.); or
``(B) administers programs that have a significant impact
on rural areas, including--
``(i) the Appalachian Regional Commission;
``(ii) the Department of Agriculture;
``(iii) the Department of Commerce;
``(iv) the Department of Defense;
``(v) the Department of Education;
``(vi) the Department of Energy;
``(vii) the Department of Health and Human Services;
``(viii) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
``(ix) the Department of the Interior;
``(x) the Department of Justice;
``(xi) the Department of Labor;
``(xii) the Department of Transportation;
``(xiii) the Department of the Treasury.
[[Page 20934]]
``(xiv) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
``(xv) the Environmental Protection Agency;
``(xvi) the Federal Emergency Management Administration;
``(xvii) the Small Business Administration;
``(xviii) the Social Security Administration;
``(xix) the Federal Reserve System;
``(xx) the United States Postal Service;
``(xxi) the Corporation for National Service;
``(xxii) the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities; and
``(xxiii) other agencies, commissions, and corporations.
``(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National
Rural Development Council established by subsection (c).
``(3) Partnership.--The term ``Partnership'' means the
National Rural Development Partnership established by
subsection (b).
``(4) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means--
``(A) all the territory of a State that is not within the
boundary of any standard metropolitan statistical area, as
designated by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget;
``(B) all territory within any standard metropolitan
statistical area described in subparagraph (A) within a
census tract having a population density of less than 20
persons per square mile, as determined by the Secretary
according to the most recent census of the United States as
of any date; and
``(C) such areas as a State Rural Development Council may
identify as rural.
``(5) State rural development council.--The term ``State
rural development council'' means a State rural development
council that meets the requirements of subsection (d).
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established a National Rural
Development Partnership composed of--
``(A) the National Rural Development Council established
under subsection (a); and
``(B) State rural development councils established under
subsection (d).
``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Partnership are--
``(A) to empower and build the capacity of States and rural
communities within States to design unique responses to their
own special rural development needs, with local
determinations of progress and selection of projects and
activities;
``(B) to encourage participants to be flexible and
innovative in establishing new partnerships and trying fresh,
new approaches to rural development issues, with responses to
rural development that use different approaches to fit
different situations; and
``(C) to encourage all 5 partners of the Partnership
(Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, the private
sector, and nonprofit organizations) to be fully engaged and
share equally in decisions.
``(3) Role of federal government.--The role of the Federal
Government in the Partnership should be that of a partner,
coach, and facilitator, with Federal agencies authorized--
``(A) to cooperate closely with States to implement the
Partnership;
``(B) to provide States with the technical and
administrative support necessary to plan and implement
tailored rural development strategies to meet local needs;
``(C) to delegate decisionmaking to other levels;
``(D) to ensure that the head of each department and agency
specified in subsection (a)(1)(B) designates a senior-level
agency official to represent the department or agency,
respectively, on the Council and directs appropriate field
staff to participate fully with the State rural development
council within their jurisdiction; and
``(E) to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to
provide grants and other assistance to, State rural
development councils, regardless of the form of legal
organization of a State rural development council and
notwithstanding any other provision of law.
``(4) Role of private and nonprofit sector organizations.--
Private and nonprofit sector organizations are encouraged--
``(A) to act as full partners in the Partnership and State
rural development councils; and
``(B) to cooperate with participating government
organizations in developing innovative problem approaches to
rural development.
``(c) National Rural Development Council.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established a National Rural
Development Council.
``(2) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of--
``(A) 1 representative of each agency with rural
responsibilities that elects to participate in the Council;
and
``(B) representatives of local, regional, State, tribal,
and nongovernmental profit and nonprofit organizations that
elect to participate in the activities of the Council.
``(3) Duties.--The Council shall--
``(A) provide support for the work of the State rural
development councils;
``(B) facilitate coordination among Federal programs and
activities, and with State, local, tribal, and private
programs and activities, affecting rural development;
``(C) enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and
delivery of Federal programs in rural areas;
``(D) gather and provide to Federal authorities information
and input for the development and implementation of Federal
programs impacting rural economic and community development;
``(E) review and comment on policies, regulations, and
proposed legislation that affect or would affect rural areas;
``(F) provide technical assistance to State rural
development councils for the implementation of Federal
programs; and
``(G) develop and facilitate strategies to reduce or
eliminate administrative and regulatory impediments.
``(4) Election not to participate.--An agency with rural
responsibilities that elects not to participate in the
Partnership shall submit to Congress a report that
describes--
``(A) how the programmatic responsibilities of the Federal
agency that target or have an impact on rural areas are
better achieved without participation by the agency in the
Partnership; and
``(B) a more effective means of partnership-building and
collaboration to achieve the programmatic responsibilities of
the agency.
``(5) Performance evaluations.--In conducting a performance
evaluation of an employee of an agency with rural
responsibilities, the agency shall consider any comments
submitted by a State rural development council.
``(d) State Rural Development Councils.--
``(1) Establishment.--Each State may elect to participate
in the Partnership by entering into a memorandum of agreement
with the Secretary to establish a State rural development
council.
``(2) State diversity.--Each State rural development
council shall--
``(A) have a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory membership
that is broad and representative of the economic, social, and
political diversity of the State; and
``(B) carry out programs and activities in a manner that
reflects the diversity of the State.
``(3) Duties.--Each State rural development council shall--
``(A) facilitate collaboration among Federal, State, local,
and tribal governments and the private and nonprofit sectors
in the planning and implementation of programs and policies
that target or have an impact on rural areas of the State;
``(B) enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and
delivery of Federal and State programs in rural areas of the
State;
``(C) gather and provide to the Council and other
appropriate organizations information on the condition of
rural areas in the State;
``(D) monitor and report on policies and programs that
address, or fail to address, the needs of the rural areas of
the State;
``(E) facilitate the formulation of local needs assessments
for the rural areas of the State and participate in the
development of criteria for the distribution of Federal funds
to the rural areas of the State;
``(F) provide comments to the Council and other appropriate
organizations on policies, regulations, and proposed
legislation that affect or would affect the rural areas of
the State;
``(G) in conjunction with the Council, facilitate the
development of strategies to reduce or eliminate conflicting
or duplicative administrative or regulatory requirements of
Federal, State, local, and tribal governments;
``(H) use grant or cooperative agreement funds available to
the Partnership to--
``(i) retain an Executive Director and such support staff
as are necessary to facilitate and implement the directives
of the State rural development council; and
``(ii) defray expenses associated with carrying out
subparagraphs (A) through (G) and subparagraph (J);
``(I) be authorized to solicit funds to supplement and
match funds granted under subparagraph (H); and
``(J) be authorized to engage in all other appropriate
activities.
``(4) Comments or recommendations.--
``(A) In general.--A State rural development council may
provide comments and recommendations to an agency with rural
responsibilities related to the activities of the State rural
development council within the State.
``(B) Agency.--The agency with rural responsibilities shall
provide to the State rural development council a written
response to the comments or recommendations.
``(5) Actions of state rural development council members.--
When carrying out a program or activity authorized by a State
rural development council, a member of the Council shall be
regarded as an employee of the Federal Government for
purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
``(6) Federal participation in state rural development
councils.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), Federal
employees may participate in a State rural development
council.
``(B) Conflicts.--A Federal employee who participates in a
State rural development council shall not participate in the
making
[[Page 20935]]
of any council decision if the agency represented by the
Federal employee has any financial or other interest in the
outcome of the decision.
``(C) Federal guidance.--The Attorney General shall issue
guidance to all Federal employees that participate in State
rural development councils that describes specific decisions
that--
``(i) would constitute a conflict of interest for the
Federal employee; and
``(ii) from which the Federal employee must recuse himself
or herself.
``(e) Administration of the Partnership.--
``(1) Detail of employees.--In order to provide experience
in intergovernmental collaboration, with the approval of the
head of an agency with rural responsibilities that elects to
participate in the Partnership, an employee of the agency
with rural responsibilities is encouraged to be detailed to
the Partnership without reimbursement, and such detail shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
``(2) Additional support.--The Secretary shall provide for
any additional support staff to the Partnership as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the duties
of the Partnership.
``(3) Panel.--
``(A) In general.--A panel consisting of representatives of
the Council and State rural development councils shall be
established to lead and coordinate the strategic operation,
policies, and practices of the Partnership.
``(B) Annual reports.--In conjunction with the Council and
State rural development councils, the panel shall prepare and
submit to Congress an annual report on the activities of the
Partnership.
``(f) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
``(2) Federal agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, in order to carry out the purposes described in
subsection (b)(2), the Partnership shall be eligible to
receive grants, gifts, contributions, or technical assistance
from, or enter into contracts with, any Federal department or
agency, to the extent otherwise permitted by law.
``(B) Assistance.--Federal departments and agencies are
encouraged to use funds made available for programs that
target or impact rural areas to provide assistance to, and
enter into contracts with, the Partnership, as described in
subparagraph (A).
``(3) Contributions.--The Partnership may accept private
contributions.
``(g) Matching Requirements for State Rural Development
Councils.--A State rural development council shall provide
matching funds, or in-kind goods or services, to support the
activities of the State rural development council in an
amount that is not less than 25 percent of the amount of
Federal funds received under the agreement described in
subsection (d)(1).
``(h) Termination.--The authority provided under this
section shall terminate 5 years after the date of enactment
of this section.''.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 61
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) were
added as cosponsors of S. 61, a bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to
eliminate disincentives to fair trade conditions.
S. 922
At the request of Mr. Abraham, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Bryan), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) were added as cosponsors of S.
922, a bill to prohibit the use of the ``Made in the USA'' label on
products of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and to
deny such products duty-free and quota-free treatment.
S. 1510
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1510, a bill to revise the
laws of the United States appertaining to United States cruise vessels,
and for other purposes.
S. 1536
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the
Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Daschle), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1536, a bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965
to extend authorizations of appropriations for programs under the Act,
to modernize programs and services for older individuals, and for other
purposes.
S. 1563
At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1563, a bill to establish
the Immigration Affairs Agency within the Department of Justice, and
for other purposes.
S. 1900
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1900, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit to holders of
qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other purposes.
S. 2274
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2274, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to provide families and disabled
children with the opportunity to purchase coverage under the medicaid
program for such children.
S. 2448
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2448, a bill to enhance the
protections of the Internet and the critical infrastructure of the
United States, and for other purposes.
S. 2698
At the request of Mr. Gorton, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2698, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an
incentive to ensure that all Americans gain timely and equitable access
to the Internet over current and future generations of broadband
capability.
S. 2703
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2703, a bill to amend the
provisions of title 39, United States Code, relating to the manner in
which pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs for
postmasters are established.
S. 2718
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the names of the
Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) and the Senator from New York (Mr.
Schumer) were added as cosponsors of S. 2718, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives to introduce new
technologies to reduce energy consumption in buildings.
S. 2725
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the names of the
Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Santorum) were added as cosponsors of S. 2725, a bill to provide
for a system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that have been designated
as being no longer needed in research conducted or supported by the
Public Health Service, and for other purposes.
S. 2787
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2787, a bill to reauthorize
the Federal programs to prevent violence against women, and for other
purposes.
S. 2939
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2939, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide a credit against tax for energy efficient
appliances.
S. 2986
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams),
and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as cosponsors of
S. 2986, a bill to limit the issuance of regulations relating to
Federal contractor responsibility, to require the Comptroller General
to conduct a review of Federal contractor compliance with applicable
laws, and for other purposes.
S. 3020
At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
[[Page 20936]]
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3020, a bill to require the
Federal Communications Commission to revise its regulations authorizing
the operation of new, low-power FM radio stations.
S. 3060
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the names of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3060, a bill to amend the Hmong Veterans'
Naturalization Act of 2000 to extend the applicability of that Act to
certain former spouses of deceased Hmong veterans.
S. 3067
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3067, a bill to require changes in the bloodborne
pathogens standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970.
S. 3101
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3101, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to allow as a deduction in determining adjusted gross
income the deduction for expenses in connection with services as a
member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States.
S. 3112
At the request of Mr. Abraham, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
were added as cosponsors of S. 3112, a bill to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to ensure access to digital mammography through
adequate payment under the medicare system.
S. 3147
At the request of Mr. Robb, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) were added as cosponsors of S. 3147, a
bill to authorize the establishment, on land of the Department of the
Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs, of a memorial and
gardens in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.
S. 3152
At the request of Mr. Roth, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. L. Chafee) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3152, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for distressed areas, and for
other purposes.
S. 3156
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 3156, a bill to amend the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure the recovery of the declining
biological diversity of the United States, to reaffirm and strengthen
the commitment of the United States to protect wildlife, to safeguard
the economic and ecological future of children of the United States,
and to provide certainty to local governments, communities, and
individuals in their planning and economic development efforts.
S. 3157
At the request of Mr. DeWine, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
3157, a bill to require the Food and Drug Administration to establish
restrictions regarding the qualifications of physicians to prescribe
the abortion drug commonly known as RU-486.
S. RES. 292
At the request of Mr. Cleland, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 292, a resolution
recognizing the 20th century as the ``Century of Women in the United
States.''
S. RES. 365
At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 365, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding recent
elections in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and for other
purposes.
At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, his name and the names of the
Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Murkowski), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of S. Res.
365, supra.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 142--RELATING TO THE REESTABLISHMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Torricelli) submitted the
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 142
Whereas Afghanistan has existed as a sovereign nation since
1747, maintaining its independence, neutrality, and dignity;
Whereas Afghanistan had maintained its own decisionmaking
through a traditional process called a ``Loya Jirgah'', or
Grand Assembly, by selecting, respecting, and following the
decisions of their leaders;
Whereas recently warlords, factional leaders, and foreign
regimes have laid siege to Afghanistan, leaving the landscape
littered with landmines, making the most fundamental
activities dangerous;
Whereas in recent years, and especially since the Taliban
came to power in 1996, Afghanistan has become a haven for
terrorist activity, has produced most of the world's opium
supply, and has become infamous for its human rights abuses,
particularly abuses against women and children;
Whereas the former King of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir
Shah, ruled the country peacefully for 40 years, and after
years in exile retains his popularity and support; and
Whereas former King Mohammed Zahir Shah plans to convene an
emergency ``Loya Jirgah'' to reestablish a stable government,
with no desire to regain power or reestablish a monarchy, and
the Department of State supports such ongoing efforts: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the United States--
(1) supports democratic efforts undertaken in Afghanistan
that respect the human and political rights of the people of
all ethnic and religious groups in that country, including
the efforts to reestablish a ``Loya Jirgah'' process that
would lead to the people of Afghanistan determining their own
destiny through a democratic process involving free and fair
elections; and
(2) supports the continuing efforts of former King Mohammed
Zahir Shah and other responsible parties searching for peace
to convene an emergency ``Loya Jirgah''--
(A) to reestablish a representative government in
Afghanistan that respects the rights of the people of all
ethnic and religious groups, including the right of the
people to govern their own affairs through inclusive
institution building and a democratic process;
(B) to bring freedom, peace, and stability to Afghanistan;
and
(C) to end terrorist activities, drug production, and human
rights abuses in Afghanistan.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 143--TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN THE
ENROLLMENT OF THE BILL H.R. 3676
Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Con. Res. 143
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3676 to
establish the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument in the State of California, the Clerk of the House
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
(1) In the second sentence of section 2(d)(1), strike ``and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry''.
(2) In the second sentence of section 4(a)(3), strike
``Nothing in this section'' and insert ``Nothing in this
Act''.
(3) In section 4(c)(1), strike ``any person, including''.
(4) In section 5, add at the end the following:
``(j) Wilderness Protection.--Nothing in this Act alters
the management of any areas designated as Wilderness which
are within the boundaries of the National Monument. All such
areas shall remain subject to the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.), the laws designating such areas as Wilderness,
and other applicable laws. If any part of this Act conflicts
with any provision of those laws with respect to the
management of the Wilderness areas, such provisions shall
control.''.
____________________
[[Page 20937]]
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 144--COMMEMORATING THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE FIRST MEETING OF CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Con. Res. 144
Whereas November 17, 2000, is the 200th anniversary of the
first meeting of Congress in Washington, DC;
Whereas Congress, having previously convened at the Federal
Hall in New York City and at the Congress Hall in
Philadelphia, has met in the United States Capitol Building
since November 17, 1800;
Whereas President John Adams, on November 22, 1800,
addressed a joint session of Congress in Washington, DC, for
the first time, stating, ``I congratulate the people of the
United States on the assembling of Congress at the permanent
seat of their Government; and I congratulate you, gentlemen,
on the prospect of a residence not to be changed.'';
Whereas, on December 12, 1900, Congress convened a joint
meeting to observe the centennial of its residence in
Washington, DC;
Whereas since its first meeting in Washington, DC, on
November 17, 1800, Congress has continued to cultivate and
build upon a heritage of respect for individual liberty,
representative government, and the attainment of equal and
inalienable rights, all of which are symbolized in the
physical structure of the United States Capitol Building; and
Whereas it is appropriate for Congress, as the first branch
of the government under the Constitution, to commemorate the
200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in
Washington, DC, in order to focus public attention on its
present duties and responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) November 17, 2000, be designated as a day of national
observance for the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of
Congress in Washington, DC; and
(2) the people of the United States be urged and invited to
observe such date by celebrating and examining the
legislative process by which members of Congress convene and
air differences, learn from one another, subordinate
parochial interests, compromise, and work towards achieving a
constructive consensus for the good of the people of the
United States.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 367--URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT TO PROVIDE A
TIMELY AND OPEN APPEAL FOR SHAIBOUB WILLIAM ARSEL AND TO COMPLETE AN
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN AL-KOSHEH
Mr. MACK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 367
Whereas on Friday August 14, 1998, two Coptic Christians,
Samir Oweida Hakim and Karam Tamer Arsal, were murdered in
Al-Kosheh, Egypt;
Whereas, according to a report from the Egyptian
Organization for Human Rights that was translated by the
United States Embassy in Cairo, up to 1,200 Coptic
Christians, including women and children, were subsequently
detained and interrogated without sufficient evidence;
Whereas it is reported that the police tortured the
detained Coptic Christians over a period of days and even
weeks and that the detainees suffered abuses that included
beatings, administration of electric shock to all parts of
the body, including sensitive areas, and being bound in
painful positions for hours at a time;
Whereas Egypt is a party to the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment;
Whereas the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prohibits
torture to obtain information and confessions such as the
torture that reportedly took place in Al-Kosheh;
Whereas Egypt is party to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights;
Whereas Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights states that ``(1) Everyone shall have
the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either
individually or in community with others and in public or in
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice and teaching. (2) No one shall be
subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or
adopt a religion or belief of his choice.'';
Whereas some of the 1,200 detained Coptic Christians
reported that the police chief made derogatory remarks about
their religion and stated that the detainees were being
targeted because of their religious beliefs;
Whereas the summary report of the Egyptian Organization for
Human Rights states that, as a result of the massive roundup
and torture of the Coptic Christian community, a prosecution
proceeded using confessions obtained under duress;
Whereas, according to the report, as translated by the
United States Embassy in Cairo, one of the confessors ``was
detained for 18 days, beaten constantly, was not allowed food
or water, and prevented from relieving himself'' and
``confessed only when they threatened to rape his two
sisters'' who ``were brought to the police station, tortured
and threatened with rape in front of him'', and the detainee
identified Shaiboub William Arsel as the murderer;
Whereas Shaiboub William Arsel, a Coptic Christian, was
charged with the murders of Samir Oweida Hakim and Karam
Tamer Arsal, was found guilty, and was sentenced on June 5,
2000, to 15 years of hard labor;
Whereas, according to the Associated Press story describing
Shaiboub William Arsel's trial, ``[t]he court based its
guilty verdict on evidence and testimony provided by police,
said the officials on condition of anonymity'' and ``gave no
further details'';
Whereas no known international observers were present at
Shaiboub William Arsel's trial;
Whereas, on January 2, 2000, a mob of nearly 3,000 Muslims
killed 21 Christians and destroyed and looted dozens of
Christian homes and businesses in the village of Al-Kosheh;
and
Whereas local Egyptian security forces failed to stop the
massacre of Coptic Christians, and according to Coptic leader
Pope Shenouda III, ``responsibility falls first on security
forces . . . the problem lies among the authorities in the
area where the incident occurred'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE APPEAL OF SHAIBOUB
WILLIAM ARSEL AND THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT'S
INVESTIGATION OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN AL-KOSHEH.
The Senate hereby urges the President and the Secretary of
State to encourage officials of the Government of Egypt to--
(1) allow for a timely and open appeal for Shaiboub William
Arsel that includes international observers; and
(2) complete an independent investigation of the police
brutality in Al-Kosheh.
SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.
The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this
resolution to the President and the Secretary of State, with
the request that the President or the Secretary further
transmit such copy to the Government of Egypt.
RESOLUTION ON SHAIBOUB WILLIAM ARSEL
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Coptic
Christians in Egypt who have been persecuted because of their religious
beliefs. According to reports by both the Egyptian Organization for
Human Rights and Freedom House in the United States, up to 1,200 Coptic
Christians in Al-Kosheh, Egypt, were detained, interrogated, and
subjected to police brutality in relation to the murders of two other
Coptic Christians in 1998. After weeks of reported torture, these
accounts suggest that confessions were obtained under duress that
identified Shaiboub William Arsel as the murderer. Mr. Arsel was
subsequently sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
Over the last two years I have met with officials from the Egyptian
government, including President Hosni Mubarak on several occasions in
an attempt to address this issue quietly. Unfortunately, these
discussions have failed to produce sufficient action on the part of the
government of Egypt. As a result, I rise today to submit a resolution
urging the President to encourage the Egyptian government to provide
Shaiboub William Arsel with a timely and open appeal that would include
international observers, and furthermore to complete an independent
investigation of the police brutality in Al-Kosheh.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
MIWALETA PARK EXPANSION ACT
______
MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 4290
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R.
1725) to provide for the conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management to
Douglas County, Oregon, of a county
[[Page 20938]]
park and certain adjacent land; as follows:
On page 3, beginning on line 6 strike Section 2(b)(1) and
insert:
``(1) In general.--After conveyance of land under
subsection (a), the County shall manage the land for public
park purposes consistent with the plan for expansion of the
Miwaleta Park as approved in the Decision Record for
Galesville Campground, EA #OR110-99-01, dated September 17,
1999.''.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) strike ``purposes--'' and insert:
``purposes as described in paragraph 2(b)(1)--''.
______
SAINT-GAUDENS HISTORIC SITE LEGISLATION
______
THOMAS AMENDMENT NO. 4291
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Thomas) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 1367)
to amend the Act which established the Saint-Gaudens Historic Site, in
the State of New Hampshire, by modifying the boundary and for other
purposes; as follows:
On page 2, line 3, strike ``215'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``279''.
______
SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA INTERTIE SYSTEM LEGISLATION
______
MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 4292
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to the bill (S.
2439) to authorize the appropriation of funds for the construction of
the Southeastern Alaska Intertie system, and for other purposes; as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
``That upon the completion and submission to the United
States Congress by the Forest Service of the ongoing High
Voltage Direct Current viability analysis pursuant to USFS
Collection Agreement #00CO-111005-105 or no later than
February 1, 2001, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Energy such sums as may be
necessary to assist in the construction of the Southeastern
Alaska Intertie system as generally identified in Report #97-
01 of the Southern Conference. Such sums shall equal 80
percent of the cost of the system and may not exceed $384
million. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or
waive any otherwise applicable State or Federal Law.
``SEC. 2. NAVAJO ELECTRIFICATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall
establish a five year program to assist the Navajo Nation to
meet its electricity needs. The purpose of the program shall
be to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The
goal of the program shall be to ensure that every household
on the Navajo Nation that requests it has access to a
reliable and affordable source of electricity by the year
2006.
``(b) Scope.--In order to meet the goal in subsection (a),
the Secretary of Energy shall provide grants to the Navajo
Nation to--
``(1) extend electric transmission and distribution lines
to new or existing structures that are not served by electric
power and do not have adequate electric power service;
``(2) purchase and install distributed power generating
facilities, including small gas turbines, fuel cells, solar
photovoltaic systems, solar thermal systems, geothermal
systems, wind power systems, or biomass-fueled systems;
``(3) purchase and install other equipment associated with
the generation, transmission, distribution, and storage of
electric power; or
``(4) provide training in the installation operation, or
maintenance of the lines, facilities, or equipment in
paragraphs (1) through (3); or
``(5) support other activities that the Secretary of Energy
determines are necessary to meet the goal of the program.
``(c) Technical Support.--At the request of the Navajo
Nation, the Secretary of Energy may provide technical support
through Department of Energy laboratories and facilities to
the Navajo Nation to assist in achieving the goal of this
program.
``(d) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1, 2002 and
for each of the five succeeding years, the Secretary of
Energy shall submit a report to Congress on the status of the
programs and the progress towards meeting its goal under
subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to
carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.''
______
SAND CREEK MASSACRE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2000
______
THOMAS AMENDMENT NO. 4293
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Thomas) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2950)
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek
Massacre Historic Site in the State of Colorado; as follows:
On page 5, line 23, strike ``Boundary of the Sand Creek
Massacre Site'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Sand Creek
Massacre Historic Site''.
On page 5, line 25, strike ``SAND 80,009 IR'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``SAND 80,013 IR''.
______
LITTLE SANDY RIVER WATERSHED LEGISLATION
______
MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 4294
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to the bill (S.
2691) to provide further protections for the watershed of the Little
Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon,
and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike Section 3, through the end of the bill, and insert:
SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) Within six months of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall identify
any Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands) subject
to the distribution provision of the Act of August 28, 1937
(chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1181f)
within the boundary of the special resources management area
described in Section 1 of this Act.
(b) Within eighteen months of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall identify public
domain lands within the Medford, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem and
Coos Bay Districts and the Klamath Resource Area of the
Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management
approximately equal in size and condition as those lands
identified in paragraph (a) but not subject to the Act of
August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1181a-f). For purposes of this paragraph, `public
domain lands' shall have the meaning given the term `public
lands' in Section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702), but excluding there
from any lands managed pursuant to the Act of August 28, 1937
(chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f).
(c) Within two years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress
and publish in the Federal Register a map or maps identifying
those public domain lands pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this Section. After an opportunity for public comment, the
Secretary of the Interior shall complete an administrative
land reclassification such that those lands identified
pursuant to paragraph (a) become public domain lands not
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875f; 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181f) and those lands identified pursuant to paragraph
(b) become Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands)
subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II,
50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f).
SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this
Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated $10
million under the provisions of section 323 of the FY 1999
Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) for Clackamas
County, Oregon, for watershed restoration, except timber
extraction, that protects or enhances water quality or
relates to the recovery of species listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205) near the Bull Run
Management Unit.
______
HARRIET TUBMAN SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY ACT
______
THOMAS AMENDMENT NO. 4295
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Thomas) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2345)
to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource
study concerning the preservation and public use of sites associated
with Harriet Tubman located Auburn, New York, and for other purposes;
as follows:
On page 7, line 24, strike ``Port Hill Cemetery,'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``Fort Hill Cemetery,''.
______
FRANCHISE FEE RECALCULATION LEGISLATION
______
BINGAMAN AMENDMENT NO. 4296
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the bill (S.
2331) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to recalculate the
franchise fee owed by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., a concessioner providing
service to Fort Sumter National Monument, South Carolina; as follows:
[[Page 20939]]
Strike all and insert the following:
``SECTION 1. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENT.
``The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to as
the Secretary) shall, upon the request of Fort Sumter Tours,
Inc. (in this Act referred to as the `Concessioner'), agree
to binding arbitration to determine the franchise fee payable
under the contract executed on June 13, 1986 by the
Concessioner and the National Park Service, under which the
Concessioner provides passenger boat service to Fort Sumter
National Monument in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina (in
this Act referred to as `the Contract').
``SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR.
``(a) Mutual Agreement.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall jointly select a single arbitrator to
conduct the arbitration under this Act.
``(b) Failure To Agree.--If the Secretary and the
Concessioner are unable to agree on the selection of a single
arbitrator within 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, within 30 days thereafter the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall each select an arbitrator, the two
arbitrators selected by the Secretary and the Concessioner
shall jointly select a third arbitrator, and the three
arbitrators shall jointly conduct the arbitration.
``(c) Qualifications.--Any arbitrator selected under either
subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be a neutral who meets
the criteria of selection 573 of title 5, United States Code.
``(d) Payment of Expenses.--The Secretary and the
Concessioner shall share equally the expenses of the
arbitration.
``(e) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term
``arbitrator'' includes either a single arbitrator selected
under subsection (a) or a three-member panel of arbitrators
selected under subsection (b).
``SEC. 3. SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION.
``(a) Sole Issues To Be Decided.--The arbitrator shall,
after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard in
accordance with section 579 of title 5, United States Code,
determine--
``(1) the appropriate amount of the franchise fee under the
Contract for the period from June 13, 1991 through December
31, 2000 in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and
``(2) any interest or penalties on the amount owed under
paragraph (1).
``(b) De Novo Decision.--The arbitrator shall not be bound
by any prior determination of the appropriate amount of the
fee by the Secretary or any prior court review thereof.
``(c) Basis for Decision.--The arbitrator shall determine
the appropriate amount of the fee based upon the law in
effect on the effective date of the Contract and the terms of
the Contract.
``SEC. 4. FINAL DECISION.
``The arbitrator shall issue a final decision not later
than 300 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
``SEC. 5. EFFECT OF DECISION.
``(a) Retroactive Effect.--The amount of the fee determined
by the arbitrator under section 3(a) shall be retroactive to
June 13, 1991.
``(b) No Further Review.--Notwithstanding subchapter IV of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act), the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and conclusive upon the Secretary
and the Concessioner and shall not be subject to judicial
review.
``SEC. 6. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
``Except to the extent inconsistent with this Act, the
arbitration under this Act shall be conducted in accordance
with subchapter IV of title 5, United States Code.''.
______
BLACK ROCK DESERT-HIGH ROCK CANYON EMIGRANT TRAILS NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA ACT OF 2000
______
BRYAN AMENDMENT NO. 4297
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Bryan) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2273)
to establish the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails
National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Black Rock Desert-High Rock
Canon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The areas of northwestern Nevada known as the Black
Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon contain and surround the
last nationally significant, untouched segments of the
historic California Emigrant Trails, including wagon ruts,
historic inscriptions, and a wilderness landscape largely
unchanged since the days of the pioneers.
(2) The relative absence of development in the Black Rock
Desert and High Rock Canyon areas from emigrant times to the
present day offers a unique opportunity to capture the
terrain, sights, and conditions of the overland trails as
they were experienced by the emigrants and to make available
to both present and future generations of Americans the
opportunity of experiencing emigrant conditions in an
unaltered setting.
(3) The Black Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon areas are
unique segments of the Northern Great Basin and contain broad
representation of the Great Basin's land forms and plant and
animal species, including golden eagles and other birds of
prey, sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn
sheep, free roaming horses and burros, threatened fish and
sensitive plants.
(4) The Black Rock-High Rock region contains a number of
cultural and natural resources that have been declared
eligible for National Historic Landmark and Natural Landmark
status, including a portion of the 1843-44 John Charles
Fremont exploration route, the site of the death of Peter
Lassen, early military facilities, and examples of early
homesteading and mining.
(5) The archaeological, paleontological, and geographical
resources of the Black Rock-High Rock region include numerous
prehistoric and historic Native American sites, wooly mammoth
sites, some of the largest natural potholes of North America,
and a remnant dry Pelistocene lakebed (playa) where the
curvature of the Earth may be observed.
(6) The two large wilderness mosaics that frame the
conservation area offer exceptional opportunities for
solitude and serve to protect the integrity of the viewshed
of the historic emigrant trails.
(7) Public lands in the conservation area have been used
for domestic livestock grazing for over a century, with
resultant benefits to community stability and contributions
to the local and State economies. It has not been
demonstrated that continuation of this use would be
incompatible with appropriate protection and sound management
of the resource values of these lands; therefore, it is
expected that such grazing will continue in accordance with
the management plan for the conservation area and other
applicable laws and regulations.
(8) The Black Rock Desert playa is a unique natural
resource that serves as the primary destination for the
majority of visitors to the conservation area, including
visitors associated with large-scale permitted events. It is
expected that such permitted events will continue to be
administered in accordance with the management plan for the
conservation area and other applicable laws and regulations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) The term ``public lands'' has the meaning stated in
section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(3) The term ``conservation area'' means the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area established pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) Establishment and Purposes.--In order to conserve,
protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations the unique and nationally important
historical, cultural, paleontological, scenic, scientific,
biological, educational, wildlife, riparian, wilderness,
endangered species, and recreational values and resources
associated with the Applegate-Lassen and Nobles Trails
corridors and surrounding areas, there is hereby established
the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails
National Conservation Area in the State of Nevada.
(b) Areas Included.--The conservation area shall consist of
approximately 797,100 acres of public lands as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Emigrant
Trail National Conservation Area'' and dated July 19, 2000.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
conservation area. The map and legal description shall have
the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except
the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors
in such map and legal description. Copies of the map and
legal description shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land
Management.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Management.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau
of Land Management, shall manage the conservation area in a
manner that conserves, protects and enhances its resources
and values, including those resources and values specified in
subsection 4(a), in accordance with this Act, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.), and other applicable provisions of law.
(b) Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain adequate
access for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the
conservation area.
(2) Private land.--The Secretary shall provide reasonable
access to privately owned land or interests in land within
the boundaries of the conservation area.
[[Page 20940]]
(3) Existing public roads.--The Secretary is authorized to
maintain existing public access within the boundaries of the
conservation areas in a manner consistent with the purposes
for which the conservation area was established.
(c) Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses
of the conservation area as the Secretary finds will further
the purposes for which the conservation area is established.
(2) Off-highway vehicle use.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of
motorized vehicles in the conservation area shall be
permitted only on roads and trails and in other areas
designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the
management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(3) Permitted events.--The Secretary may continue to permit
large-scale events in defined, low impact areas of the Black
Rock Desert plays in the conservation area in accordance with
the management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(d) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to diminish the jurisdiction of the State of
Nevada with respect to fish and wildlife management,
including regulation of hunting and fishing, on public lands
within the conservation area.
(e) Management Plan.--Within three years following the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive resource management plan for the long-term
protection and management of the conservation area. The plan
shall be developed with full public participation and shall
developed with full public participation and shall describe
the appropriate uses and management of the conservation area
consistent with the provisions of this Act. The plan may
incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any current
management or activity plan for the area and may use
information developed in previous studies of the lands within
or adjacent to the conservation area.
(f) Grazing.--Where the Secretary of the Interior currently
permits livestock grazing in the conservation area, such
grazing shall be allowed to continue subject to all
applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders.
(g) Visitor Service Facilities.--The Secretary is
authorized to establish, in cooperation with other public or
private entities as the Secretary may deem appropriate,
visitor service facilities for the purpose of providing
information about the historical, cultural, ecological,
recreational, and other resources of the conservation area.
SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
Federal lands within the conservation area and all lands and
interests therein which are hereafter acquired by the United
States are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, from
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, from
operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws
and from the minerals materials laws and all amendments
thereto.
SEC. 7. NO BUFFER ZONES.
The Congress does not intend for the establishment of the
conservation area to lead to the creation of protective
perimeters or buffer zones around the conservation area. The
fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside
the conservation area that would not be permitted in the
conservation area shall not preclude such activities or uses
on such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area
consistent with other applicable laws.
SEC. 8. WILDERNESS.
(a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the
following lands in the State of Nevada are designated as
wilderness, and, therefore, as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Certain lands in the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 315,700 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Black Rock Desert Wilderness.
(2) Certain lands in the Pahute Peak Wilderness Study Area
comprised of approximately 57,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Pahute Peak Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Pahute Peak Wilderness.
(3) Certain lands in the North Black Rock Range Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 30,800 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``North Black Rock Range
Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which
shall be known as the North Black Rock Range Wilderness.
(4) Certain lands in the East Fork High Rock Canyon
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 52,800
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``East Fork
High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the East Fork High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(5) Certain lands in the High Rock Lake Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 59,300 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``High Rock Lake Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the High Rock Lake Wilderness.
(6) Certain lands in the Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 48,700 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``Little High Rock
Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the Little High Rock Canyon
Wilderness.
(7) Certain lands in the High Rock Canyon Wilderness Study
Area and Yellow Rock Canyon Wilderness Study Area comprised
of approximately 46,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated
July 19, 2000, and which shall be known as the High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(8) Certain land in the Calico Mountains Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 65,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Calico Mountains Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Calico Mountains Wilderness.
(9) Certain lands in the South Jackson Mountains Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 56,800 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``South Jackson
Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the South Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(10) Certain lands in the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 24,000
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``North
Jackson Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(b) Administration of Wilderness Areas.--Subject to valid
existing rights, each wilderness area designated by this Act
shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the
provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference
in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness
Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act and any reference to the Secretary of
Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
wilderness areas designated under this Act. The map and legal
description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in such map and legal
description. Copies of the map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
(d) Grazing.--Within the wilderness areas designated under
subsection (a), the grazing of livestock, where established
prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be
permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations,
policies, and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, as
long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully
conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding
grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed in the
Wilderness Act and section 101(f) of Public Law 101-628.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
______
CAT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT ACT
______
SMITH OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMENDMENT NO. 4298
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Smith of New Hampshire) proposed an amendment to
the bill (H.R. 3292) to provide for the establishment of the Cat Island
National Wildlife Refuge in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana; as
follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF HERBERT H. BATEMAN EDUCATION AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER.
(a) In General.--A building proposed to be located within
the boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
on Assateague Island, Virginia, shall be known and designated
as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Education and Administrative
Center''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Herbert H. Bateman Education and
Administrative Center.
SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Act entitled, ``An Act to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994'' (106th
Congress), section 6 of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation
and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note; Public
Law 103-340), relating to an environmental education center
and refuge, is redesignated as section 7.
(b) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Cahaba River National
[[Page 20941]]
Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act (106th Congress), section 6
of that Act is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)'' and inserting ``the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 4(a)(3) and (4)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668ee(a)(3), (4))'' and inserting
``paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 4(a) of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd(a))''.
(c) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act (106th Congress),
section 4(b)(2)(D) of that Act is amended by striking
``section 4(a)(3) and (4) of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668ee(a)(3),
(4))'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 4(a)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a))''.
______
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
______
SMITH OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMENDMENT NO. 4299
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Smith) proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 707)
to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to
streamline the administration of disaster relief, to control the
Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other purposes; as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION
Sec. 101. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Predisaster hazard mitigation.
Sec. 103. Interagency task force.
Sec. 104. Mitigation planning; minimum standards for public and private
structures.
TITLE II--STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION
Sec. 201. Technical amendments.
Sec. 202. Management costs.
Sec. 203. Public notice, comment, and consultation requirements.
Sec. 204. State administration of hazard mitigation grant program.
Sec. 205. Assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace
damaged facilities.
Sec. 206. Federal assistance to individuals and households.
Sec. 207. Community disaster loans.
Sec. 208. Report on State management of small disasters initiative.
Sec. 209. Study regarding cost reduction.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Technical correction of short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Fire management assistance.
Sec. 304. Disaster grant closeout procedures.
Sec. 305. Public safety officer benefits for certain Federal and State
employees.
Sec. 306. Buy American.
Sec. 307. Treatment of certain real property.
Sec. 308. Study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency
management.
TITLE I--PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis,
tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, pose great
danger to human life and to property throughout the United
States;
(2) greater emphasis needs to be placed on--
(A) identifying and assessing the risks to States and local
governments (including Indian tribes) from natural disasters;
(B) implementing adequate measures to reduce losses from
natural disasters; and
(C) ensuring that the critical services and facilities of
communities will continue to function after a natural
disaster;
(3) expenditures for postdisaster assistance are increasing
without commensurate reductions in the likelihood of future
losses from natural disasters;
(4) in the expenditure of Federal funds under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), high priority should be given to
mitigation of hazards at the local level; and
(5) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness
and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal
support, States and local governments (including Indian
tribes) will be able to--
(A) form effective community-based partnerships for hazard
mitigation purposes;
(B) implement effective hazard mitigation measures that
reduce the potential damage from natural disasters;
(C) ensure continued functionality of critical services;
(D) leverage additional non-Federal resources in meeting
natural disaster resistance goals; and
(E) make commitments to long-term hazard mitigation efforts
to be applied to new and existing structures.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a
national disaster hazard mitigation program--
(1) to reduce the loss of life and property, human
suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs
resulting from natural disasters; and
(2) to provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation
funding that will assist States and local governments
(including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard
mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued
functionality of critical services and facilities after a
natural disaster.
SEC. 102. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
``(a) Definition of Small Impoverished Community.--In this
section, the term `small impoverished community' means a
community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is economically
disadvantaged, as determined by the State in which the
community is located and based on criteria established by the
President.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The President may
establish a program to provide technical and financial
assistance to States and local governments to assist in the
implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation measures that
are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss
of life, and damage and destruction of property, including
damage to critical services and facilities under the
jurisdiction of the States or local governments.
``(c) Approval by President.--If the President determines
that a State or local government has identified natural
disaster hazards in areas under its jurisdiction and has
demonstrated the ability to form effective public-private
natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships, the
President, using amounts in the National Predisaster
Mitigation Fund established under subsection (i) (referred to
in this section as the `Fund'), may provide technical and
financial assistance to the State or local government to be
used in accordance with subsection (e).
``(d) State Recommendations.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Recommendations.--The Governor of each State may
recommend to the President not fewer than 5 local governments
to receive assistance under this section.
``(B) Deadline for submission.--The recommendations under
subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to the President not
later than October 1, 2001, and each October 1st thereafter
or such later date in the year as the President may
establish.
``(C) Criteria.--In making recommendations under
subparagraph (A), a Governor shall consider the criteria
specified in subsection (g).
``(2) Use.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in providing assistance to local governments under this
section, the President shall select from local governments
recommended by the Governors under this subsection.
``(B) Extraordinary circumstances.--In providing assistance
to local governments under this section, the President may
select a local government that has not been recommended by a
Governor under this subsection if the President determines
that extraordinary circumstances justify the selection and
that making the selection will further the purpose of this
section.
``(3) Effect of failure to nominate.--If a Governor of a
State fails to submit recommendations under this subsection
in a timely manner, the President may select, subject to the
criteria specified in subsection (g), any local governments
of the State to receive assistance under this section.
``(e) Uses of Technical and Financial Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Technical and financial assistance
provided under this section--
``(A) shall be used by States and local governments
principally to implement predisaster hazard mitigation
measures that are cost-effective and are described in
proposals approved by the President under this section; and
``(B) may be used--
``(i) to support effective public-private natural disaster
hazard mitigation partnerships;
``(ii) to improve the assessment of a community's
vulnerability to natural hazards; or
``(iii) to establish hazard mitigation priorities, and an
appropriate hazard mitigation plan, for a community.
``(2) Dissemination.--A State or local government may use
not more than 10 percent of the financial assistance received
by the State or local government under this section for a
fiscal year to fund activities to disseminate information
regarding cost-effective mitigation technologies.
[[Page 20942]]
``(f) Allocation of Funds.--The amount of financial
assistance made available to a State (including amounts made
available to local governments of the State) under this
section for a fiscal year--
``(1) shall be not less than the lesser of--
``(A) $500,000; or
``(B) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the total
funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal
year;
``(2) shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds
described in paragraph (1)(B); and
``(3) shall be subject to the criteria specified in
subsection (g).
``(g) Criteria for Assistance Awards.--In determining
whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a
State or local government under this section, the President
shall take into account--
``(1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be mitigated;
``(2) the degree of commitment of the State or local
government to reduce damages from future natural disasters;
``(3) the degree of commitment by the State or local
government to support ongoing non-Federal support for the
hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the
technical and financial assistance;
``(4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures to
be carried out using the technical and financial assistance
contribute to the mitigation goals and priorities established
by the State;
``(5) the extent to which the technical and financial
assistance is consistent with other assistance provided under
this Act;
``(6) the extent to which prioritized, cost-effective
mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable
outcomes are clearly identified;
``(7) if the State or local government has submitted a
mitigation plan under section 322, the extent to which the
activities identified under paragraph (6) are consistent with
the mitigation plan;
``(8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net
benefits to society;
``(9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation
activities in small impoverished communities; and
``(10) such other criteria as the President establishes in
consultation with State and local governments.
``(h) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--Financial assistance provided under this
section may contribute up to 75 percent of the total cost of
mitigation activities approved by the President.
``(2) Small impoverished communities.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the President may contribute up to 90 percent
of the total cost of a mitigation activity carried out in a
small impoverished community.
``(i) National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--The President may establish in the
Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the
`National Predisaster Mitigation Fund', to be used in
carrying out this section.
``(2) Transfers to fund.--There shall be deposited in the
Fund--
``(A) amounts appropriated to carry out this section, which
shall remain available until expended; and
``(B) sums available from gifts, bequests, or donations of
services or property received by the President for the
purpose of predisaster hazard mitigation.
``(3) Expenditures from fund.--Upon request by the
President, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from
the Fund to the President such amounts as the President
determines are necessary to provide technical and financial
assistance under this section.
``(4) Investment of amounts.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States.
``(B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
``(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
``(C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
``(D) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
``(E) Transfers of amounts.--
``(i) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred
to the Fund under this subsection shall be transferred at
least monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the
Fund on the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
``(ii) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
``(j) Limitation on Total Amount of Financial Assistance.--
The President shall not provide financial assistance under
this section in an amount greater than the amount available
in the Fund.
``(k) Multihazard Advisory Maps.--
``(1) Definition of multihazard advisory map.--In this
subsection, the term `multihazard advisory map' means a map
on which hazard data concerning each type of natural disaster
is identified simultaneously for the purpose of showing areas
of hazard overlap.
``(2) Development of maps.--In consultation with States,
local governments, and appropriate Federal agencies, the
President shall develop multihazard advisory maps for areas,
in not fewer than 5 States, that are subject to commonly
recurring natural hazards (including flooding, hurricanes and
severe winds, and seismic events).
``(3) Use of technology.--In developing multihazard
advisory maps under this subsection, the President shall use,
to the maximum extent practicable, the most cost-effective
and efficient technology available.
``(4) Use of maps.--
``(A) Advisory nature.--The multihazard advisory maps shall
be considered to be advisory and shall not require the
development of any new policy by, or impose any new policy
on, any government or private entity.
``(B) Availability of maps.--The multihazard advisory maps
shall be made available to the appropriate State and local
governments for the purposes of--
``(i) informing the general public about the risks of
natural hazards in the areas described in paragraph (2);
``(ii) supporting the activities described in subsection
(e); and
``(iii) other public uses.
``(l) Report on Federal and State Administration.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
section, the President, in consultation with State and local
governments, shall submit to Congress a report evaluating
efforts to implement this section and recommending a process
for transferring greater authority and responsibility for
administering the assistance program established under this
section to capable States.
``(m) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided by
this section terminates December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Title II of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by striking the title heading
and inserting the following:
``TITLE II--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE''.
SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) (as amended
by section 102(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 204. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
``(a) In General.--The President shall establish a Federal
interagency task force for the purpose of coordinating the
implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs
administered by the Federal Government.
``(b) Chairperson.--The Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall serve as the chairperson of the task
force.
``(c) Membership.--The membership of the task force shall
include representatives of--
``(1) relevant Federal agencies;
``(2) State and local government organizations (including
Indian tribes); and
``(3) the American Red Cross.''.
SEC. 104. MITIGATION PLANNING; MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 322. MITIGATION PLANNING.
``(a) Requirement of Mitigation Plan.--As a condition of
receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation
measures under subsection (e), a State, local, or tribal
government shall develop and submit for approval to the
President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for
identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities
of the area under the jurisdiction of the government.
``(b) Local and Tribal Plans.--Each mitigation plan
developed by a local or tribal government shall--
``(1) describe actions to mitigate hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities identified under the plan; and
``(2) establish a strategy to implement those actions.
``(c) State Plans.--The State process of development of a
mitigation plan under this section shall--
``(1) identify the natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of areas in the State;
``(2) support development of local mitigation plans;
``(3) provide for technical assistance to local and tribal
governments for mitigation planning; and
``(4) identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the
State will support, as resources become available.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Federal contributions under section 404
may be used to fund the development and updating of
mitigation plans under this section.
``(2) Maximum federal contribution.--With respect to any
mitigation plan, a State,
[[Page 20943]]
local, or tribal government may use an amount of Federal
contributions under section 404 not to exceed 7 percent of
the amount of such contributions available to the government
as of a date determined by the government.
``(e) Increased Federal Share for Hazard Mitigation
Measures.--
``(1) In general.--If, at the time of the declaration of a
major disaster, a State has in effect an approved mitigation
plan under this section, the President may increase to 20
percent, with respect to the major disaster, the maximum
percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a).
``(2) Factors for consideration.--In determining whether to
increase the maximum percentage under paragraph (1), the
President shall consider whether the State has established--
``(A) eligibility criteria for property acquisition and
other types of mitigation measures;
``(B) requirements for cost effectiveness that are related
to the eligibility criteria;
``(C) a system of priorities that is related to the
eligibility criteria; and
``(D) a process by which an assessment of the effectiveness
of a mitigation action may be carried out after the
mitigation action is complete.
``SEC. 323. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STRUCTURES.
``(a) In General.--As a condition of receipt of a disaster
loan or grant under this Act--
``(1) the recipient shall carry out any repair or
construction to be financed with the loan or grant in
accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and
sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes,
specifications, and standards; and
``(2) the President may require safe land use and
construction practices, after adequate consultation with
appropriate State and local government officials.
``(b) Evidence of Compliance.--A recipient of a disaster
loan or grant under this Act shall provide such evidence of
compliance with this section as the President may require by
regulation.''.
(b) Losses From Straight Line Winds.--The President shall
increase the maximum percentage specified in the last
sentence of section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) from
15 percent to 20 percent with respect to any major disaster
that is in the State of Minnesota and for which assistance is
being provided as of the date of enactment of this Act,
except that additional assistance provided under this
subsection shall not exceed $6,000,000. The mitigation
measures assisted under this subsection shall be related to
losses in the State of Minnesota from straight line winds.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is
amended--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``section 409'' and
inserting ``section 322''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``The total'' and
inserting ``Subject to section 322, the total''.
(2) Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5176) is repealed.
TITLE II--STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION
SEC. 201. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5154) is amended in
subsections (a)(1), (b), and (c) by striking ``section 803 of
the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965'' each
place it appears and inserting ``section 209(c)(2) of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3149(c)(2))''.
SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141
et seq.) (as amended by section 104(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 324. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
``(a) Definition of Management Cost.--In this section, the
term `management cost' includes any indirect cost, any
administrative expense, and any other expense not directly
chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster,
emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or
measure.
``(b) Establishment of Management Cost Rates.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any
administrative rule or guidance), the President shall by
regulation establish management cost rates, for grantees and
subgrantees, that shall be used to determine contributions
under this Act for management costs.
``(c) Review.--The President shall review the management
cost rates established under subsection (b) not later than 3
years after the date of establishment of the rates and
periodically thereafter.''.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a)
and (b) of section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection
(a)) shall apply to major disasters declared under that Act
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Interim authority.--Until the date on which the
President establishes the management cost rates under section
324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)), section 406(f)
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(f)) (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act) shall be used to
establish management cost rates.
SEC. 203. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION
REQUIREMENTS.
Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended
by section 202(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 325. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION
REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Public Notice and Comment Concerning New or Modified
Policies.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall provide for public
notice and opportunity for comment before adopting any new or
modified policy that--
``(A) governs implementation of the public assistance
program administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency under this Act; and
``(B) could result in a significant reduction of assistance
under the program.
``(2) Application.--Any policy adopted under paragraph (1)
shall apply only to a major disaster or emergency declared on
or after the date on which the policy is adopted.
``(b) Consultation Concerning Interim Policies.--
``(1) In general.--Before adopting any interim policy under
the public assistance program to address specific conditions
that relate to a major disaster or emergency that has been
declared under this Act, the President, to the maximum extent
practicable, shall solicit the views and recommendations of
grantees and subgrantees with respect to the major disaster
or emergency concerning the potential interim policy, if the
interim policy is likely--
``(A) to result in a significant reduction of assistance to
applicants for the assistance with respect to the major
disaster or emergency; or
``(B) to change the terms of a written agreement to which
the Federal Government is a party concerning the declaration
of the major disaster or emergency.
``(2) No legal right of action.--Nothing in this subsection
confers a legal right of action on any party.
``(c) Public Access.--The President shall promote public
access to policies governing the implementation of the public
assistance program.''.
SEC. 204. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Program Administration by States.--
``(1) In general.--A State desiring to administer the
hazard mitigation grant program established by this section
with respect to hazard mitigation assistance in the State may
submit to the President an application for the delegation of
the authority to administer the program.
``(2) Criteria.--The President, in consultation and
coordination with States and local governments, shall
establish criteria for the approval of applications submitted
under paragraph (1). The criteria shall include, at a
minimum--
``(A) the demonstrated ability of the State to manage the
grant program under this section;
``(B) there being in effect an approved mitigation plan
under section 322; and
``(C) a demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities.
``(3) Approval.--The President shall approve an application
submitted under paragraph (1) that meets the criteria
established under paragraph (2).
``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--If, after approving an
application of a State submitted under paragraph (1), the
President determines that the State is not administering the
hazard mitigation grant program established by this section
in a manner satisfactory to the President, the President
shall withdraw the approval.
``(5) Audits.--The President shall provide for periodic
audits of the hazard mitigation grant programs administered
by States under this subsection.''.
SEC. 205. ASSISTANCE TO REPAIR, RESTORE, RECONSTRUCT, OR
REPLACE DAMAGED FACILITIES.
(a) Contributions.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--The President may make contributions--
``(A) to a State or local government for the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public
facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster and for
associated expenses incurred by the government; and
[[Page 20944]]
``(B) subject to paragraph (3), to a person that owns or
operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by
a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction,
or replacement of the facility and for associated expenses
incurred by the person.
``(2) Associated expenses.--For the purposes of this
section, associated expenses shall include--
``(A) the costs of mobilizing and employing the National
Guard for performance of eligible work;
``(B) the costs of using prison labor to perform eligible
work, including wages actually paid, transportation to a
worksite, and extraordinary costs of guards, food, and
lodging; and
``(C) base and overtime wages for the employees and extra
hires of a State, local government, or person described in
paragraph (1) that perform eligible work, plus fringe
benefits on such wages to the extent that such benefits were
being paid before the major disaster.
``(3) Conditions for assistance to private nonprofit
facilities.--
``(A) In general.--The President may make contributions to
a private nonprofit facility under paragraph (1)(B) only if--
``(i) the facility provides critical services (as defined
by the President) in the event of a major disaster; or
``(ii) the owner or operator of the facility--
``(I) has applied for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and
``(II)(aa) has been determined to be ineligible for such a
loan; or
``(bb) has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount for
which the Small Business Administration determines the
facility is eligible.
``(B) Definition of critical services.--In this paragraph,
the term `critical services' includes power, water (including
water provided by an irrigation organization or facility),
sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency
medical care.
``(4) Notification to congress.--Before making any
contribution under this section in an amount greater than
$20,000,000, the President shall notify--
``(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate;
``(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
``(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.''.
(b) Federal Share.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Federal Share.--
``(1) Minimum federal share.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Federal share of assistance under this
section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible
cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement
carried out under this section.
``(2) Reduced federal share.--The President shall
promulgate regulations to reduce the Federal share of
assistance under this section to not less than 25 percent in
the case of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or
replacement of any eligible public facility or private
nonprofit facility following an event associated with a major
disaster--
``(A) that has been damaged, on more than 1 occasion within
the preceding 10-year period, by the same type of event; and
``(B) the owner of which has failed to implement
appropriate mitigation measures to address the hazard that
caused the damage to the facility.''.
(c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--Section 406 of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (c) and
inserting the following:
``(c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--
``(1) For public facilities.--
``(A) In general.--In any case in which a State or local
government determines that the public welfare would not best
be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the
State or local government, the State or local government may
elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection
(a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of
the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the
facility and of management expenses.
``(B) Areas with unstable soil.--In any case in which a
State or local government determines that the public welfare
would not best be served by repairing, restoring,
reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or
controlled by the State or local government because soil
instability in the disaster area makes repair, restoration,
reconstruction, or replacement infeasible, the State or local
government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution
under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal
to 90 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of
the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing the facility and of management expenses.
``(C) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a State or local
government under this paragraph may be used--
``(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected public
facilities;
``(ii) to construct new facilities; or
``(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the State
or local government determines to be necessary to meet a need
for governmental services and functions in the area affected
by the major disaster.
``(D) Limitations.--Funds made available to a State or
local government under this paragraph may not be used for--
``(i) any public facility located in a regulatory floodway
(as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or
``(ii) any uninsured public facility located in a special
flood hazard area identified by the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
``(2) For private nonprofit facilities.--
``(A) In general.--In any case in which a person that owns
or operates a private nonprofit facility determines that the
public welfare would not best be served by repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility, the
person may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under
subsection (a)(1)(B), a contribution in an amount equal to 75
percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the
cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing
the facility and of management expenses.
``(B) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a person under
this paragraph may be used--
``(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected private
nonprofit facilities owned or operated by the person;
``(ii) to construct new private nonprofit facilities to be
owned or operated by the person; or
``(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the person
determines to be necessary to meet a need for the person's
services and functions in the area affected by the major
disaster.
``(C) Limitations.--Funds made available to a person under
this paragraph may not be used for--
``(i) any private nonprofit facility located in a
regulatory floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44,
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or
``(ii) any uninsured private nonprofit facility located in
a special flood hazard area identified by the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).''.
(d) Eligible Cost.--
(1) In general.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e) Eligible Cost.--
``(1) Determination.--
``(A) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the
President shall estimate the eligible cost of repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or
private nonprofit facility--
``(i) on the basis of the design of the facility as the
facility existed immediately before the major disaster; and
``(ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and
standards (including floodplain management and hazard
mitigation criteria required by the President or under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.))
applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred.
``(B) Cost estimation procedures.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
shall use the cost estimation procedures established under
paragraph (3) to determine the eligible cost under this
subsection.
``(ii) Applicability.--The procedures specified in this
paragraph and paragraph (2) shall apply only to projects the
eligible cost of which is equal to or greater than the amount
specified in section 422.
``(2) Modification of eligible cost.--
``(A) Actual cost greater than ceiling percentage of
estimated cost.--In any case in which the actual cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility
under this section is greater than the ceiling percentage
established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under
paragraph (1), the President may determine that the eligible
cost includes a portion of the actual cost of the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement that exceeds the
cost estimated under paragraph (1).
``(B) Actual cost less than estimated cost.--
``(i) Greater than or equal to floor percentage of
estimated cost.--In any case in which the actual cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility
under this section is less than 100 percent of the cost
estimated under paragraph (1), but is greater than or equal
to the floor percentage established under paragraph (3) of
the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local
government or person receiving funds under this section shall
use the excess funds to carry out cost-effective activities
that reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or suffering
from a major disaster.
[[Page 20945]]
``(ii) Less than floor percentage of estimated cost.--In
any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring,
reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is
less than the floor percentage established under paragraph
(3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or
local government or person receiving assistance under this
section shall reimburse the President in the amount of the
difference.
``(C) No effect on appeals process.--Nothing in this
paragraph affects any right of appeal under section 423.
``(3) Expert panel.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this paragraph, the President, acting
through the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, shall establish an expert panel, which shall include
representatives from the construction industry and State and
local government.
``(B) Duties.--The expert panel shall develop
recommendations concerning--
``(i) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent
with industry practices; and
``(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in
paragraph (2).
``(C) Regulations.--Taking into account the recommendations
of the expert panel under subparagraph (B), the President
shall promulgate regulations that establish--
``(i) cost estimation procedures described in subparagraph
(B)(i); and
``(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in
paragraph (2).
``(D) Review by president.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph
(C) and periodically thereafter, the President shall review
the cost estimation procedures and the ceiling and floor
percentages established under this paragraph.
``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph (C), 3
years after that date, and at the end of each 2-year period
thereafter, the expert panel shall submit to Congress a
report on the appropriateness of the cost estimation
procedures.
``(4) Special rule.--In any case in which the facility
being repaired, restored, reconstructed, or replaced under
this section was under construction on the date of the major
disaster, the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing,
or replacing the facility shall include, for the purposes of
this section, only those costs that, under the contract for
the construction, are the owner's responsibility and not the
contractor's responsibility.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act and applies
to funds appropriated after the date of enactment of this
Act, except that paragraph (1) of section 406(e) of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) takes effect on the date on
which the cost estimation procedures established under
paragraph (3) of that section take effect.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 406 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (f).
SEC. 206. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
(a) In General.--Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174)
is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 408. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Provision of assistance.--In accordance with this
section, the President, in consultation with the Governor of
a State, may provide financial assistance, and, if necessary,
direct services, to individuals and households in the State
who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary
expenses and serious needs in cases in which the individuals
and households are unable to meet such expenses or needs
through other means.
``(2) Relationship to other assistance.--Under paragraph
(1), an individual or household shall not be denied
assistance under paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subsection (c)
solely on the basis that the individual or household has not
applied for or received any loan or other financial
assistance from the Small Business Administration or any
other Federal agency.
``(b) Housing Assistance.--
``(1) Eligibility.--The President may provide financial or
other assistance under this section to individuals and
households to respond to the disaster-related housing needs
of individuals and households who are displaced from their
predisaster primary residences or whose predisaster primary
residences are rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage
caused by a major disaster.
``(2) Determination of appropriate types of assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall determine
appropriate types of housing assistance to be provided under
this section to individuals and households described in
subsection (a)(1) based on considerations of cost
effectiveness, convenience to the individuals and households,
and such other factors as the President may consider
appropriate.
``(B) Multiple types of assistance.--One or more types of
housing assistance may be made available under this section,
based on the suitability and availability of the types of
assistance, to meet the needs of individuals and households
in the particular disaster situation.
``(c) Types of Housing Assistance.--
``(1) Temporary housing.--
``(A) Financial assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance to individuals or households to rent alternate
housing accommodations, existing rental units, manufactured
housing, recreational vehicles, or other readily fabricated
dwellings.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of assistance under clause (i)
shall be based on the fair market rent for the accommodation
provided plus the cost of any transportation, utility
hookups, or unit installation not provided directly by the
President.
``(B) Direct assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The President may provide temporary
housing units, acquired by purchase or lease, directly to
individuals or households who, because of a lack of available
housing resources, would be unable to make use of the
assistance provided under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Period of assistance.--The President may not provide
direct assistance under clause (i) with respect to a major
disaster after the end of the 18-month period beginning on
the date of the declaration of the major disaster by the
President, except that the President may extend that period
if the President determines that due to extraordinary
circumstances an extension would be in the public interest.
``(iii) Collection of rental charges.--After the end of the
18-month period referred to in clause (ii), the President may
charge fair market rent for each temporary housing unit
provided.
``(2) Repairs.--
``(A) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance for--
``(i) the repair of owner-occupied private residences,
utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as a private
access route) damaged by a major disaster to a safe and
sanitary living or functioning condition; and
``(ii) eligible hazard mitigation measures that reduce the
likelihood of future damage to such residences, utilities, or
infrastructure.
``(B) Relationship to other assistance.--A recipient of
assistance provided under this paragraph shall not be
required to show that the assistance can be met through other
means, except insurance proceeds.
``(C) Maximum amount of assistance.--The amount of
assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall
not exceed $5,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by
the Department of Labor.
``(3) Replacement.--
``(A) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance for the replacement of owner-occupied private
residences damaged by a major disaster.
``(B) Maximum amount of assistance.--The amount of
assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor.
``(C) Applicability of flood insurance requirement.--With
respect to assistance provided under this paragraph, the
President may not waive any provision of Federal law
requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of
the receipt of Federal disaster assistance.
``(4) Permanent housing construction.--The President may
provide financial assistance or direct assistance to
individuals or households to construct permanent housing in
insular areas outside the continental United States and in
other remote locations in cases in which--
``(A) no alternative housing resources are available; and
``(B) the types of temporary housing assistance described
in paragraph (1) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-
effective.
``(d) Terms and Conditions Relating to Housing
Assistance.--
``(1) Sites.--
``(A) In general.--Any readily fabricated dwelling provided
under this section shall, whenever practicable, be located on
a site that--
``(i) is complete with utilities; and
``(ii) is provided by the State or local government, by the
owner of the site, or by the occupant who was displaced by
the major disaster.
``(B) Sites provided by the president.--A readily
fabricated dwelling may be located on a site provided by the
President if the President determines that such a site would
be more economical or accessible.
``(2) Disposal of units.--
``(A) Sale to occupants.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by
the President for the purpose of housing disaster victims may
be sold directly to the individual or household who is
occupying the unit if the individual or household lacks
permanent housing.
[[Page 20946]]
``(ii) Sale price.--A sale of a temporary housing unit
under clause (i) shall be at a price that is fair and
equitable.
``(iii) Deposit of proceeds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the proceeds of a sale under clause (i)
shall be deposited in the appropriate Disaster Relief Fund
account.
``(iv) Hazard and flood insurance.--A sale of a temporary
housing unit under clause (i) shall be made on the condition
that the individual or household purchasing the housing unit
agrees to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on
the housing unit.
``(v) Use of gsa services.--The President may use the
services of the General Services Administration to accomplish
a sale under clause (i).
``(B) Other methods of disposal.--If not disposed of under
subparagraph (A), a temporary housing unit purchased under
this section by the President for the purpose of housing
disaster victims--
``(i) may be sold to any person; or
``(ii) may be sold, transferred, donated, or otherwise made
available directly to a State or other governmental entity or
to a voluntary organization for the sole purpose of providing
temporary housing to disaster victims in major disasters and
emergencies if, as a condition of the sale, transfer, or
donation, the State, other governmental agency, or voluntary
organization agrees--
``(I) to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of
section 308; and
``(II) to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on
the housing unit.
``(e) Financial Assistance To Address Other Needs.--
``(1) Medical, dental, and funeral expenses.--The
President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may
provide financial assistance under this section to an
individual or household in the State who is adversely
affected by a major disaster to meet disaster-related
medical, dental, and funeral expenses.
``(2) Personal property, transportation, and other
expenses.--The President, in consultation with the Governor
of a State, may provide financial assistance under this
section to an individual or household described in paragraph
(1) to address personal property, transportation, and other
necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major
disaster.
``(f) State Role.--
``(1) Financial assistance to address other needs.--
``(A) Grant to state.--Subject to subsection (g), a
Governor may request a grant from the President to provide
financial assistance to individuals and households in the
State under subsection (e).
``(B) Administrative costs.--A State that receives a grant
under subparagraph (A) may expend not more than 5 percent of
the amount of the grant for the administrative costs of
providing financial assistance to individuals and households
in the State under subsection (e).
``(2) Access to records.--In providing assistance to
individuals and households under this section, the President
shall provide for the substantial and ongoing involvement of
the States in which the individuals and households are
located, including by providing to the States access to the
electronic records of individuals and households receiving
assistance under this section in order for the States to make
available any additional State and local assistance to the
individuals and households.
``(g) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the Federal share of the costs eligible to be paid using
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
``(2) Financial assistance to address other needs.--In the
case of financial assistance provided under subsection (e)--
``(A) the Federal share shall be 75 percent; and
``(B) the non-Federal share shall be paid from funds made
available by the State.
``(h) Maximum Amount of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--No individual or household shall receive
financial assistance greater than $25,000 under this section
with respect to a single major disaster.
``(2) Adjustment of limit.--The limit established under
paragraph (1) shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor.
``(i) Rules and Regulations.--The President shall prescribe
rules and regulations to carry out this section, including
criteria, standards, and procedures for determining
eligibility for assistance.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 502(a)(6) of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5192(a)(6)) is amended by striking ``temporary
housing''.
(c) Elimination of Individual and Family Grant Programs.--
Section 411 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5178) is repealed.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 207. COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS.
Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) The President'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--The President'';
(2) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Amount.--The amount'';
(3) by striking ``Repayment'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Repayment.--
``(1) Cancellation.--Repayment'';
(4) by striking ``(b) Any loans'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Effect on Other Assistance.--Any loans'';
(5) in subsection (b) (as designated by paragraph (2))--
(A) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and shall not exceed $5,000,000''; and
(6) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (3)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Condition on continuing eligibility.--A local
government shall not be eligible for further assistance under
this section during any period in which the local government
is in arrears with respect to a required repayment of a loan
under this section.''.
SEC. 208. REPORT ON STATE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL DISASTERS
INITIATIVE.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report
describing the results of the State Management of Small
Disasters Initiative, including--
(1) identification of any administrative or financial
benefits of the initiative; and
(2) recommendations concerning the conditions, if any,
under which States should be allowed the option to administer
parts of the assistance program under section 406 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5172).
SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall
complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster
assistance that has resulted and is likely to result from the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF SHORT TITLE.
The first section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note) is amended
to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
``This Act may be cited as the `Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'.''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended--
(1) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking ``the
Northern'' and all that follows through ``Pacific Islands''
and inserting ``and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands'';
(2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) Local government.--The term `local government'
means--
``(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is incorporated as a
nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government;
``(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
Alaska Native village or organization; and
``(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or
other public entity, for which an application for assistance
is made by a State or political subdivision of a State.'';
and
(3) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``irrigation,'' after
``utility,''.
SEC. 303. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187)
is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 420. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
``(a) In General.--The President is authorized to provide
assistance, including grants, equipment, supplies, and
personnel, to any State or local government for the
mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or
private forest land or grassland that threatens such
destruction as would constitute a major disaster.
``(b) Coordination With State and Tribal Departments of
Forestry.--In providing assistance under this section, the
President shall coordinate with State and tribal departments
of forestry.
``(c) Essential Assistance.--In providing assistance under
this section, the President may use the authority provided
under section 403.
``(d) Rules and Regulations.--The President shall prescribe
such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page 20947]]
SEC. 304. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 705. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
``(a) Statute of Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
administrative action to recover any payment made to a State
or local government for disaster or emergency assistance
under this Act shall be initiated in any forum after the date
that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final
expenditure report for the disaster or emergency.
``(2) Fraud exception.--The limitation under paragraph (1)
shall apply unless there is evidence of civil or criminal
fraud.
``(b) Rebuttal of Presumption of Record Maintenance.--
``(1) In general.--In any dispute arising under this
section after the date that is 3 years after the date of
transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster
or emergency, there shall be a presumption that accounting
records were maintained that adequately identify the source
and application of funds provided for financially assisted
activities.
``(2) Affirmative evidence.--The presumption described in
paragraph (1) may be rebutted only on production of
affirmative evidence that the State or local government did
not maintain documentation described in that paragraph.
``(3) Inability to produce documentation.--The inability of
the Federal, State, or local government to produce source
documentation supporting expenditure reports later than 3
years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure
report shall not constitute evidence to rebut the presumption
described in paragraph (1).
``(4) Right of access.--The period during which the
Federal, State, or local government has the right to access
source documentation shall not be limited to the required 3-
year retention period referred to in paragraph (3), but shall
last as long as the records are maintained.
``(c) Binding Nature of Grant Requirements.--A State or
local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any
other penalty for any payment made under this Act if--
``(1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement
specifying the costs;
``(2) the costs were reasonable; and
``(3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished.''.
SEC. 305. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
AND STATE EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended by
striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) `public safety officer' means--
``(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official
capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement
officer, as a firefighter, or as a member of a rescue squad
or ambulance crew;
``(B) an employee of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency who is performing official duties of the Agency in an
area, if those official duties--
``(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has
been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and
``(ii) are determined by the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to be hazardous duties; or
``(C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal emergency
management or civil defense agency who is performing official
duties in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in an area, if those official duties--
``(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has
been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and
``(ii) are determined by the head of the agency to be
hazardous duties.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies only to employees described in subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of section 1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (as amended by subsection (a)) who are
injured or who die in the line of duty on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 306. BUY AMERICAN.
(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds authorized
to be appropriated under this Act or any amendment made by
this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity, in
expending the funds, complies with the Buy American Act (41
U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
(b) Debarment of Persons Convicted of Fraudulent Use of
``Made in America'' Labels.--
(1) In general.--If the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency determines that a person has been convicted
of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ``Made in
America'' inscription to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in America, the Director
shall determine, not later than 90 days after determining
that the person has been so convicted, whether the person
should be debarred from contracting under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) Definition of debar.--In this subsection, the term
``debar'' has the meaning given the term in section 2393(c)
of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 307. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.), or
any other provision of law, or any flood risk zone
identified, delineated, or established under any such law (by
flood insurance rate map or otherwise), the real property
described in subsection (b) shall not be considered to be, or
to have been, located in any area having special flood
hazards (including any floodway or floodplain).
(b) Real Property.--The real property described in this
subsection is all land and improvements on the land located
in the Maple Terrace Subdivisions in the city of Sycamore,
DeKalb County, Illinois, including--
(1) Maple Terrace Phase I;
(2) Maple Terrace Phase II;
(3) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 1;
(4) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 2;
(5) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 3;
(6) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 1;
(7) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 2; and
(8) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 3.
(c) Revision of Flood Insurance Rate Lot Maps.--As soon as
practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
revise the appropriate flood insurance rate lot maps of the
agency to reflect the treatment under subsection (a) of the
real property described in subsection (b).
SEC. 308. STUDY OF PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall conduct a study of participation by
Indian tribes in emergency management.
(2) Required elements.--The study shall--
(A) survey participation by Indian tribes in training,
predisaster and postdisaster mitigation, disaster
preparedness, and disaster recovery programs at the Federal
and State levels; and
(B) review and assess the capacity of Indian tribes to
participate in cost-shared emergency management programs and
to participate in the management of the programs.
(3) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Director
shall consult with Indian tribes.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report on
the study under subsection (b) to--
(1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate;
(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
______
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMERCIALIZATION ACT OF 1999
______
EDWARDS AMENDMENT NO. 4300
Mr. MACK (for Mr. Edwards) proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R.
209) to improve the ability of Federal agencies to license federally
owned inventions; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS OMBUDSMAN.
(A) Appointment of Ombudsman.--The Secretary of Energy
shall direct the director of each national laboratory of the
Department of Energy, and may direct the director of each
facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy,
to appoint a technology partnership ombudsman to hear and
help resolve complaints from outside organizations regarding
the policies and actions of each such laboratory or facility
with respect to technology partnerships (including
cooperative research and development agreements), patents,
and technology licensing.
(b) Qualifications.--An ombudsman appointed under
subsection (a) shall be a senior official of the national
laboratory or facility who is not involved in day-to-day
technology partnerships, patents, or technology licensing,
or, if appointed from outside the laboratory or facility,
function as such a senior official.
(c) Duties.--Each ombudsman appointed under subsection (a)
shall--
[[Page 20948]]
(1) serve as the focal point for assisting the public and
industry in resolving complaints and disputes with the
national laboratory or facility regarding technology
partnerships, patents, and technology licensing;
(2) promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute
resolution techniques such as mediation to facilitate the
speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes,
when appropriate; and
(3) report quarterly on the number and nature of complaints
and disputes raised, along with the ombudsman's assessment of
their resolution, consistent with the protection of
confidential and sensitive information, to--
(A) the Secretary;
(B) the Administrator for Nuclear Security;
(C) the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution of the
Department of Energy; and
(D) the employees of the Department responsible for the
administration of the contract for the operation of each
national laboratory or facility that is a subject of the
report, for consideration in the administration and review of
that contract.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Evan Mathiason
and Daniel Lopez, interns in my office, be granted the privilege of the
floor today during Senate deliberations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
2000 OCTOBER QUARTERLY REPORTS
The mailing and filing date of the October Quarterly Report required
by the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, is Sunday, October
15, 2000. All Principal Campaign Committees supporting Senate
candidates in the 2000 races must file their reports with the Senate
Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-
7116. You may wish to advise your campaign committee personnel of this
requirement.
The Public Records will be open from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. on
October 15th to receive these filings. For further information, please
do not hesitate to contact the Office of Public Records on (202) 224-
0322.
____________________
2000 12 DAY PRE-GENERAL REPORTS
The filing date of the 12 Day Pre-General Report required by the
Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, is Thursday, October 26,
2000. The mailing date for the aforementioned report is Monday, October
23, 2000, if postmarked by registered or certified mail. If this report
is transmitted in any other manner it must be received by the filing
date. All Principal Campaign Committees supporting Senate candidates in
the 2000 races must file their reports with the Senate Office of Public
Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-7116. You may wish
to advise your campaign committee personnel of this requirement.
The Public Records office will be open from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
on Thursday, October 26th to receive these filings. For further
information, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Public
Records on (202) 224-0322.
____________________
48 HOUR NOTIFICATIONS
The Office of Public Records will be open on three successive
Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. for the purpose
of accepting 48 hour notifications of contributions required by the
Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended. The dates are October 21st
and 22nd, October 28th and 29th, November 4th and 5th. All principal
campaign committees supporting Senate candidates in 2000 must notify
the Secretary of the Senate regarding contributions of $1,000 or more
if received after the 20th day, but more than 48 hours before the day
of the general election. The 48 hour notifications may also be
transmitted by facsimile machine. The Office of Public Records FAX
number is (202) 224-1851.
____________________
REGISTRATION OF MASS MAILINGS
The filing date for 2000 third quarter mass mailings is October 25,
2000. If your office did no mass mailings during this period, please
submit a form that states ``none.''
Mass mailing registrations, or negative reports, should be submitted
to the Senate Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington,
D.C. 20510-7116.
The Public Records office will be open from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
the filing date to accept these filings. For further information,
please contact the Public Records office at (202) 224-0322.
____________________
2000 30 DAY POST-GENERAL REPORTS
The mailing and filing date of the 30 Day Post-General Report
required by the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, is Thursday,
December 7, 2000. All Principal Campaign Committees supporting Senate
candidates in the 2000 races must file their reports with the Senate
Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-
7116. You may wish to advise your campaign committee personnel of this
requirement.
The Public Records office will be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
December 7th to receive these filings. For further information, please
do not hesitate to contact the Office of Public Records on (202) 224-
0322.
____________________
THE CALENDAR
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following reported
calendar items by the Energy Committee: Calendar No. 636, S. 2478;
Calendar No. 637, S. 2485; Calendar No. 640, H.R. 3201; Calendar No.
665, S. 1670; Calendar No. 668, H.R. 2879; Calendar No. 713, H.R. 2833;
Calendar No. 749, S. 134; Calendar No. 753, S. 1972; Calendar No. 755,
S. 2300; Calendar No. 757, S. 2499; Calendar No. 768, H.R. 468;
Calendar No. 770, H.R. 1695; Calendar No. 790, S. 1925; Calendar No.
792, S. 2069; Calendar No. 799, H.R. 3632; Calendar No. 811, H.R. 4226;
Calendar No. 833, H.R. 4613; Calendar No. 835, H.R. 3745; Calendar No.
852, S. 2942; Calendar No. 854, S. 3000; Calendar No. 886, S. 2749;
Calendar No. 887, S. 2865; Calendar No. 892, H.R. 4285; Calendar No.
897, S. 2757; Calendar No. 901, S. 2977; Calendar No. 903, S. 2885;
Calendar No. 907, H.R. 4275; Calendar No. 925, S. 2111; Calendar No.
928, S. 2547; Calendar No. 931, H. Con. Res. 89; and Calendar No. 936,
S. 1756.
I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments, where
appropriate, be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a
third time and passed, as amended, if amended, any title amendments be
agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, and the preamble be agreed to,
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any
statements relating to any of the bills and the resolution be printed
in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
PEOPLING OF AMERICA THEME STUDY ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2478) to require the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study on the peopling of
America, and for other purposes, which had been reported by the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with amendments as follows:
(Omit the parts in black brackets and insert the parts
printed in italic.)
S. 2478
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 ``Peopling of America Theme
Study Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) an important facet of the history of the United States
is the story of how the United States was populated;
(2) the migration, immigration, and settlement of the
population of the United States--
(A) is broadly termed the ``peopling of America''; and
(B) is characterized by--
(i) the movement of groups of people across external and
internal boundaries of the United States and territories of
the United States; and
[[Page 20949]]
(ii) the interactions of those groups with each other and
with other populations;
(3) each of those groups has made unique, important
contributions to American history, culture, art, and life;
(4) the spiritual, intellectual, cultural, political, and
economic vitality of the United States is a result of the
pluralism and diversity of the American population;
(5) the success of the United States in embracing and
accommodating diversity has strengthened the national fabric
and unified the United States in its values, institutions,
experiences, goals, and accomplishments;
(6)(A) the National Park Service's official thematic
framework, revised in 1996, responds to the requirement of
section 1209 of the Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 1a-5 note; Public Law 101-628), that ``the Secretary
shall ensure that the full diversity of American history and
prehistory are represented'' in the identification and
interpretation of historic properties by the National Park
Service; and
(B) the thematic framework recognizes that ``people are the
primary agents of change'' and establishes the theme of human
population movement and change--or ``peopling places''--as a
primary thematic category for interpretation and
preservation; and
(7) although there are approximately 70,000 listings on the
National Register of Historic Places, sites associated with
the exploration and settlement of the United States by a
broad range of cultures are not well represented.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to foster a much-needed understanding of the diversity
and contribution of the breadth of groups who have peopled
the United States; and
(2) to strengthen the ability of the National Park Service
to include groups and events otherwise not recognized in the
peopling of the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Theme study.--The term ``theme study'' means the
national historic landmark theme study required under section
4.
(3) Peopling of america.--The term `peopling of America''
means the migration to and within, and the settlement of, the
United States.
SEC. 4. THEME STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to
Congress a national historic landmark theme study on the
peopling of America.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the theme study shall be to
identify regions, areas, trails, districts, communities,
sites, buildings, structures, objects, organizations,
societies, and cultures that--
(1) best illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions
affecting the peopling of America; and
(2) can provide a basis for the preservation and
interpretation of the peopling of America that has shaped the
culture and society of the United States.
(c) Identification and Designation of Potential New
National Historic Landmarks.--
(1) In general.--The theme study shall identify and
recommend for designation new national historic landmarks.
(2) List of appropriate sites.--The theme study shall--
(A) include a list in order of importance or merit of the
most appropriate sites for national historic landmark
designation; and
(B) encourage the nomination of other properties to the
National Register of Historic [Places by assisting members of
the public in evaluating sites within their communities and
in surrounding areas.] Places.
(3) Designation.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary shall designate new national historic landmarks.
(d) National Park System.--
(1) Identification of sites within current units.--The
theme study shall identify appropriate sites within units of
the National Park System at which the peopling of America may
be interpreted.
(2) Identification of new sites.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(e) Continuing Authority.--After the date of submission to
Congress of the theme study, the Secretary shall, on a
continuing basis, as appropriate to interpret the peopling of
America--
(1) evaluate, identify, and designate new national historic
landmarks; and
(2) evaluate, identify, and recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(f) Public Education and Research.--
(1) Linkages.--
(A) Establishment.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary may identify appropriate means for establishing
linkages--
(i) between--
(I) regions, trails, areas, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsections (b) and (d); and
(II) groups of people; and
(ii) between--
(I) regions, areas, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsection (b); and
(II) units of the National Park System identified under
subsection (d).
(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the linkages shall be to
maximize opportunities for public education and scholarly
research on the peopling of America.
(2) Cooperative arrangements.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
funds, enter into cooperative arrangements with State and
local governments, educational institutions, local historical
organizations, communities, and other appropriate entities to
preserve and interpret key sites in the peopling of America.
(3) Educational initiatives.--
(A) In general.--The documentation in the theme study shall
be used for broad educational initiatives such as--
(i) popular publications;
(ii) curriculum material such as the Teaching with Historic
Places program;
(iii) heritage tourism products such as the National
Register of Historic Places Travel Itineraries program; and
(iv) oral history and ethnographic programs.
(B) Cooperative programs.--On the basis of the theme study,
the Secretary shall implement cooperative programs to
encourage the preservation and interpretation of the peopling
of America.
SEC. 5. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with
educational institutions, professional associations, or other
entities knowledgeable about the peopling of America--
(1) to prepare the theme study;
(2) to ensure that the theme study is prepared in
accordance with generally accepted scholarly standards; and
(3) to promote cooperative arrangements and programs
relating to the peopling of America.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 2478), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2478
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 ``Peopling of America Theme
Study Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) an important facet of the history of the United States
is the story of how the United States was populated;
(2) the migration, immigration, and settlement of the
population of the United States--
(A) is broadly termed the ``peopling of America''; and
(B) is characterized by--
(i) the movement of groups of people across external and
internal boundaries of the United States and territories of
the United States; and
(ii) the interactions of those groups with each other and
with other populations;
(3) each of those groups has made unique, important
contributions to American history, culture, art, and life;
(4) the spiritual, intellectual, cultural, political, and
economic vitality of the United States is a result of the
pluralism and diversity of the American population;
(5) the success of the United States in embracing and
accommodating diversity has strengthened the national fabric
and unified the United States in its values, institutions,
experiences, goals, and accomplishments;
(6)(A) the National Park Service's official thematic
framework, revised in 1996, responds to the requirement of
section 1209 of the Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 1a-5 note; Public Law 101-628), that ``the Secretary
shall ensure that the full diversity of American history and
prehistory are represented'' in the identification and
interpretation of historic properties by the National Park
Service; and
(B) the thematic framework recognizes that ``people are the
primary agents of change'' and establishes the theme of human
population movement and change--or ``peopling places''--as a
primary thematic category for interpretation and
preservation; and
(7) although there are approximately 70,000 listings on the
National Register of Historic Places, sites associated with
the exploration and settlement of the United States by a
broad range of cultures are not well represented.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to foster a much-needed understanding of the diversity
and contribution of the breadth of groups who have peopled
the United States; and
(2) to strengthen the ability of the National Park Service
to include groups and
[[Page 20950]]
events otherwise not recognized in the peopling of the United
States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Theme study.--The term ``theme study'' means the
national historic landmark theme study required under section
4.
(3) Peopling of america.--The term ``peopling of America''
means the migration to and within, and the settlement of, the
United States.
SEC. 4. THEME STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to
Congress a national historic landmark theme study on the
peopling of America.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the theme study shall be to
identify regions, areas, trails, districts, communities,
sites, buildings, structures, objects, organizations,
societies, and cultures that--
(1) best illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions
affecting the peopling of America; and
(2) can provide a basis for the preservation and
interpretation of the peopling of America that has shaped the
culture and society of the United States.
(c) Identification and Designation of Potential New
National Historic Landmarks.--
(1) In general.--The theme study shall identify and
recommend for designation new national historic landmarks.
(2) List of appropriate sites.--The theme study shall--
(A) include a list in order of importance or merit of the
most appropriate sites for national historic landmark
designation; and
(B) encourage the nomination of other properties to the
National Register of Historic Places.
(3) Designation.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary shall designate new national historic landmarks.
(d) National Park System.--
(1) Identification of sites within current units.--The
theme study shall identify appropriate sites within units of
the National Park System at which the peopling of America may
be interpreted.
(2) Identification of new sites.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(e) Continuing Authority.--After the date of submission to
Congress of the theme study, the Secretary shall, on a
continuing basis, as appropriate to interpret the peopling of
America--
(1) evaluate, identify, and designate new national historic
landmarks; and
(2) evaluate, identify, and recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(f) Public Education and Research.--
(1) Linkages.--
(A) Establishment.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary may identify appropriate means for establishing
linkages--
(i) between--
(I) regions, areas, trails, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsections (b) and (d); and
(II) groups of people; and
(ii) between--
(I) regions, areas, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsection (b); and
(II) units of the National Park System identified under
subsection (d).
(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the linkages shall be to
maximize opportunities for public education and scholarly
research on the peopling of America.
(2) Cooperative arrangements.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
funds, enter into cooperative arrangements with State and
local governments, educational institutions, local historical
organizations, communities, and other appropriate entities to
preserve and interpret key sites in the peopling of America.
(3) Educational initiatives.--
(A) In general.--The documentation in the theme study shall
be used for broad educational initiatives such as--
(i) popular publications;
(ii) curriculum material such as the Teaching with Historic
Places program;
(iii) heritage tourism products such as the National
Register of Historic Places Travel Itineraries program; and
(iv) oral history and ethnographic programs.
(B) Cooperative programs.--On the basis of the theme study,
the Secretary shall implement cooperative programs to
encourage the preservation and interpretation of the peopling
of America.
SEC. 5. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with
educational institutions, professional associations, or other
entities knowledgeable about the peopling of America--
(1) to prepare the theme study;
(2) to ensure that the theme study is prepared in
accordance with generally accepted scholarly standards; and
(3) to promote cooperative arrangements and programs
relating to the peopling of America.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
____________________
SAINT CROIX ISLAND HERITAGE ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2485) to require the
Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in planning and
constructing a regional heritage center in Calais, Maine, which had
been reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an
amendment.
(Omit the past in black brackets and insert the part printed in
italic.)
S. 2485
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 ``Saint Croix Island Heritage
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Saint Croix Island is located in the Saint Croix River,
a river that is the boundary between the State of Maine and
Canada;
(2) the Island is the only international historic site in
the National Park System;
(3) in 1604, French nobleman Pierre Dugua Sieur de Mons,
accompanied by a courageous group of adventurers that
included Samuel Champlain, landed on the Island and began the
construction of a settlement;
(4) the French settlement on the Island in 1604 and 1605
was the initial site of the first permanent settlement in the
New World, predating the English settlement of 1607 at
Jamestown, Virginia;
(5) many people view the expedition that settled on the
Island in 1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in
North America;
(6) in October, 1998, the National Park Service completed a
general management plan to manage and interpret the Saint
Croix Island International Historic Site;
(7) the plan addresses a variety of management
alternatives, and concludes that the best management strategy
entails developing an interpretive trail and ranger station
at Red Beach, Maine, and a regional heritage center in
downtown Calais, Maine, in cooperation with Federal, State,
and local agencies;
(8) a 1982 memorandum of understanding, signed by the
Department of the Interior and the Canadian Department for
the Environment, outlines a cooperative program to
commemorate the international heritage of the Saint Croix
Island site and specifically to prepare for the 400th
anniversary of the settlement in 2004; and
(9) only 4 years remain before the 400th anniversary of the
settlement at Saint Croix Island, an occasion that should be
appropriately commemorated.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to take all necessary and
appropriate steps to work with Federal, State, and local
agencies, historical societies, and nonprofit organizations
to facilitate the development of a regional heritage center
in downtown Calais, Maine before the 400th anniversary of the
settlement of Saint Croix Island.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Island.--The term ``Island'' means Saint Croix Island,
located in the Saint Croix River, between Canada and the
State of Maine.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
SEC. 4. SAINT CROIX ISLAND REGIONAL HERITAGE CENTER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance in
planning, constructing, and operating a regional heritage
center in downtown Calais, Maine, to facilitate the
management and interpretation of the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--To carry out subsection (a),
in administering the Saint Croix Island International
Historic Site, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements under appropriate terms and conditions [with State
and local agencies] with other Federal agencies, State and
local agencies and nonprofit organizations--
(1) to provide exhibits, interpretive services (including
employing individuals to provide such services), and
technical assistance;
(2) to conduct activities that facilitate the dissemination
of information relating to the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site;
(3) to provide financial assistance for the construction of
the regional heritage center in exchange for space in the
center that is sufficient to interpret the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site; and
(4) to assist with the operation and maintenance of the
regional heritage center.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Design and Construction.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act (including
[[Page 20951]]
the design and construction of the regional heritage center)
$2,000,000.
(2) Expenditure.--Paragraph (1) authorizes funds to be
appropriated on the condition that any expenditure of those
funds shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by funds
from non-Federal sources.
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to maintain and
operate interpretive exhibits in the regional heritage
center.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2485), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2485
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 ``Saint Croix Island Heritage
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Saint Croix Island is located in the Saint Croix River,
a river that is the boundary between the State of Maine and
Canada;
(2) the Island is the only international historic site in
the National Park System;
(3) in 1604, French nobleman Pierre Dugua Sieur de Mons,
accompanied by a courageous group of adventurers that
included Samuel Champlain, landed on the Island and began the
construction of a settlement;
(4) the French settlement on the Island in 1604 and 1605
was the initial site of the first permanent settlement in the
New World, predating the English settlement of 1607 at
Jamestown, Virginia;
(5) many people view the expedition that settled on the
Island in 1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in
North America;
(6) in October, 1998, the National Park Service completed a
general management plan to manage and interpret the Saint
Croix Island International Historic Site;
(7) the plan addresses a variety of management
alternatives, and concludes that the best management strategy
entails developing an interpretive trail and ranger station
at Red Beach, Maine, and a regional heritage center in
downtown Calais, Maine, in cooperation with Federal, State,
and local agencies;
(8) a 1982 memorandum of understanding, signed by the
Department of the Interior and the Canadian Department for
the Environment, outlines a cooperative program to
commemorate the international heritage of the Saint Croix
Island site and specifically to prepare for the 400th
anniversary of the settlement in 2004; and
(9) only 4 years remain before the 400th anniversary of the
settlement at Saint Croix Island, an occasion that should be
appropriately commemorated.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to take all necessary and
appropriate steps to work with Federal, State, and local
agencies, historical societies, and nonprofit organizations
to facilitate the development of a regional heritage center
in downtown Calais, Maine before the 400th anniversary of the
settlement of Saint Croix Island.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Island.--The term ``Island'' means Saint Croix Island,
located in the Saint Croix River, between Canada and the
State of Maine.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
SEC. 4. SAINT CROIX ISLAND REGIONAL HERITAGE CENTER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance in
planning, constructing, and operating a regional heritage
center in downtown Calais, Maine, to facilitate the
management and interpretation of the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--To carry out subsection (a),
in administering the Saint Croix Island International
Historic Site, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements under appropriate terms and conditions with other
Federal agencies, State and local agencies and nonprofit
organizations--
(1) to provide exhibits, interpretive services (including
employing individuals to provide such services), and
technical assistance;
(2) to conduct activities that facilitate the dissemination
of information relating to the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site;
(3) to provide financial assistance for the construction of
the regional heritage center in exchange for space in the
center that is sufficient to interpret the Saint Croix Island
International Historic Site; and
(4) to assist with the operation and maintenance of the
regional heritage center.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Design and Construction.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act (including the design and construction of
the regional heritage center) $2,000,000.
(2) Expenditure.--Paragraph (1) authorizes funds to be
appropriated on the condition that any expenditure of those
funds shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by funds
from non-Federal sources.
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to maintain and
operate interpretive exhibits in the regional heritage
center.
____________________
CARTER G. WOODSON HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE STUDY ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 3201) to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility
of designating the Carter G. Woodson Home in the District of Columbia
as a National Historic Site, and for other purposes.
The bill (H.R. 3201) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1670) to revise the
boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes.
The bill (S. 1670) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 1670
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Fort
Matanzas National Monument'', numbered 347/80,004 and dated
February, 1991.
(2) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Fort
Matanzas National Monument in Florida.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY.
(a) In General.--The boundary of the Monument is revised to
include an area totaling approximately 70 acres, as generally
depicted on the Map.
(b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the office of the Director
of the National Park Service.
SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.
The Secretary may acquire any land, water, or interests in
land that are located within the revised boundary of the
Monument by--
(1) donation;
(2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds;
(3) transfer from any other Federal agency; or
(4) exchange.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.
Subject to applicable laws, all land and interests in land
held by the United States that are included in the revised
boundary under section 2 shall be administered by the
Secretary as part of the Monument.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
____________________
``I HAVE A DREAM'' PLAQUE ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 2879) to provide for
the placement at the Lincoln Memorial of a plaque commemorating the
speech of Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ``I Have a Dream''
speech, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting
clause and insert the part printed in italic.
SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE AT LINCOLN MEMORIAL.
(a) Placement of Plaque.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
install in the area of the Lincoln Memorial in the District
of Columbia a suitable plaque to commemorate the speech of
Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ``I Have A Dream''
speech.
(2) Relation to commemorative works act.--The Commemorative
Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall apply to the design
and placement of the plaque within the area of the Lincoln
Memorial.
(b) Acceptance of Contributions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to accept and expand contributions toward the cost
of preparing and installing the plaque, without further
appropriation. Federal funds may be used to design, procure,
or install the plaque.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 2879), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
[[Page 20952]]
YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 2833) to establish
the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.
The bill (H.R. 2833) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS STEWARDSHIP ACT OF 1999
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 134) to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to study whether the Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore should be protected as a wilderness area, which had been
reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with an
amendment as follows:
(Omit the part in black brackets)
S. 134
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 ``Gaylord Nelson Apostle
Islands Stewardship Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS.
(a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
(1) the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a national
and a Wisconsin treasure;
(2) the State of Wisconsin is particularly indebted to
former Senator Gaylord Nelson for his leadership in the
creation of the Lakeshore;
(3) after more than 28 years of enjoyment, some issues
critical to maintaining the overall ecological, recreational,
and cultural vision of the Lakeshore need additional
attention;
(4) the general management planning process for the
Lakeshore has identified a need for a formal wilderness
study;
(5) all land within the Lakeshore that might be suitable
for designation as wilderness are zoned and managed to
protect wilderness characteristics pending completion of such
a study;
(6) several historic lighthouses within the Lakeshore are
in danger of structural damage due to severe erosion;
(7) the Secretary of the Interior has been unable to take
full advantage of cooperative agreements with Federal, State,
local, and tribal governmental agencies, institutions of
higher education, and other nonprofit organizations that
could assist the National Park Service by contributing to the
management of the Lakeshore;
(8) because of competing needs in other units of the
National Park System, the standard authorizing and budgetary
process has not resulted in updated legislative authority and
necessary funding for improvements to the Lakeshore; and
(9) the need for improvements to the Lakeshore and
completion of a wilderness study should be accorded a high
priority among National Park Service activities.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Lakeshore.--The term ``Lakeshore'' means the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(c) Wilderness Study.--In fulfillment of the
responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wilderness Act
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and of applicable agency policy, the
Secretary shall evaluate areas of land within the Lakeshore
for inclusion in the National Wilderness System.
(d) Apostle Islands Lighthouses.--The Secretary shall
undertake appropriate action (including protection of the
bluff toe beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the bank
face, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the
bluffs) to protect the lighthouse structures at Raspberry
Lighthouse and Outer Island Lighthouse on the Lakeshore.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 6 of Public Law 91-424
(16 U.S.C. 460w-5) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 6. The lakeshore'' and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT.
``(a) In General.--The lakeshore''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
a cooperative agreement with a Federal, State, tribal, or
local government agency or a nonprofit private entity if the
Secretary determines that a cooperative agreement would be
beneficial in carrying out section 7.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $200,000 to carry out subsection (c); and
(2) $3,900,000 to carry out subsection (d).
[(g) Funding.--
[(1) In general.--Of the funds made available under the
heading ``clean coal technology'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' for obligation in prior years, in
addition to the funds deferred under the heading ``clean coal
technology'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' under
section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277--
[(A) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1,
2000; and
[(B) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1,
2001.
[(2) Ongoing projects.--Funds made available in previous
appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing
project regardless of the separate request for proposal under
which the project was selected.
[(3) Transfer of funds.--In addition to any amounts made
available under subsection (f), amounts made available under
paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Secretary for use
in carrying out subsections (c) and (d).
[(4) Unexpected balance.--Any balance of funds transferred
under paragraph (3) that remain unexpended at the end of
fiscal year 1999 shall be returned to the Treasury.]
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (S. 134), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as
follows:
S. 134
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 ``Gaylord Nelson Apostle
Islands Stewardship Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS.
(a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
(1) the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a national
and a Wisconsin treasure;
(2) the State of Wisconsin is particularly indebted to
former Senator Gaylord Nelson for his leadership in the
creation of the Lakeshore;
(3) after more than 28 years of enjoyment, some issues
critical to maintaining the overall ecological, recreational,
and cultural vision of the Lakeshore need additional
attention;
(4) the general management planning process for the
Lakeshore has identified a need for a formal wilderness
study;
(5) all land within the Lakeshore that might be suitable
for designation as wilderness are zoned and managed to
protect wilderness characteristics pending completion of such
a study;
(6) several historic lighthouses within the Lakeshore are
in danger of structural damage due to severe erosion;
(7) the Secretary of the Interior has been unable to take
full advantage of cooperative agreements with Federal, State,
local, and tribal governmental agencies, institutions of
higher education, and other nonprofit organizations that
could assist the National Park Service by contributing to the
management of the Lakeshore;
(8) because of competing needs in other units of the
National Park System, the standard authorizing and budgetary
process has not resulted in updated legislative authority and
necessary funding for improvements to the Lakeshore; and
(9) the need for improvements to the Lakeshore and
completion of a wilderness study should be accorded a high
priority among National Park Service activities.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Lakeshore.--The term ``Lakeshore'' means the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(c) Wilderness Study.--In fulfillment of the
responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wilderness Act
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and of applicable agency policy, the
Secretary shall evaluate areas of land within the Lakeshore
for inclusion in the National Wilderness System.
(d) Apostle Islands Lighthouses.--The Secretary shall
undertake appropriate action (including protection of the
bluff toe beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the bank
face, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the
bluffs) to protect the lighthouse structures at Raspberry
Lighthouse and Outer Island Lighthouse on the Lakeshore.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 6 of Public Law 91-424
(16 U.S.C. 460w-5) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 6. The lakeshore'' and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT.
``(a) In General.--The lakeshore''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
a cooperative agreement with a Federal, State, tribal, or
local government agency or a nonprofit private entity if the
Secretary determines that a cooperative agreement would be
beneficial in carrying out section 7.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $200,000 to carry out subsection (c); and
(2) $3,900,000 to carry out subsection (d).
____________________
[[Page 20953]]
CONVEYANCE OF JOE ROWELL PARK
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1972) to direct the
Secretary of
Agriculture to convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, the current
site of Joe Rowell Park, which had been reported from the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, with amendments as follows:
(Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part
printed in italic.)
S. 1972
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF JOE ROWELL PARK.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall convey
to the town of Dolores, Colorado, for no consideration, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcel of real property described in subsection (b), for open
space, park, and recreational purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--
(1) In general.--The property referred to in subsection (a)
is a parcel of approximately 25 acres of land comprising the
site of the Joe Rowell Park (including all improvements on
the land and equipment and other items of personal property
as agreed to by the Secretary) [in section 16 (Map 1),
township 37 north, range 15 west, NMPM, Dolores, Colorado.]
depicted on the map entitled ``Joe Rowell Park,'' dated July
12, 2000.
(2) Survey.--
(A) In general.--The exact acreage and legal description of
the property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
(B) Cost.--As a condition of any conveyance under this
section, the town of Dolores shall pay the cost of the
survey.
(c) Possibility of Reverter.--Title to any real property
acquired by the town of Dolores, Colorado, under this section
shall revert to the United States if the town--
(1) attempts to convey or otherwise transfer ownership of
any portion of the property to any other person;
(2) attempts to encumber the title of the property; or
(3) permits the use of any portion of the property for any
purpose incompatible with the purpose described in subsection
(a) for which the property is conveyed.
(d) The map referenced in subsection (b)(1) shall be on
file for public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the
Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture in
Washington, DC.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 1972), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
____________________
COAL MARKET COMPETITION ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2300) to amend the
Mineral Leasing Act to increase the maximum acreage of Federal leases
for coal that may be held by an entity in any 1 State.
The bill (S. 2300) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2300
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Coal Market Competition Act
of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Federal land contains commercial deposits of coal, the
Nation's largest deposits of coal being located on Federal
land in Utah, Colorado, Montana, and the Powder River Basin
of Wyoming;
(2) coal is mined on Federal land through Federal coal
leases under the Act of February 25, 1920 (commonly known as
the ``Mineral Leasing Act'') (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.);
(3) the sub-bituminous coal from these mines is low in
sulfur, making it the cleanest burning coal for energy
production;
(4) the Mineral Leasing Act sets for each leasable mineral
a limitation on the amount of acreage of Federal leases any 1
producer may hold in any 1 State or nationally;
(5)(A) the present acreage limitation for Federal coal
leases has been in place since 1976;
(B) currently the coal lease acreage limit of 46,080 acres
per State is less than the per-State Federal lease acreage
limit for potash (96,000 acres) and oil and gas (246,080
acres);
(6) coal producers in Wyoming and Utah are operating mines
on Federal leaseholds that contain total acreage close to the
coal lease acreage ceiling;
(7) the same reasons that Congress cited in enacting
increases for State lease acreage caps applicable in the case
of other minerals--the advent of modern mine technology,
changes in industry economics, greater global competition,
and the need to conserve Federal resources--apply to coal;
(8) existing coal mines require additional lease acreage to
avoid premature closure, but those mines cannot relinquish
mined-out areas to lease new acreage because those areas are
subject to 10-year reclamation plans, and the reclaimed
acreage is counted against the State and national acreage
limits;
(9) to enable them to make long-term business decisions
affecting the type and amount of additional infrastructure
investments, coal producers need certainty that sufficient
acreage of leasable coal will be available for mining in the
future; and
(10) to maintain the vitality of the domestic coal industry
and ensure the continued flow of valuable revenues to the
Federal and State governments and of energy to the American
public from coal production on Federal land, the Mineral
Leasing Act should be amended to increase the acreage
limitation for Federal coal leases.
SEC. 3. COAL MINING ON FEDERAL LAND.
Section 27(a) of the Act of February 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C.
184(a)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)'' and all that follows through ``No
person'' and inserting ``(a) Coal Leases.--No person'';
(2) by striking ``forty-six thousand and eighty acres'' and
inserting ``75,000 acres''; and
(3) by striking ``one hundred thousand acres'' each place
it appears and inserting ``150,000 acres''.
____________________
THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2499) to extend the
deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in
the State of Pennsylvania.
The bill (S. 2499) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2499
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND REINSTATEMENT OF
LICENSE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission project numbered 7041, the Commission shall, at
the request of the licensee for the project, extend the
period required for commencement of construction of the
project until December 31, 2001.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) takes effect on the
expiration of the period required for commencement of
construction of the project described in subsection (a).
(c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the license for
the project described in subsection (a) has expired before
the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
reinstate the license effective as of the date of its
expiration and extend the time required for commencement of
construction as provided in subsection (a).
____________________
SAINT HELENA ISLAND NATIONAL SCENIC AREA ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 468) to establish the
Saint Helena Island National Scenic Area which had been reported from
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with an amendment as
follows:
(Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part printed in
italic)
H.R. 468
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 ``Saint Helena Island National
Scenic Area Act''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SAINT HELENA ISLAND NATIONAL SCENIC
AREA, MICHIGAN.
(a) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to preserve and protect for present and future
generations the outstanding resources and values of Saint
Helena Island in Lake Michigan, Michigan; and
(2) to provide for the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of primitive recreation opportunities, fish and
wildlife habitat, vegetation, and historical and cultural
resources of the island.
(b) Establishment.--For the purposes described in
subsection (a), there shall be established the Saint Helena
Island National Scenic Area (in this Act referred to as the
``scenic area'').
(c) Effective Upon Conveyance.--Subsection (b) shall be
effective upon conveyance of satisfactory title to the United
States of the whole of Saint Helena Island, except that
portion conveyed to the Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers
Association pursuant to section 1001 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-324; 110 Stat.
3948).
SEC. 3. BOUNDARIES.
(a) Saint Helena Island.--The scenic area shall comprise
all of Saint Helena Island, in Lake Michigan, Michigan, and
all associated rocks, pinnacles, islands, and islets within
[[Page 20954]]
one-eighth mile of the shore of Saint Helena Island.
(b) Boundaries of Hiawatha National Forest Extended.--Upon
establishment of the scenic area, the boundaries of the
Hiawatha National Forest shall be extended to include all of
the lands within the scenic area. All such extended
boundaries shall be deemed boundaries in existence as of
January 1, 1965, for the purposes of section 8 of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9).
(c) Payments to Local Governments.--Solely for purposes of
payments to local governments pursuant to section 6902 of
title 31, United States Code, lands acquired by the United
States under this Act shall be treated as entitlement lands.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT.
(a) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Secretary of Agriculture (in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall administer the scenic area in accordance
with the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the
National Forest System in furtherance of the purposes of this
Act.
(b) Special Management Requirements.--[With-in 3 years of
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
seek to develop a management plan for the scenic area as an
amendment to the land and resources management plan for the
Hiawatha National Forest.] Within 3 years of the acquisition
of 50 percent of the land authorized for acquisition under
section 7, the Secretary shall develop an amendment to the
land and resources management plan for the Hiawatha National
Forest which will direct management of the scenic area. Such
an amendment shall conform to the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall require the Secretary to revise the
land and resource management plan for the Hiawatha National
Forest pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604). In
developing a plan for management of the scenic area, the
Secretary shall address the following special management
considerations:
(1) Public access.--Alternative means for providing public
access from the mainland to the scenic area shall be
considered, including any available existing services and
facilities, concessionaires, special use permits, or other
means of making public access available for the purposes of
this Act.
(2) Roads.--After the date of the enactment of this Act, no
new permanent roads shall be constructed within the scenic
area.
(3) Vegetation management.--No timber harvest shall be
allowed within the scenic area, except as may be necessary in
the control of fire, insects, and diseases, and to provide
for public safety and trail access. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Secretary may engage in vegetation
manipulation practices for maintenance of wildlife habitat
and visual quality. Trees cut for these purposes may be
utilized, salvaged, or removed from the scenic area as
authorized by the Secretary.
(4) Motorized travel.--Motorized travel shall not be
permitted within the scenic area, except on the waters of
Lake Michigan, and as necessary for administrative use in
furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
(5) Fire.--Wildfires shall be suppressed in a manner
consistent with the purposes of this Act, using such means as
the Secretary deems appropriate.
(6) Insects and disease.--Insect and disease outbreaks may
be controlled in the scenic area to maintain scenic quality,
prevent tree mortality, or to reduce hazards to visitors.
(7) Dockage.--The Secretary shall provide through
concession, permit, or other means docking facilities
consistent with the management plan developed pursuant to
this section.
(8) Safety.--The Secretary shall take reasonable actions to
provide for public health and safety and for the protection
of the scenic area in the event of fire or infestation of
insects or disease.
(c) Consultation.--In preparing the management plan, the
Secretary shall consult with appropriate State and local
government officials, provide for full public participation,
and consider the views of all interested parties,
organizations, and individuals.
SEC. 5. FISH AND GAME.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the
jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State of Michigan
with respect to fish and wildlife in the scenic area.
SEC. 6. MINERALS.
Subject to valid existing rights, the lands within the
scenic area are hereby withdrawn from disposition under all
laws pertaining to mineral leasing, including all laws
pertaining to geothermal leasing. Also subject to valid
existing rights, the Secretary shall not allow any mineral
development on federally owned land within the scenic area,
except that common varieties of mineral materials, such as
stone and gravel, may be utilized only as authorized by the
Secretary to the extent necessary for construction and
maintenance of roads and facilities within the scenic area.
SEC. 7. ACQUISITION.
(a) Acquisition of Lands Within the Scenic Area.--The
Secretary shall acquire, by purchase from willing sellers,
gift, or exchange, lands, waters, structures, or interests
therein, including scenic or other easements, within the
boundaries of the scenic area to further the purposes of this
Act.
(b) Acquisition of Other Lands.--The Secretary may acquire,
by purchase from willing sellers, gift, or exchange, not more
than 10 acres of land, including any improvements thereon, on
the mainland to provide access to and administrative
facilities for the scenic area.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Acquisition of Lands.--There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the
acquisition of land, interests in land, or structures within
the scenic area and on the mainland as provided in section 7.
(b) Other Purposes.--In addition to the amounts authorized
to be appropriated under subsection (a), there are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the
development and implementation of the management plan under
section 4(b).
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 468), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
IVANAPAH VALLEY AIRPORT PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 1695) to provide for
the conveyance of certain Federal public lands in the Ivanapah Valley,
Nevada, to Clark County, Nevada, and for the development of an airport
facility, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with amendments as follows:
(Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part printed in
italic)
S. 1695
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 ``Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Lands Transfer Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF LANDS TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the land use planning
requirements contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712 and
1713), but subject to subsection (b) of this section and
valid existing rights, the Secretary shall convey to the
County all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to the Federal public lands identified for disposition on
the map entitled ``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport
Selections'' numbered 01, and dated April 1999, for the
purpose of developing an airport facility and related
infrastructure. The Secretary shall keep such map on file and
available for public inspection in the offices of the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management and in the district
office of the Bureau located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
(b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall make no conveyance
under subsection (a) until each of the following conditions
are fulfilled:
(1) The County has conducted an airspace [assessment]
assessment, using the airspace management plan required by
section 4(a), to identify any potential adverse effects on
access to the Las Vegas Basin under visual flight rules that
would result from the construction and operation of a
commercial or primary airport, or both, on the land to be
conveyed.
(2) The Federal Aviation Administration has made a
certification under section 4(b).
(3) The County has entered into an agreement with the
Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport, located at
Jean, Nevada, and to maintain and operate such airport for
general aviation purposes.
(c) Payment.--
(1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of
each parcel, the County shall pay to the United States an
amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel.
[(2) Deposit in special account.--The Secretary shall
deposit the payments received under paragraph (1) in the
special account described in section 4(e)(1)(C) of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2345). The second sentence of section 4(f) of such Act (112
Stat. 2346) shall not apply to interest earned on amounts
deposited under this paragraph.]
(2) Deposit in special account.--(A) The Secretary shall
deposit the payments received under paragraph (1) into the
special account described in section 4(e)(1)(C) of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2345). Such funds may be expended only for the acquisition of
private inholdings in the Mojave National Preserve and for
the protection and management of the petroglyph resources in
Clark County, Nevada. The second sentence of section 4(f) of
such Act (112 Stat. 2346) shall not apply to interest earned
on amounts deposited under this paragraph.
(B) The Secretary may not expend funds pursuant to this
section until--
(i) the provisions of section 5 of this Act have been
completed; and
(ii) a final Record of Decision pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has
been issued which permits development of an airport at the
Ivanpah site.
[[Page 20955]]
[(d) Reversion and Reentry.--If, following completion of
compliance with section 5 of this Act, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the County determine that an airport
cannot be constructed on the conveyed lands--]
(d) Reversion and Reentry.--If, following completion of
compliance with section 5 of this Act and in accordance with
the findings made by the actions taken in compliance with
such section, the Federal Aviation Administration and the
County determine that an airport should not be constructed on
the conveyed lands--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately refund
to the County all payments made to the United States for such
lands under subsection (c); and
(2) upon such payment--
(A) all right, title, and interest in the lands conveyed to
the County under this Act shall revert to the United States;
and
(B) the Secretary may reenter such lands.
SEC. 3. MINERAL ENTRY FOR LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR CONVEYANCE.
The public lands referred to in section 2(a) are withdrawn
from mineral entry under the Act of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C.
22 et seq.; popularly known as the Mining Law of 1872) and
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
SEC. 4. ACTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
(a) Development of Airspace Management Plan.--The Secretary
of Transportation shall, in consultation with the
[Secretary,] Secretary, prior to the conveyance of the land
referred to in section 2(a), develop an airspace management
plan for the Ivanpah Valley Airport that shall, to the
maximum extent practicable and without adversely impacting
safety considerations, restrict aircraft arrivals and
departures over the Mojave Desert Preserve in California.
(b) Certification of Assessment.--The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall certify to the
Secretary that the assessment made by the County under
section 2(b)(1) is thorough and that alternatives have been
developed to address each adverse effect identified in the
assessment, including alternatives that ensure access to the
Las Vegas Basin under visual flight rules at a level that is
equal to or better than existing access.
SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF
1969 REQUIRED.
Prior to construction of an airport facility on lands
conveyed under section 2, all actions required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) with respect to initial planning and construction shall
be completed by the Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of the Interior as joint lead agencies. Any actions
conducted in accordance with this section shall specifically
address any impacts on the purposes for which the Mojave
National Preserve was created.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``County'' means Clark County, Nevada; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 1695), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1925) to promote
environmental restoration around Lake Tahoe basin, which had been
reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with an
amendment as follows:
(Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Lake Tahoe, one of the largest, deepest, and clearest
lakes in the world, has a cobalt blue color, a unique alpine
setting, and remarkable water clarity, and is recognized
nationally and worldwide as a natural resource of special
significance;
(2) in addition to being a scenic and ecological treasure,
Lake Tahoe is one of the outstanding recreational resources
of the United States, offering skiing, water sports, biking,
camping, and hiking to millions of visitors each year, and
contributing significantly to the economies of California,
Nevada, and the United States;
(3) the economy in the Lake Tahoe basin is dependent on the
protection and restoration of the natural beauty and
recreation opportunities in the area;
(4) Lake Tahoe is in the midst of an environmental crisis;
the Lake's water clarity has declined from a visibility level
of 105 feet in 1967 to only 70 feet in 1999, and scientific
estimates indicate that if the water quality at the Lake
continues to degrade, Lake Tahoe will lose its famous clarity
in only 30 years;
(5) sediment and algae-nourishing phosphorous and nitrogen
continue to flow into the Lake from a variety of sources,
including land erosion, fertilizers, air pollution, urban
runoff, highway drainage, streamside erosion, land
disturbance, and ground water flow;
(6) methyl tertiary butyl ether--
(A) has contaminated and closed more than \1/3\ of the
wells in South Tahoe; and
(B) is advancing on the Lake at a rate of approximately 9
feet per day;
(7) destruction of wetlands, wet meadows, and stream zone
habitat has compromised the Lake's ability to cleanse itself
of pollutants;
(8) approximately 40 percent of the trees in the Lake Tahoe
basin are either dead or dying, and the increased quantity of
combustible forest fuels has significantly increased the risk
of catastrophic forest fire in the Lake Tahoe basin;
(9) as the largest land manager in the Lake Tahoe basin,
with 77 percent of the land, the Federal Government has a
unique responsibility for restoring environmental health to
Lake Tahoe;
(10) the Federal Government has a long history of
environmental preservation at Lake Tahoe, including--
(A) congressional consent to the establishment of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency in 1969 (Public Law 91-148; 83 Stat.
360) and in 1980 (Public Law 96-551; 94 Stat. 3233);
(B) the establishment of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit in 1973; and
(C) the enactment of Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381) in
1980 to provide for the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive land and erosion control grants;
(11) the President renewed the Federal Government's
commitment to Lake Tahoe in 1997 at the Lake Tahoe
Presidential Forum, when he committed to increased Federal
resources for environmental restoration at Lake Tahoe and
established the Federal Interagency Partnership and Federal
Advisory Committee to consult on natural resources issues
concerning the Lake Tahoe basin;
(12) the States of California and Nevada have contributed
proportionally to the effort to protect and restore Lake
Tahoe, including--
(A) expenditures--
(i) exceeding $200,000,000 by the State of California since
1980 for land acquisition, erosion control, and other
environmental projects in the Lake Tahoe basin; and
(ii) exceeding $30,000,000 by the State of Nevada since
1980 for the purposes described in clause (i); and
(B) the approval of a bond issue by voters in the State of
Nevada authorizing the expenditure by the State of an
additional $20,000,000; and
(13) significant additional investment from Federal, State,
local, and private sources is needed to stop the damage to
Lake Tahoe and its forests, and restore the Lake Tahoe basin
to ecological health.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to enable the Forest Service to plan and implement
significant new environmental restoration activities and
forest management activities to address the phenomena
described in paragraphs (4) through (8) of subsection (a) in
the Lake Tahoe basin;
(2) to ensure that Federal, State, local, regional, tribal,
and private entities continue to work together to improve
water quality and manage Federal land in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit; and
(3) to provide funding to local governments for erosion and
sediment control projects on non-Federal land if the projects
benefit the Federal land.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Environmental threshold carrying capacity.--The term
``environmental threshold carrying capacity'' has the meaning
given the term in article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning
Compact set forth in the first section of Public Law 96-551
(94 Stat. 3235).
(2) Fire risk reduction activity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``fire risk reduction activity''
means an activity that is necessary to reduce the risk of
wildlife to promote forest management and simultaneously
achieve and maintain the environmental threshold carrying
capacities established by the Planning Agency in a manner
consistent, where applicable, with chapter 71 of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances.
(B) Included activities.--The term ``fire risk reduction
activity'' includes--
(i) prescribed burning;
(ii) mechanical treatment;
(iii) road obliteration or reconstruction; and
(iv) such other activities consistent with Forest Service
practices as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(3) Planning agency.--The term ``Planning Agency'' means
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency established under Public
Law 91-148 (83 Stat. 360) and Public Law 96-551 (94 Stat.
3233).
(4) Priority list.--The term ``priority list'' means the
environmental restoration priority list developed under
section 6.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT
UNIT.
(a) In General.--The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit shall
be administered by the Secretary in accordance with this Act
and the laws applicable to the National Forest System.
(b) Relationship to Other Authority.--
(1) Private or non-federal land.--Nothing in this Act
grants regulatory authority to the Secretary over private or
other non-Federal land.
[[Page 20956]]
(2) Planning agency.--Nothing in this Act affects or
increases the authority of the Planning Agency.
(3) Acquisition under other law.--Nothing in this Act
affects the authority of the Secretary to acquire land from
willing sellers in the Lake Tahoe basin under any other law.
SEC. 5. CONSULTATION WITH PLANNING AGENCY AND OTHER ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--With respect to the duties described in
subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with and seek the
advice and recommendations of--
(1) the Planning Agency;
(2) the Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership established
by Executive Order No. 13057 (62 Fed. Reg. 41249) or a
successor Executive order;
(3) the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee
established by the Secretary on December 15, 1998 (64 Fed.
Reg. 2876) (until the committee is terminated);
(4) Federal representatives and all political subdivisions
of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; and
(5) the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality
Coalition.
(b) Duties.--The Secretary shall consult with and seek
advice and recommendations from the entities described in
subsection (a) with respect to--
(1) the administration of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit;
(2) the development of the priority list;
(3) the promotion of consistent policies and strategies to
address the Lake Tahoe basin's environmental and recreational
concerns;
(4) the coordination of the various programs, projects, and
activities relating to the environment and recreation in the
Lake Tahoe basin to avoid unnecessary duplication and
inefficiencies of Federal, State, local, tribal, and private
efforts; and
(5) the coordination of scientific resources and data, for
the purpose of obtaining the best available science as a
basis for decisionmaking on an ongoing basis.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PRIORITY LIST.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a priority
list of potential or proposed environmental restoration
projects for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
(b) Development of Priority List.--In developing the
priority list, the Secretary shall--
(1) use the best available science, including any relevant
findings and recommendations of the watershed assessment
conducted by the Forest Service in the Lake Tahoe basin; and
(2) include, in order of priority, potential or proposed
environmental restoration projects in the Lake Tahoe basin
that--
(A) are included in or are consistent with the
environmental improvement program adopted by the Planning
Agency in February 1998 and amendments to the program;
(B) would help to achieve and maintain the environmental
threshold carrying capacities for--
(i) air quality;
(ii) fisheries;
(iii) noise;
(iv) recreation;
(v) scenic resources;
(vi) soil conservation;
(vii) forest health;
(viii) water quality; and
(ix) wildlife;
(3) in determining the order of priority of potential and
proposed environmental restoration projects under paragraph
(2), the focus shall address projects (listed in no
particular order) involving--
(A) erosion and sediment control, including the activities
described in section 2(g) of Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat.
3381) (as amended by section 7 of this Act);
(B) the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land from
willing sellers under Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381) or
land acquisition under any other Federal law;
(C) fire risk reduction activities in urban areas and
urban-wildland interface areas, including high recreational
use areas and urban lots acquired from willing sellers under
Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381);
(D) cleaning up methyl tertiary butyl ether contamination;
and
(E) the management of vehicular parking and traffic in the
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, especially--
(i) improvement of public access to the Lake Tahoe basin,
including the promotion of alternatives to the private
automobile;
(ii) the Highway 28 and 89 corridors and parking problems
in the area; and
(iii) cooperation with local public transportation systems,
including--
(I) the Coordinated Transit System; and
(II) public transit systems on the north shore of Lake
Tahoe.
(c) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall provide for continuous
scientific research on and monitoring of the implementation
of projects on the priority list, including the status of the
achievement and maintenance of environmental threshold
carrying capacities.
(d) Consistency With Memorandum of Understanding.--A
project on the priority list shall be conducted in accordance
with the memorandum of understanding signed by the Forest
Supervisor and the Planning Agency on November 10, 1989,
including any amendments to the memorandum as long as the
memorandum remains in effect.
(e) Review of Priority List.--Periodically, but not less
often than every 3 years, the Secretary shall--
(1) review the priority list;
(2) consult with--
(A) the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency;
(B) interested political subdivisions; and
(C) the Lake Tahoe Water Quality and Transportation
Coalition; and
(3) make any necessary changes with respect to--
(A) the findings of scientific research and monitoring in
the Lake Tahoe basin;
(B) any change in an environmental threshold as determined
by the Planning Agency;
(C) any change in general environmental conditions in the
Lake Tahoe basin; and
(D) submit to Congress a report on any changes made.
(f) Cleanup of Hydrocarbon Contamination.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, make a payment of $1,000,000
to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the South Tahoe
Public Utility District to develop and publish a plan, not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
for the prevention and cleanup of hydrocarbon contamination
(including contamination with MTBE) of the surface water and
ground water of the Lake Tahoe basin.
(2) Consultation.--In developing the plan, the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency and the South Tahoe Public Utility
District shall consult with the States of California and
Nevada and appropriate political subdivisions.
(3) Willing sellers.--The plan shall not include any
acquisition of land or an interest in land except an
acquisition from a willing seller.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, for the implementation of projects on the
priority list and the payment identified in subsection (f),
$20,000,000 for the first fiscal year that begins after the
date of enactment of this Act and for each of the 9 fiscal
years thereafter.
SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PAYMENTS.
Section 2 of Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381) is amended
by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Payments to Localities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall,
subject to the availability of appropriations, make annual
payments to the governing bodies of each of the political
subdivisions (including any public utility the service area
of which includes any part of the Lake Tahoe basin), any
portion of which is located in the area depicted on the final
map filed under section 3(a).
``(2) Use of payments.--Payments under this subsection may
be used--
``(A) first, for erosion control and water quality
projects; and
``(B) second, unless emergency projects arise, for projects
to address other threshold categories after thresholds for
water quality and soil conservation have been achieved and
maintained.
``(3) Eligibility for payments.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible for a payment under this
subsection, a political subdivision shall annually submit a
priority list of proposed projects to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
``(B) Components of list.--A priority list under
subparagraph (A) shall include, for each proposed project
listed--
``(i) a description of the need for the project;
``(ii) all projected costs and benefits; and
``(iii) a detailed budget.
``(C) Use of payments.--A payment under this subsection
shall be used only to carry out a project or proposed project
that is part of the environmental improvement program adopted
by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in February 1998 and
amendments to the program.
``(D) Federal obligation.--All projects funded under this
subsection shall be part of Federal obligation under the
enviromental improvment program.
``(4) Division of funds.--
``(A) In general.--The total amounts appropriated for
payments under this subsection shall be allocated by the
Secretary of Agriculture based on the relative need for and
merits of projects proposed for payment under this section.
``(B) Minimum.--To the maximum extent practicable, for each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that
each political subdivision in the Lake Tahoe basin receives
amounts appropriated for payments under this subsection.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to the
amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 6
of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, there is authorized to be
appropriated for making payments under this subsection
$10,000,000 for the first fiscal year that begins after the
date of enactment of this paragraph and for each of the 9
fiscal years thereafter.''.
SEC. 8. FIRE RISK REDUCTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--In conducting fire risk reduction
activities in the Lake Tahoe basin, the Secretary shall, as
appropriate, coordinate with State and local agencies and
organizations, including local fire departments and volunteer
groups.
(b) Ground Disturbance.--The Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize any ground disturbances
caused by fire risk reduction activities.
SEC. 9. AVAILABILITY AND SOURCE OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Funds authorized under this Act and the
amendment made by this Act--
[[Page 20957]]
(1) shall be in addition to any other amounts available to
the Secretary for expenditure in the Lake Tahoe basin; and
(2) shall not reduce allocations for other Regions of the
Forest Service.
(b) Matching Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection
(c), funds for activities under section 6 and section 7 of
this Act shall be available for obligation on a 1-to-1 basis
with funding of restoration activities in the Lake Tahoe
basin by the States of California and Nevada.
(c) Relocation Costs.--The Secretary shall provide \2/3\ of
necessary funding to local utility districts for the costs of
relocating facilities in connection with environmental
restoration projects under section 6 and erosion control
projects under section 2 of Public Law 96-586.
SEC. 10. AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 96-586.
Section 3(a) of Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3383) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Willing sellers.--Land within the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit subject to acquisition under this section
that is owned by a private person shall be acquired only from
a willing seller.''.
SEC. 11. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.
Nothing in this Act exempts the Secretary from the duty to
comply with any applicable Federal law.
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1925), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND IN POWELL, WYOMING
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2069) to permit the
conveyance of certain land in Powell, Wyoming, which had been reported
from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill (S. 2069) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2069
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE CONDITION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the parcel of land described in subsection (c) was
patented to the town (now City) of Powell, Wyoming, by the
United States General Land Office on October 17, 1934, to
help establish a town near the Shoshone Irrigation Project;
(2) the land was patented with the condition that it be
used forever for a public purpose, as required by section 3
of the Act of April 16, 1906 (43 U.S.C. 566);
(3) the land has been used to house the Powell Volunteer
Fire Department, which serves the firefighting and rescue
needs of a 577 square mile area in northwestern Wyoming;
(4) the land is located at the corner of U.S. Highway 14
and the main street of the business district of the City;
(5) because of the high traffic flow in the area, the
location is no longer safe for the public or for the fire
department;
(6) in response to population growth in the area and to
National Fire Protection Association regulations, the fire
department has purchased new firefighting equipment that is
much larger than the existing fire hall can accommodate;
(7) accordingly, the fire department must construct a new
fire department facility at a new and safe location;
(8) in order to relocate and construct a new facility, the
City must sell the land to assist in financing the new fire
department facility; and
(9) the Secretary of the Interior concurs that it is in the
public interest to eliminate the public purpose condition to
enable the land to be sold for that purpose.
(b) Elimination of Condition.--
(1) Waiver.--The condition stated in section 3 of the Act
of April 16, 1906 (43 U.S.C. 566), that land conveyed under
that Act be used forever for a public purpose is waived
insofar as the condition applies to the land described in
subsection (c).
(2) Instruments.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
execute and cause to be recorded in the appropriate land
records any instruments necessary to evidence the waiver made
by paragraph (1).
(c) Land Description.--The parcel of land described in this
subsection is a parcel of land located in Powell, Park
County, Wyoming, the legal description of which is as
follows:
Lot 23, Block 54, in the original town of Powell, according
to the plat recorded in Book 82 of plats, Page 252, according
to the records of the County Clerk and Recorder of Park
County, State of Wyoming.
____________________
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 3632) to revise the
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and for other
purposes.
The bill (H.R. 3632) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION
IMPROVEMENT ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 4226) to authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange all or part of certain
administrative sites and other land in the Black Hills National Forest
and to to use funds derived from the sale or exchange to acquire
replacement sites and to acquire or construct administrative
improvements in connection with the Black Hills National Forest.
The bill (H.R. 4226) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 4613) to amend the
National Historic Preservation Act for purposes of establishing a
national lighthouse preservation program.
The bill (H.R. 4613) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT ADDITIONS ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 3745) to authorize
the addition of certain parcels to the Effigy Mounds National Monument,
Iowa.
The bill (H.R. 3745) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2942) to extend the
deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric
projects in the State of West Virginia.
The bill (S. 2942) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2942
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission projects numbered 6901, 6902, and 7307, the
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for each
project, respectively, and after reasonable notice, in
accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public
interest requirements of that section and the Commission's
procedures under that section, extend the time period during
which the licensee is required to commence the construction
of the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) takes effect on the
date of the expiration of the extension issued by the
Commission before the date of the enactment of this Act under
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
(c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period
required for commencement of construction of any of the
projects described in subsection (a) expired before the date
of the enactment of this Act--
(1) the Commission shall reinstate the license effective as
of the date of its expiration; and
(2) the first extension authorized under subsection (a)
shall take effect on the expiration date.
____________________
LAND EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE DIRECTOR OF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 3000) to authorize the
exchange of land between the Secretary of the Interior and the Director
of Central Intelligence at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in
McLean, Virginia, and for other purposes, which had been reported from
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with
[[Page 20958]]
an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
part printed in italic.
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF LAND EXCHANGE.
(a) In General.--Subject to section 2, the Secretary of the
Interior (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') and
the Director of Central Intelligence (referred to in this Act
as the ``Director'') may exchange--
(1) approximately 1.74 acres of land under the jurisdiction
of the Department of the Interior within the boundary of the
George Washington Memorial Parkway, as depicted on National
Park Service Drawing No. 850/81992, dated August 6, 1998; for
(2) approximately 2.92 acres of land under the jurisdiction
of the Central Intelligence Agency adjacent to the boundary
of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, as depicted on
National Park Service Drawing No. 850/81991, sheet 1, dated
August 6, 1998.
(b) Public Inspection.--The drawings referred to in
subsection (a) shall be available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF LANDS EXCHANGE
(a) No Reimbursement or Consideration.--The exchange
described in section 1 shall occur without reimbursement or
consideration.
(b) Public Access for Motor Vehicle Turn-Around.--The
Director shall allow public access to the land described in
section 1(a)(1) for a motor vehicle turn-around on the George
Washington Memorial Parkway.
(c) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.--The Director
shall allow access to the land described in section 19(a)(1)
by--
(1) employees of the Federal Highway Administration; and
(2) other Federal employees and visitors whose admission to
the Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center of the Federal
Highway Administration (hereinafter referred to in this Act
as the ``Center'') is authorized by the Center.
(d) Closure to Protect Central Intelligence Agency.--
(1) In General.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and
notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Director may close access to the land described in section
1(a)(1) to all persons (other than the United States Park
Police, other necessary employees of the National Park
Service, and employees of the Federal Highway Administration)
if the Director determines that physical security conditions
require the closure to protect employees or property of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
(2) Time limitation.--The Director may not close access to
the land under paragraph (1) for more than 12 hours during
any 24-hour period unless the Director consults with the
National Park Service, the Center, and the United States Park
Police.
(3) Turner-fairbank highway research center.--No action
shall be taken under this subsection to diminish access to
the land described in section 1(a)(1) by employees of the
Federal Highway Administration except when the action is
taken for security reasons.
(e) Deed Restrictions.--The Director shall ensure
compliance by the Central Intelligence Agency with the deed
restrictions that apply to the land described in section
1(a)(1).
(f) Interagency Agreement.--The Secretary and the Director
shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Interagency
Agreement between the National Park Service and the Central
Intelligence Agency, signed in 1998, regarding the exchange
and management of the land subject to the Agreement.
(g) Deadline.--The Secretary and the Director shall
complete the exchange authorized by this section not later
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF EXCHANGED LANDS.
(a) Land Conveyed to Secretary.--Any land described in
section 1(a)(2) that is conveyed to the Secretary shall be--
(1) included within the boundary of the George Washington
Memorial Parkway; and
(2) administered by the National Park Service as part of
the Parkway, subject to the laws (including regulations)
applicable to the Parkway.
(b) Land Conveyed to Director.--Any land described in
section 1(a)(1) that is conveyed to the Director shall be
administered as part of the Headquarters Building Compound of
the Central Intelligence Agency.''.
____________________
CALIFORNIA TRAIL INTERPRETIVE ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2749) to Establish the
California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, to facilitate the
interpretation of the history of development and use of trails in the
setting of the western portion of the United States.
The bill (S. 2749) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2749
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 ``California Trail
Interpretive Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the nineteenth century westward movement in the United
States over the California National Historic Trail, which
occurred from 1840 until the completion of the
transcontinental railroad in 1869, was an important cultural
and historical event in--
(A) the development of the western land of the United
States; and
(B) the prevention of colonization of the west coast by
Russia and the British Empire;
(2) the movement over the California Trail was completed by
over 300,000 settlers, many of whom left records or stories
of their journeys; and
(3) additional recognition and interpretation of the
movement over the California Trail is appropriate in light
of--
(A) the national scope of nineteenth century westward
movement in the United States; and
(B) the strong interest expressed by people of the United
States in understanding their history and heritage.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize the California Trail, including the
Hastings Cutoff and the trail of the ill-fated Donner-Reed
Party, for its national, historical, and cultural
significance; and
(2) to provide the public with an interpretive facility
devoted to the vital role of trails in the West in the
development of the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) California trail.--The term ``California Trail'' means
the California National Historic Trail, established under
section 5(a)(18) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(18)).
(2) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the California Trail
Interpretive Center established under section 4(a).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Nevada.
SEC. 4. CALIFORNIA TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--In furtherance of the purposes of section
7(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1246(c)),
the Secretary may establish an interpretation center to be
known as the ``California Trail Interpretive Center'', near
the city of Elko, Nevada.
(2) Purpose.--The Center shall be established for the
purpose of interpreting the history of development and use of
the California Trail in the settling of the West.
(b) Master Plan Study.--To carry out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) consider the findings of the master plan study for the
California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, as
authorized by page 15 of Senate Report 106-99; and
(2) initiate a plan for the development of the Center that
includes--
(A) a detailed description of the design of the Center;
(B) a description of the site on which the Center is to be
located;
(C) a description of the method and estimated cost of
acquisition of the site on which the Center is to be located;
(D) the estimated cost of construction of the Center;
(E) the cost of operation and maintenance of the Center;
and
(F) a description of the manner and extent to which non-
Federal entities shall participate in the acquisition and
construction of the Center.
(c) Implementation.--To carry out subsection (a), the
Secretary may--
(1) acquire land and interests in land for the construction
of the Center by--
(A) donation;
(B) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(C) exchange;
(2) provide for local review of and input concerning the
development and operation of the Center by the Advisory Board
for the National Historic California Emigrant Trails
Interpretive Center of the city of Elko, Nevada;
(3) periodically prepare a budget and funding request that
allows a Federal agency to carry out the maintenance and
operation of the Center;
(4) enter into a cooperative agreement with--
(A) the State, to provide assistance in--
(i) removal of snow from roads;
(ii) rescue, firefighting, and law enforcement services;
and
(iii) coordination of activities of nearby law enforcement
and firefighting departments or agencies; and
(B) a Federal, State, or local agency to develop or operate
facilities and services to carry out this Act; and
(5) notwithstanding any other provision of law, accept
donations of funds, property, or services from an individual,
foundation, corporation, or public entity to provide a
service or facility that is consistent with this Act, as
determined by the Secretary, including 1-time contributions
for the Center (to be payable during construction funding
periods for the Center after the date of enactment of this
Act) from--
(A) the State, in the amount of $3,000,000;
(B) Elko County, Nevada, in the amount of $1,000,000; and
(C) the city of Elko, Nevada, in the amount of $2,000,000.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $12,000,000.
____________________
[[Page 20959]]
VIRGINIA WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2865) to designate
certain land of the National Forest System located in the State of
Virginia as wilderness.
The bill (S. 2865) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2865
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 ``Virginia Wilderness Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS.
Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to designate certain
National Forest System lands in the States of Virginia and
West Virginia as wilderness areas'' (Public Law 100-326; 102
Stat. 584) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) certain land in the George Washington National
Forest, comprising approximately 6,500 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled `The Priest Wilderness Study
Area', dated June 6, 2000, to be known as the `Priest
Wilderness Area'; and
``(8) certain land in the George Washington National
Forest, comprising approximately 4,800 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled `The Three Ridges Wilderness Study
Area', dated June 6, 2000, to be known as the `Three Ridges
Wilderness Area.''.
____________________
TEXAS NATIONAL FORESTS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 4285) to authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain administrative sites for
National Forest System Lands in the State of Texas, to convey certain
National Forest System land to the New Waverly Gulf Coast Trades
Center, and for other purposes.
The bill (H.R. 4285) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
TRANSFER AND OTHER DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN LANDS AT MELROSE AIR FORCE
RANGE, NEW MEXICO, AND YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER, WASHINGTON
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2757) to provide for
the transfer and other disposition of certain lands at Melrose Air
Force Range, New Mexico, and Yakima Training Center, Washington, which
had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
with amendments as follows:
(Omit the parts in black brackets and insert the part printed in
italic)
S. 2757
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL, MELROSE AIR FORCE
RANGE, NEW MEXICO, AND YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Melrose Air Force Range, New Mexico.--
(1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface
estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Air Force:
New Mexico [prime] principal Meridian
T. 1 N., R. 30 E.
Sec. 2: S\1/2\.
Sec. 11: All.
Sec. 20: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 28: All.
T. 1 S., R. 30 E.
Sec. 2: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 3: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 4: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 6: Lots 1 and 2.
Sec. 9: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
Sec. 10: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
Sec. 11: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
T. 2 N., R. 30 E.
Sec. 20: E\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 21: SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 28: W\1/2\E\1/2\, W\1/2\.
Sec. 29: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
Sec. 32: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
Sec. 33: W\1/2\E\1/2\, NW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\.
Aggregating 6,713.90 acres, more or less.
(2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface
estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface
estate shall be treated as real property subject to the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
(3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid
existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in
paragraph (1) is withdrawn from all forms of appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws and the
mineral and geothermal leasing laws, but not the Act of July
31, 1947 (commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947; 30
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
(4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the
Secretary of the Air Force may use, without application to
the Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar
mineral material resources on the lands described in
paragraph (1), of the type subject to disposition under the
Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such resources is
required for construction needs on Melrose Air Force Range,
New Mexico.
(b) Yakima Training Center, Washington.--
(1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface
estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army:
Willamette Meridian
T. 17 N., R. 20 E.
Sec. 22: S\1/2\.
Sec. 24: S\1/2\SW\1/4\ and that portion of the E\1/2\ lying
south of the Interstate Highway 90 right-of-way.
Sec. 26: All.
T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 4: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\.
Sec. 12: [SW\1/4\.] SE\1/4\.
Sec. 18: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E\1/2\ and E\1/2\W\1/2\.
T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 30: Lots 3 and 4.
Sec. 32: NE\1/4\SE\1/4\.
T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
Sec. 2: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
Sec. 10: All.
Sec. 14: All.
Sec. 20: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\.
Sec. 22: All.
Sec. 26: N\1/2\.
Sec. 28: N\1/2\.
T. 16 N., R. 23 E.
Sec. 18: Lots 3 and 4, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, and
that portion of the E\1/2\SE\1/4\ lying westerly of the
westerly right-of-way line of Huntzinger Road.
Sec. 20: That portion of the SW\1/4\ lying westerly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad.
Sec. 30: Lots 1 and 2, NE\1/4\ and E\1/2\NW\1/4\.
Aggregating 6,640.02 acres.
(2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface
estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface
estate shall be treated as real property subject to the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C 471 et seq.).
(3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid
existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in
paragraph (1) and of the following lands are withdrawn from
all forms of appropriation under the public land laws,
including the mining laws and the geothermal leasing laws,
but not the Act of July 31, 1947 (commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947; 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.):
Willamette Meridian
T. 16 N., R. 20 E.
Sec. 12: All.
Sec. 18: Lot 4 and SE\1/4\.
Sec. 20: S\1/2\.
T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\NE\1/2\.
Sec. 8: All.
T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
Sec. 12: All.
T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 32: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 34: W\1/2\.
Aggregating 3,090.80 acres.
(4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the
Secretary of the Army may use, without application to the
Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar
mineral material resources on the lands described in
paragraphs (1) and (3), of the type subject to disposition
under the Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such
resources is required for construction needs on the Yakima
Training Center, Washington.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 2757), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2757
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL, MELROSE AIR FORCE
RANGE, NEW MEXICO, AND YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Melrose Air Force Range, New Mexico.--
(1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface
estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Air Force:
[[Page 20960]]
New Mexico Principal Meridian
T. 1 N., R. 30 E.
Sec. 2: S\1/2\.
Sec. 11: All.
Sec. 20: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 28: All.
T. 1 S., R. 30 E.
Sec. 2: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 3: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 4: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
Sec. 6: Lots 1 and 2.
Sec. 9: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
Sec. 10: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
Sec. 11: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
T. 2 N., R. 30 E.
Sec. 20: E\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 21: SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 28: W\1/2\E\1/2\, W\1/2\.
Sec. 29: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
Sec. 32: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
Sec. 33: W\1/2\E\1/2\, NW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\.
Aggregating 6,713.90 acres, more or less.
(2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface
estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface
estate shall be treated as real property subject to the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
(3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid
existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in
paragraph (1) is withdrawn from all forms of appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws and the
mineral and geothermal leasing laws, but not the Act of July
31, 1947 (commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947; 30
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
(4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the
Secretary of the Air Force may use, without application to
the Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar
mineral material resources on the lands described in
paragraph (1), of the type subject to disposition under the
Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such resources is
required for construction needs on Melrose Air Force Range,
New Mexico.
(b) Yakima Training Center, Washington.--
(1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface
estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army:
Willamette Meridian
T. 17 N., R. 20 E.
Sec. 22: S\1/2\.
Sec. 24: S\1/2\SW\1/4\ and that portion of the E\1/2\ lying
south of the Interstate Highway 90 right-of-way.
Sec. 26: All.
T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 4: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\.
Sec. 12: SE\1/4\.
Sec. 18: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E\1/2\ and E\1/2\W\1/2\.
T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 30: Lots 3 and 4.
Sec. 32: NE\1/4\SE\1/4\.
T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
Sec. 2: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
Sec. 10: All.
Sec. 14: All.
Sec. 20: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\.
Sec. 22: All.
Sec. 26: N\1/2\.
Sec. 28: N\1/2\.
T. 16 N., R. 23 E.
Sec. 18: Lots 3 and 4, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, and
that portion of the E\1/2\SE\1/4\ lying westerly of the
westerly right-of-way line of Huntzinger Road.
Sec. 20: That portion of the SW\1/4\ lying westerly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad.
Sec. 30: Lots 1 and 2, NE\1/4\ and E\1/2\NW\1/4\.
Aggregating 6,640.02 acres.
(2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface
estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface
estate shall be treated as real property subject to the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C 471 et seq.).
(3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid
existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in
paragraph (1) and of the following lands are withdrawn from
all forms of appropriation under the public land laws,
including the mining laws and the geothermal leasing laws,
but not the Act of July 31, 1947 (commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947; 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.):
Willamette Meridian
T. 16 N., R. 20 E.
Sec. 12: All.
Sec. 18: Lot 4 and SE\1/4\.
Sec. 20: S\1/2\.
T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\NE\1/2\.
Sec. 8: All.
T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
Sec. 12: All.
T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
Sec. 32: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
Sec. 34: W\1/2\.
Aggregating 3,090.80 acres.
(4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the
Secretary of the Army may use, without application to the
Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar
mineral material resources on the lands described in
paragraphs (1) and (3), of the type subject to disposition
under the Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such
resources is required for construction needs on the Yakima
Training Center, Washington.
____________________
INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MUSEUM, DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE, HEMET, CALIFORNIA
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2977) to assist the
establishment of an interpretive center and museum in the vicinity of
the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to ensure the protection
and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made at the lake and
to develop a trail system for the lake for use by pedestrians and
nonmotorized vehicles.
The bill (S. 2977) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2977
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MUSEUM, DIAMOND VALLEY
LAKE, HEMET, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Assistant for Establishment of Center and Museum.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall enter into an agreement with
an appropriate entity for the purpose of sharing costs
incurred to design, construct, furnish, and operate an
interpretive center and museum, to be located on lands under
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, intended to preserve, display, and
interpret the paleontology discoveries made at and in the
vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake, near Hemet, California,
and to promote other historical and cultural resources of the
area.
(b) Assistance for Nonmotorized Trails.--The Secretary
shall enter into an agreement with the State of California, a
political subdivision of the State, or a combination of State
and local public agencies for the purpose of sharing costs
incurred to design, construct, and maintain a system of
trails around the perimeter of the Diamond Valley Lake for
use by pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles.
(c) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary shall require the
other parties to an agreement under this section to secure an
amount of funds from non-Federal sources that is at least
equal to the amount provided by the Secretary.
(d) Time for Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into the
agreements required by this section not later than 180 days
after the date on which funds are first made available to
carry out this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated not more than $14,000,000 to carry out
this section.
____________________
JAMESTOWN 400TH COMMEMORATION COMMISSION
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2885) to establish the
Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission, and for other purposes, which
has been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
with amendments as follows:
(Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part printed in
italic)
S. 2885
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 ``Jamestown 400th
Commemoration Commission Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the founding of the colony at Jamestown, Virginia in
1607, the first permanent English colony in the New World,
and the capital of Virginia for 92 years, has major
significance in the history of the United States;
(2) the settlement brought people from throughout the
Atlantic Basin together to form a multicultural society,
including English, other Europeans, Native Americans, and
Africans;
(3) the economic, political, religious, and social
institutions that developed during the first 9 decades of the
existence of Jamestown continue to have profound effects on
the United States, particularly in English common law and
language, cross cultural relationships, and economic
structure and status;
(4) the National Park Service, the Association for the
Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the Jamestown-
Yorktown Foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia
collectively own and operate significant resources related to
the early history of Jamestown; and
(5) in 1996--
(A) the Commonwealth of Virginia designated the Jamestown-
Yorktown Foundation as the State agency responsible for
[[Page 20961]]
planning and implementing the Commonwealth's portion of the
commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of the
Jamestown settlement;
(B) the Foundation created the Celebration 2007 Steering
Committee, known as the Jamestown 2007 Steering Committee;
and
(C) planning for the commemoration began.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish the
Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission to--
(1) ensure a suitable national observance of the Jamestown
2007 anniversary by complementing the programs and activities
of the [State] Commonwealth of Virginia;
(2) cooperate with and assist the programs and activities
of the State in observance of the Jamestown 2007 anniversary;
(3) assist in ensuring that Jamestown 2007 observances
provide an excellent visitor experience and beneficial
interaction between visitors and the natural and cultural
resources of the Jamestown sites;
(4) assist in ensuring that the Jamestown 2007 observances
are inclusive and appropriately recognize the experiences of
all people present in 17th century Jamestown;
(5) provide assistance to the development of Jamestown-
related programs and activities;
(6) facilitate international involvement in the Jamestown
2007 observances;
(7) support and facilitate marketing efforts for a
commemorative coin, stamp, and related activities for the
Jamestown 2007 observances; and
(8) assist in the appropriate development of heritage
tourism and economic benefits to the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commemoration.--The term ``commemoration'' means the
commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of the
Jamestown settlement.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission established by
section 4(a).
(3) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
[the State.] Virginia.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
[(5) State.--
[(A) In general.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Virginia.
[(B) Inclusions.--The term ``State'' includes agencies and
entities of the State.]
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including agencies and entities of the
Commonwealth.
SEC. 4. JAMESTOWN 400TH COMMEMORATION COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established a commission to be
known as the ``Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of [16
members,] 15 members, of whom--
(A) 4 members shall be appointed by the Secretary, taking
into consideration the recommendations of the Chairperson of
the Jamestown 2007 Steering Committee;
(B) 4 members shall be appointed by the Secretary, taking
into consideration the recommendations of the Governor;
(C) 2 members shall be employees of the National Park
Service, of which--
(i) 1 shall be the Director of the National Park Service
(or a designee); and
(ii) 1 shall be an employee of the National Park Service
having experience relevant to the commemoration, to be
appointed by the Secretary; and
(D) 5 members shall be individuals that have an interest
in, support for, and expertise appropriate to, the
commemoration, to be appointed by the Secretary.
(2) Term; vacancies.--
(A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed
for the life of the Commission.
(B) Vacancies.--
(i) In general.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be
filled in the same manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(ii) Partial term.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy on
the Commission shall serve for the remainder of the term for
which the predecessor of the member was appointed.
(3) Meetings.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall meet--
(i) at least twice each year; or
(ii) at the call of the Chairperson or the majority of the
members of the Commission.
(B) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(4) Voting.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall act only on an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
Commission.
(B) Quorum.--A majority of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum.
(5) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a Chairperson
of the Commission, taking into consideration any
recommendations of the Governor.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall--
(A) plan, develop, and execute programs and activities
appropriate to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the
founding of Jamestown;
(B) generally facilitate Jamestown-related activities
throughout the United States;
(C) encourage civic, patriotic, historical, educational,
religious, economic, and other organizations throughout the
United States to organize and participate in anniversary
activities to expand the understanding and appreciation of
the significance of the founding and early history of
Jamestown;
(D) coordinate and facilitate for the public scholarly
research on, publication about, and interpretation of,
Jamestown; and
(E) ensure that the 400th anniversary of Jamestown provides
a lasting legacy and long-term public benefit by assisting in
the development of appropriate programs and facilities.
(2) Plans; reports.--
(A) Strategic plan; annual performance plans.--In
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), the Commission shall
prepare a strategic plan and annual performance plans for the
activities of the Commission carried out under this Act.
(B) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2008, the
Commission shall complete a final report that contains--
(i) a summary of the activities of the Commission;
(ii) a final accounting of funds received and expended by
the Commission; and
(iii) the findings and recommendations of the Commission.
(d) Powers of the Commission.--The Commission may--
(1) accept donations and make dispersions of money,
personal services, and real and personal property related to
Jamestown and of the significance of Jamestown in the history
of the United States;
(2) appoint such advisory committees as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act;
(3) authorize any member or employee of the Commission to
take any action that the Commission is authorized to take by
this Act;
(4) procure supplies, services, and property, and make or
enter into contracts, leases or other legal agreements, to
carry out this Act (except that any contracts, leases or
other legal agreements made or entered into by the Commission
shall not extend beyond the date of termination of the
Commission);
(5) use the United States mails in the same manner and
under the same conditions as other Federal agencies;
(6) subject to approval by the Commission, make grants in
amounts not to exceed $10,000 to communities and nonprofit
organizations to develop programs to assist in the
commemoration;
(7) make grants to research and scholarly organizations to
research, publish, or distribute information relating to the
early history of Jamestown; and
(8) provide technical assistance to States, localities, and
nonprofit organizations to further the commemoration.
(e) Commission Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members of the commission.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
member of the Commission shall serve without compensation.
(B) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve
without compensation in addition to the compensation received
for the services of the member as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
(C) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(B) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(3) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of
the executive director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel shall not exceed the rate
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Detail of government employees.--
(A) Federal employees.--
(i) In general.--On the request of the Commission, the head
of any Federal agency may detail, on a reimbursable or non-
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of the
[[Page 20962]]
agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying
out the duties of the Commission under this Act.
(ii) Civil service status.--The detail of an employee under
clause (i) shall be without interruption or loss of civil
service status or privilege.
(B) State employees.--The Commission may--
(i) accept the services of personnel detailed from States
(including subdivisions of States); and
(ii) reimburse States for services of detailed personnel.
(5) Volunteer and uncompensated services.--Notwithstanding
section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Commission
may accept and use voluntary and uncompensated services as
the Commission determines necessary.
(6) Support services.--The Director of the National Park
Service shall provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable
basis, such administrative support services as the Commission
may request.
(f) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
(g) FACA Nonapplicability.--Section 14(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Commission.
(h) No Effect on Authority.--Nothing in this section
supersedes the authority of the State, the National Park
Service, or the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities, concerning the commemoration.
(i) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on
December 31, 2008.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 3000), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``To authorize the exchange of
land between the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of Central
Intelligence at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in McLean,
Virginia, and for other purposes.''
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 2885), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2885
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 ``Jamestown 400th
Commemoration Commission Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the founding of the colony at Jamestown, Virginia in
1607, the first permanent English colony in the New World,
and the capital of Virginia for 92 years, has major
significance in the history of the United States;
(2) the settlement brought people from throughout the
Atlantic Basin together to form a multicultural society,
including English, other Europeans, Native Americans, and
Africans;
(3) the economic, political, religious, and social
institutions that developed during the first 9 decades of the
existence of Jamestown continue to have profound effects on
the United States, particularly in English common law and
language, cross cultural relationships, and economic
structure and status;
(4) the National Park Service, the Association for the
Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the Jamestown-
Yorktown Foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia
collectively own and operate significant resources related to
the early history of Jamestown; and
(5) in 1996--
(A) the Commonwealth of Virginia designated the Jamestown-
Yorktown Foundation as the State agency responsible for
planning and implementing the Commonwealth's portion of the
commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of the
Jamestown settlement;
(B) the Foundation created the Celebration 2007 Steering
Committee, known as the Jamestown 2007 Steering Committee;
and
(C) planning for the commemoration began.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish the
Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission to--
(1) ensure a suitable national observance of the Jamestown
2007 anniversary by complementing the programs and activities
of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
(2) cooperate with and assist the programs and activities
of the State in observance of the Jamestown 2007 anniversary;
(3) assist in ensuring that Jamestown 2007 observances
provide an excellent visitor experience and beneficial
interaction between visitors and the natural and cultural
resources of the Jamestown sites;
(4) assist in ensuring that the Jamestown 2007 observances
are inclusive and appropriately recognize the experiences of
all people present in 17th century Jamestown;
(5) provide assistance to the development of Jamestown-
related programs and activities;
(6) facilitate international involvement in the Jamestown
2007 observances;
(7) support and facilitate marketing efforts for a
commemorative coin, stamp, and related activities for the
Jamestown 2007 observances; and
(8) assist in the appropriate development of heritage
tourism and economic benefits to the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commemoration.--The term ``commemoration'' means the
commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of the
Jamestown settlement.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission established by
section 4(a).
(3) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
Virginia.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including agencies and entities of the
Commonwealth.
SEC. 4. JAMESTOWN 400TH COMMEMORATION COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established a commission to be
known as the ``Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, of whom--
(A) 4 members shall be appointed by the Secretary, taking
into consideration the recommendations of the Chairperson of
the Jamestown 2007 Steering Committee;
(B) 4 members shall be appointed by the Secretary, taking
into consideration the recommendations of the Governor;
(C) 2 members shall be employees of the National Park
Service, of which--
(i) 1 shall be the Director of the National Park Service
(or a designee); and
(ii) 1 shall be an employee of the National Park Service
having experience relevant to the commemoration, to be
appointed by the Secretary; and
(D) 5 members shall be individuals that have an interest
in, support for, and expertise appropriate to, the
commemoration, to be appointed by the Secretary.
(2) Term; vacancies.--
(A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed
for the life of the Commission.
(B) Vacancies.--
(i) In general.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be
filled in the same manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(ii) Partial term.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy on
the Commission shall serve for the remainder of the term for
which the predecessor of the member was appointed.
(3) Meetings.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall meet--
(i) at least twice each year; or
(ii) at the call of the Chairperson or the majority of the
members of the Commission.
(B) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(4) Voting.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall act only on an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
Commission.
(B) Quorum.--A majority of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum.
(5) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a Chairperson
of the Commission, taking into consideration any
recommendations of the Governor.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall--
(A) plan, develop, and execute programs and activities
appropriate to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the
founding of Jamestown;
(B) generally facilitate Jamestown-related activities
throughout the United States;
(C) encourage civic, patriotic, historical, educational,
religious, economic, and other organizations throughout the
United States to organize and participate in anniversary
activities to expand the understanding and appreciation of
the significance of the founding and early history of
Jamestown;
(D) coordinate and facilitate for the public scholarly
research on, publication about, and interpretation of,
Jamestown; and
(E) ensure that the 400th anniversary of Jamestown provides
a lasting legacy and long-term public benefit by assisting in
the development of appropriate programs and facilities.
(2) Plans; reports.--
(A) Strategic plan; annual performance plans.--In
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), the Commission
[[Page 20963]]
shall prepare a strategic plan and annual performance plans
for the activities of the Commission carried out under this
Act.
(B) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2008, the
Commission shall complete a final report that contains--
(i) a summary of the activities of the Commission;
(ii) a final accounting of funds received and expended by
the Commission; and
(iii) the findings and recommendations of the Commission.
(d) Powers of the Commission.--The Commission may--
(1) accept donations and make dispersions of money,
personal services, and real and personal property related to
Jamestown and of the significance of Jamestown in the history
of the United States;
(2) appoint such advisory committees as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act;
(3) authorize any member or employee of the Commission to
take any action that the Commission is authorized to take by
this Act;
(4) procure supplies, services, and property, and make or
enter into contracts, leases or other legal agreements, to
carry out this Act (except that any contracts, leases or
other legal agreements made or entered into by the Commission
shall not extend beyond the date of termination of the
Commission);
(5) use the United States mails in the same manner and
under the same conditions as other Federal agencies;
(6) subject to approval by the Commission, make grants in
amounts not to exceed $10,000 to communities and nonprofit
organizations to develop programs to assist in the
commemoration;
(7) make grants to research and scholarly organizations to
research, publish, or distribute information relating to the
early history of Jamestown; and
(8) provide technical assistance to States, localities, and
nonprofit organizations to further the commemoration.
(e) Commission Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members of the commission.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
member of the Commission shall serve without compensation.
(B) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve
without compensation in addition to the compensation received
for the services of the member as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
(C) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(B) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(3) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of
the executive director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel shall not exceed the rate
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Detail of government employees.--
(A) Federal employees.--
(i) In general.--On the request of the Commission, the head
of any Federal agency may detail, on a reimbursable or non-
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of the agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out the
duties of the Commission under this Act.
(ii) Civil service status.--The detail of an employee under
clause (i) shall be without interruption or loss of civil
service status or privilege.
(B) State employees.--The Commission may--
(i) accept the services of personnel detailed from States
(including subdivisions of States); and
(ii) reimburse States for services of detailed personnel.
(5) Volunteer and uncompensated services.--Notwithstanding
section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Commission
may accept and use voluntary and uncompensated services as
the Commission determines necessary.
(6) Support services.--The Director of the National Park
Service shall provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable
basis, such administrative support services as the Commission
may request.
(f) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
(g) FACA Nonapplicability.--Section 14(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Commission.
(h) No Effect on Authority.--Nothing in this section
supersedes the authority of the State, the National Park
Service, or the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities, concerning the commemoration.
(i) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on
December 31, 2008.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
____________________
COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS
WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 4275) to establish
the Colorado National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons
Wilderness, and for other purposes.
The bill (H.R. 4275) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
LAND CONVEYANCE AND SETTLEMENT, SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST,
CALIFORNIA TO KATY
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2111) to direct the
Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair market value 1.06 acres of
land in the San Bernardino National Forest, California, to KATY 101.3
FM, a California Corporation, which had been reported by the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment as follows:
(Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
part printed in italic)
SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE AND SETTLEMENT, SAN BERNARDINO
NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Conveyance Required.--Subject to valid existing rights
and settlement of claims as provided in this section, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to KATY 101.3 FM (in
this section referred to as ``KATY'' ) all right, title and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property consisting of approximately 1.06 acres within the
San Bernardino National Forest in Riverside County,
California, generally located in the north \1/2\ of section
23, township 5 south, range 2 east, San Bernardino meridian.
(b) Legal Description.--The Secretary and KATY shall, by
mutual agreement, prepare the legal description of the parcel
of real property to be conveyed under subsection (a), which
is generally depicted as Exhibit A-2 in an appraisal report
of the subject parcel dated August 26, 1999, by Paul H.
Meiling.
(c) Consideration.--Consideration for the conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the appraised fair market
value of the parcel of real property to be conveyed. Any
appraisal to determine the fair market value of the parcel
shall be prepared in conformity with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and approved by the
Secretary.
(d) Settlement.--In addition to the consideration referred
to in subsection (c), upon the receipt of $16,600 paid by
KATY to the Secretary, the Secretary shall release KATY from
any and all claims of the United States arising from the
occupancy and use of the San Bernardino National Forest by
KATY for communication site purposes.
(e) Access Requirements.--Notwithstanding section 1323(a)
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 3210(a)) or any other law, the Secretary is not
required to provide access over National Forest System lands
to the parcel of real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a).
(f) Administrative Costs.--Any costs associated with the
creation of a subdivided parcel, recordation of a survey,
zoning, and planning approval, and similar expenses with
respect to the conveyance under this section, shall be borne
by KATY.
(g) Assumption of Liability.--By acceptance of the
conveyance of the parcel of real property referred to in
subsection (a), KATY, and its successors and assigns will
indemnify and hold harmless the United States for any and all
liability to General Telephone and Electronics Corporation
(also known as ``GTE'' ) KATY, and any third party that is
associated with the parcel, including liability for any
buildings or personal property on the parcel belonging to GTE
and any other third parties.
(h) Treatment of Receipts.--All funds received pursuant to
this section shall be deposited in the fund established under
Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a; commonly known as the
[[Page 20964]]
Sisk Act), and the funds shall remain available to the
Secretary, until expended, for the acquisition of lands,
waters, and interests in land for the inclusion in the San
Bernardino National Forest.
(i) Receipts Act Amendment.--The Act of June 15, 1938
(Chapter 438:52 Stat. 699), as amended by the Acts of May 26,
1944 (58 Stat. 227), is further amended--
(1) by striking the comma after the words ``Secretary of
Agriculture'';
(2) by striking the words ``with the approval of the
National Forest Reservation Commission established by section
4 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 513),'';
(3) by inserting the words ``, real property or interests
in lands,'' after the word ``lands'' the first time it is
used;
(4) by striking ``San Bernardino and Cleveland'' and
inserting ``counties of San Bernardino, Cleveland and Los
Angeles'';
(5) by striking ``county of Riverside'' each place it
appears and inserting ``counties of Riverside and San
Bernardino'';
(6) by striking ``as to minimize soil erosion and flood
damage'' and inserting ``for National Forest System
purposes''; and
(7) after the ``Provided further, That'', by striking the
remainder of the sentence to the end of the paragraph, and
inserting ``twelve and one-half percent of the monies
otherwise payable to the State of California for the benefit
of San Bernardino County under the aforementioned Act of
March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500) shall be available to be
appropriated for expenditure in furtherance of this Act.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2111), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2547) to provide for
the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Great
Sand Dunes National Preserve in the State of Colorado, and for other
purposes, which had been reported by the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources with an amendment to strike out all after the
enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Great Sand Dunes National
Park Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Great Sand Dunes National Monument in the State of
Colorado was established by Presidential proclamation in 1932
to preserve Federal land containing spectacular and unique
sand dunes and additional features of scenic, scientific, and
educational interest for the benefit and enjoyment of future
generations;
(2) the Great Sand Dunes, together with the associated sand
sheet and adjacent wetland and upland, contain a variety of
rare ecological, geological, paleontological, archaeological,
scenic, historical, and wildlife components, which--
(A) include the unique pulse flow characteristics of Sand
Creek and Medano Creek that are integral to the existence of
the dunes system;
(B) interact to sustain the unique Great Sand Dunes system
beyond the boundaries of the existing National Monument;
(C) are enhanced by the serenity and rural western setting
of the area; and
(D) comprise a setting of irreplaceable national
significance;
(3) the Great Sand Dunes and adjacent land within the Great
Sand Dunes National Monument--
(A) provide extensive opportunities for educational
activities, ecological research, and recreational activities;
and
(B) are publicly used for hiking, camping, and fishing, and
for wilderness value (including solitude);
(4) other public and private land adjacent to the Great
Sand Dunes National Monument--
(A) offers additional unique geological, hydrological,
paleontological, scenic, scientific, educational, wildlife,
and recreational resources; and
(B) contributes to the protection of--
(i) the sand sheet associated with the dune mass;
(ii) the surface and ground water systems that are
necessary to the preservation of the dunes and the adjacent
wetland; and
(iii) the wildlife, viewshed, and scenic qualities of the
Great Sand Dunes National Monument;
(5) some of the private land described in paragraph (4)
contains important portions of the sand dune mass, the
associated sand sheet, and unique alpine environments, which
would be threatened by future development pressures;
(6) the designation of a Great Sand Dunes National Park,
which would encompass the existing Great Sand Dunes National
Monument and additional land, would provide--
(A) greater long-term protection of the geological,
hydrological, paleontological, scenic, scientific,
educational, wildlife, and recreational resources of the area
(including the sand sheet associated with the dune mass and
the ground water system on which the sand dune and wetland
systems depend); and
(B) expanded visitor use opportunities;
(7) land in and adjacent to the Great Sand Dunes National
Monument is--
(A) recognized for the culturally diverse nature of the
historical settlement of the area;
(B) recognized for offering natural, ecological, wildlife,
cultural, scenic, paleontological, wilderness, and
recreational resources; and
(C) recognized as being a fragile and irreplaceable
ecological system that could be destroyed if not carefully
protected; and
(8) preservation of this diversity of resources would
ensure the perpetuation of the entire ecosystem for the
enjoyment of future generations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advisory council.--The term ``Advisory Council'' means
the Great Sand Dunes National Park Advisory Council
established under section 8(a).
(2) Luis maria baca grant no. 4.--The term ``Luis Maria
Baca Grant No. 4'' means those lands as described in the
patent dated February 20, 1900, from the United States to the
heirs of Luis Maria Baca recorded in book 86, page 20, of the
records of the Clerk and Recorder of Saguache County,
Colorado.
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Great
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve'', numbered 140/80,032
and dated September 19, 2000.
(4) National monument.--The term ``national monument''
means the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, including lands
added to the monument pursuant to this Act.
(5) National park.--The term ``national park'' means the
Great Sand Dunes National Park established in section 4.
(6) National wildlife refuge.--The term ``wildlife refuge''
means the Baca National Wildlife Refuge established in
section 6.
(7) Preserve.--The term ``preserve'' means the Great Sand
Dunes National Preserve established in section 5.
(8) Resources.--The term ``resources'' means the resources
described in section 2.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(10) Uses.--The term ``uses'' means the uses described in
section 2.
SEC. 4. GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO.
(a) Establishment.--When the Secretary determines that
sufficient land having a sufficient diversity of resources
has been acquired to warrant designation of the land as a
national park, the Secretary shall establish the Great Sand
Dunes National Park in the State of Colorado, as generally
depicted on the map, as a unit of the National Park System.
Such establishment shall be effective upon publication of a
notice of the Secretary's determination in the Federal
Register.
(b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(c) Notification.--Until the date on which the national
park is established, the Secretary shall annually notify the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
of--
(1) the estimate of the Secretary of the lands necessary to
achieve a sufficient diversity of resources to warrant
designation of the national park; and
(2) the progress of the Secretary in acquiring the
necessary lands.
(d) Abolishment of National Monument.--(1) On the date of
establishment of the national park pursuant to subsection
(a), the Great Sand Dunes National Monument shall be
abolished, and any funds made available for the purposes of
the national monument shall be available for the purposes of
the national park.
(2) Any reference in any law (other than this Act),
regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the
United States to ``Great Sand Dunes National Monument'' shall
be considered a reference to ``Great Sand Dunes National
Park''.
(e) Transfer of Jurisdiction.--Administrative jurisdiction
is transferred to the National Park Service over any land
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior
that--
(1) is depicted on the map as being within the boundaries
of the national park or the preserve; and
(2) is not under the administrative jurisdiction of the
National Park Service on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PRESERVE, COLORADO.
(a) Establishment of Great Sand Dunes National Preserve.--
(1) There is hereby established the Great Sand Dunes National
Preserve in the State of Colorado, as generally depicted on
the map, as a unit of the National Park System.
(2) Administrative jurisdiction of lands and interests
therein administered by the Secretary of Agriculture within
the boundaries of the preserve is transferred to the
Secretary of the Interior, to be administered as part of the
preserve. The Secretary of Agriculture shall modify the
boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest to exclude the
transferred lands from the forest boundaries.
(3) Any lands within the preserve boundaries which were
designated as wilderness prior to the date of enactment of
this Act shall remain subject to the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-767; 16 U.S.C. 539i note).
(b) Map and Legal Description.--(1) As soon as practicable
after the establishment of the national park and the
preserve, the Secretary shall file maps and a legal
description of the national
[[Page 20965]]
park and the preserve with the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives.
(2) The map and legal description shall have the same force
and effect as if included in this Act, except that the
Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in
the legal description and maps.
(3) The map and legal description shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(c) Boundary Survey.--As soon as practicable after the
establishment of the national park and preserve and subject
to the availability of funds, the Secretary shall complete an
official boundary survey.
SEC. 6. BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, COLORADO.
(a) Establishment.--(1) When the Secretary determines that
sufficient land has been acquired to constitute an area that
can be efficiently managed as a National Wildlife Refuge, the
Secretary shall establish the Baca National Wildlife Refuge,
as generally depicted on the map.
(2) Such establishment shall be effective upon publication
of a notice of the Secretary's determination in the Federal
Register.
(b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(c) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer all
lands and interests therein acquired within the boundaries of
the national wildlife refuge in accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd et seq.) and the Act of September 28, 1962 (16 U.S.C.
460k et seq.) (commonly known as the Refuge Recreation Act).
(d) Protection of Water Resources.--In administering water
resources for the national wildlife refuge, the Secretary
shall--
(1) protect and maintain irrigation water rights necessary
for the protection of monument, park, preserve, and refuge
resources and uses; and
(2) minimize, to the extent consistent with the protection
of national wildlife refuge resources, adverse impacts on
other water users.
SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the
national park and the preserve in accordance with--
(1) this Act; and
(2) all laws generally applicable to units of the National
Park System, including--
(A) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4) and
(B) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(b) Grazing.--
(1) Acquired state or private land.--With respect to former
State or private land on which grazing is authorized to occur
on the date of enactment of this Act and which is acquired
for the national monument, or the national park and preserve,
or the wildlife refuge, the Secretary, in consultation with
the lessee, may permit the continuation of grazing on the
land by the lessee at the time of acquisition, subject to
applicable law (including regulations).
(2) Federal land.--Where grazing is permitted on land that
is Federal land as of the date of enactment of this Act and
that is located within the boundaries of the national
monument or the national park and preserve, the Secretary is
authorized to permit the continuation of such grazing
activities unless the Secretary determines that grazing would
harm the resources or values of the national park or the
preserve.
(3) Termination of leases.--Nothing in this subsection
shall prohibit the Secretary from accepting the voluntary
termination of leases or permits for grazing within the
national monument or the national park or the preserve.
(c) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall permit hunting, fishing, and trapping on land
and water within the preserve in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws.
(2) Administrative exceptions.--The Secretary may designate
areas where, and establish limited periods when, no hunting,
fishing, or trapping shall be permitted under paragraph (1)
for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance
with applicable law.
(3) Agency agreement.--Except in an emergency, regulations
closing areas within the preserve to hunting, fishing, or
trapping under this subsection shall be made in consultation
with the appropriate agency of the State of Colorado having
responsibility for fish and wildlife administration.
(4) Savings clause.--Nothing in this Act affects any
jurisdiction or responsibility of the State of Colorado with
respect to fish and wildlife on Federal land and water
covered by this Act.
(d) Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley Project.--Any
feature of the Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley
Project, located within the boundaries of the national
monument, national park or the national wildlife refuge,
including any well, pump, road, easement, pipeline, canal,
ditch, power line, power supply facility, or any other
project facility, and the operation, maintenance, repair, and
replacement of such a feature--
(1) shall not be affected by this Act; and
(2) shall continue to be the responsibility of, and be
operated by, the Bureau of Reclamation in accordance with
title I of the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972
(43 U.S.C. 615aaa et seq.).
(e) Withdrawal--
(1) On the date of enactment of this Act, subject to valid
existing rights, all Federal land depicted on the map as
being located within Zone A, or within the boundaries of the
national monument, the national park or the preserve is
withdrawn from--
(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(C) disposition under all laws relating to mineral and
geothermal leasing.
(2) The provisions of this subsection also shall apply to
any lands--
(A) acquired under this Act; or
(B) transferred from any Federal agency after the date of
enactment of this Act for the national monument, the national
park or preserve, or the national wildlife refuge.
(f) Wildnerness Protection.--
(1) Nothing in this Act alters the Wilderness designation
of any land within the national monument, the national park,
or the preserve.
(2) All areas designated as Wilderness that are transferred
to the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park
Service shall remain subject to the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.) and the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-77; 16 U.S.C. 539i note). If any part of this Act
conflicts with the provisions of the Wilderness Act or the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 with respect to the
wilderness areas within the preserve boundaries, the
provisions of those Acts shall control.
SEC. 8. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS
(a) Acquisition Authority.--
(1) Within the area depicted on the map as the
``Acquisition Area'' or the national monument, the Secretary
may acquire lands and interests therein by purchase,
donation, transfer from another Federal agency, or exchange:
Provided, That lands or interests therein may only be
acquired with the consent of the owner thereof.
(2) Lands or interests therein owned by the State of
Colorado, or a political subdivision thereof, may only be
acquired by donation or exchange.
(b) Boundary Adjustment.--As soon as practicable after the
acquisition of any land or interest under this section, the
Secretary shall modify the boundary of the unit to which the
land is transferred pursuant to subsection (b) to include any
land or interest acquired.
(c) Administration of Acquired Lands.--
(1) General authority.--Upon acquisition of lands under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall, as appropriate--
(A) transfer administrative jurisdiction of the lands of
the National Park Service--
(i) for addition to and management as part of the Great
Sand Dunes National Monument, or
(ii) for addition to and management as part of the Great
Sand Dunes National Park (after designation of the Park) or
the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve; or
(B) transfer administrative jurisdiction of the lands to
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for addition to
and administration as part of the Baca National Wildlife
Refuge.
(2) Forest service administration.--
(A) Any lands acquired within the area depicted on the map
as being located within Zone B shall be transferred to the
Secretary of Agriculture and shall be added to and managed as
part of the Rio Grande National Forest.
(B) For the purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the
boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest, as revised by
the transfer of land under paragraph (A), shall be considered
to be the boundaries of the national forest.
SEC. 9. WATER RIGHTS.
(a) San Luis Valley Protection, Colorado.--Section 1501(a)
of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4663) is amended by
striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) adversely affect the purposes of--
``(A) the Great Sand Dunes National Monument;
``(B) the Great Sands Dunes National Park (including
purposes relating to all water, water rights, and water-
dependent resources within the park);
``(C) the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve (including
purposes relating to all water, water rights, and water-
dependent resources within the preserve);
``(D) the Baca National Wildlife Refuge (including purposes
relating to all water, water rights, and water-dependent
resources within the national wildlife refuge); and
``(E) any Federal land adjacent to any area described in
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), or (D).''.
(b) Effect on Water Rights.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the amendment made by
subsection (a), nothing in this Act affects--
(A) the use, allocation, ownership, or control, in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act, of any water,
water right, or any other valid existing right;
(B) any vested absolute or decreed conditional water right
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including
water right held by the United States;
[[Page 20966]]
(C) any interstate water compact in existence on the date
of enactment of this Act; or
(D) subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), state
jurisdiction over any water law.
(2) Water rights for national park and national preserve.--
In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall obtain and
exercise any water rights required to fulfill the purposes of
the national park and the national preserve in accordance
with the following provisions:
(A) Such water rights shall be appropriated, adjudicated,
changed, and administered pursuant to the procedural
requirements and priority system of the laws of the State of
Colorado.
(B) The purposes and other substantive characteristics of
such water rights shall be established pursuant to State law,
except that the Secretary is specifically authorized to
appropriate water under this Act exclusively for the purpose
of maintaining ground water levels, surface water levels, and
stream flows on, across, and under the national park and
national preserve, in order to accomplish the purposes of the
national park and the national preserve and to protect park
resources and park uses.
(C) Such water rights shall be established and used without
interfering with--
(i) any exercise of a water right in existence on the date
of enactment of this Act for a non-Federal purpose in the San
Luis Valley, Colorado; and
(ii) the Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley Project.
(D) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) below, no
Federal reservation of water may be claimed or established
for the national park or the national preserve
(c) National Forest Water Rights.--To the extent that a
water right is established or acquired by the United States
for the Rio Grande National Forest, the water right shall--
(1) be considered to be of equal use and value for the
national preserve; and
(2) retain its priority and purpose when included in the
national preserve.
(d) National Monument Water Rights.--To the extent that a
water right has been established or acquired by the United
States for the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, the water
right shall--
(1) be considered to be of equal use and value for the
national park; and
(2) retain its priority and purpose when included in the
national park.
(e) Acquired Water Rights and Water Resources.--
(1) In general.--(A) If, and to the extent that, the Luis
Maria Baca Grant No. 4 is acquired, all water rights and
water resources associated with the Luis Maria Baca Grant No.
4 shall be restricted for use only within--
(i) the national park;
(ii) the preserve;
(iii) the national wildlife refuge; or
(iv) the immediately surrounding areas of Alamosa or
Saguache Counties, Colorado.
(B) Use.--Except as provided in the memorandum of water
service agreement and the water service agreement between the
Cabeza de Vaca Land and Cattle Company, LC, and Baca Grande
Water and Sanitation District, dated August 28, 1997, water
rights and water resources described in subparagraph (A)
shall be restricted for use in--
(i) the protection of resources and values for the national
monument, the national park, the preserve, or the wildlife
refuge;
(ii) fish and wildlife management and protection; or
(iii) irrigation necessary to protect water resources.
(2) State authority.--If, and to the extent that, water
rights associated with the Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4 are
acquired, the use of those water rights shall be changed only
in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
(f) Disposal.--The Secretary is authorized to sell the
water resources and related appurtenances and fixtures as the
Secretary deems necessary to obtain the termination of
obligations specified in the memorandum of water service
agreement and the water service agreement between the Cabeza
de Vaca Land and Cattle Company, LLC and the Baca Grande
Water and Sanitation District, dated August 28, 1997. Prior
to the sale, the Secretary shall determine that the sale is
not detrimental to the protection of the resources of Great
Sand Dunes National Monument, Great Sand Dunes National Park,
and Great Sand Dunes National Preserve, and the Baca National
Wildlife Refuge, and that appropriate measures to provide for
such protection are included in the sale.
SEC. 10. ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory council to be known as the ``Great Sand Dunes
National Park Advisory Council''.
(b) Duties.--The Advisory Council shall advise the
Secretary with respect to the preparation and implementation
of a management plan for the national park and the preserve.
(c) Members.--The Advisory Council shall consist of 10
members to be appointed by the Secretary, as follows:
(1) one member of, or nominated by, the Alamosa County
Commission.
(2) one member of, or nominated by, the Saguache County
Commission.
(3) one member of, or nominated by, the Friends of the
Dunes Organization.
(4) 4 members residing in, or within reasonable proximity
to, the San Luis Valley and 3 of the general public, all of
who have recognized backgrounds reflecting--
(A) the purposes for which the national park and the
preserve are established; and
(B) the interests of persons that will be affected by the
planning and management of the national park and the
preserve.
(d) Applicable Law.--The Advisory Council shall function in
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.) and other applicable laws.
(e) Vacancy.--A vacancy on the Advisory Council shall be
filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(f) Chairperson.--The Advisory Council shall elect a
chairperson and shall establish such rules and procedures as
it deems necessary or desirable.
(g) No Compensation.--Members of the Advisory Council shall
serve without compensation.
(h) Termination.--The Advisory Council shall terminate upon
the completion of the management plan for the national park
and preserve.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2547), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to provide for the
establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and
the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Colorado, and for
other purposes.''
____________________
HERMANN MONUMENT AND HERMANN HEIGHTS PARK IN NEW ULM, MINNESOTA
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (H. Con. Res. 89)
recognizing the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm,
Minnesota, as a national symbol of the contributions of Americans of
German heritage.
The resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
H. Con. Res. 89
Whereas there are currently more than 57,900,000
individuals of German heritage residing in the United States,
who comprise nearly 25 percent of the population of the
United States and are therefore the largest ethnic group in
the United States;
Whereas those of German heritage are not merely descendants
of one political entity, but of all German speaking areas;
Whereas numerous Americans of German heritage have made
countless contributions to American culture, arts, and
industry, the American military, and American government;
Whereas there is no recognized tangible, national symbol
dedicated to German Americans and their positive
contributions to the United States;
Whereas the story of Hermann the Cheruscan parallels that
of the American Founding Fathers, because he was a freedom
fighter who united ancient German tribes in order to shed the
yoke of Roman tyranny and preserve freedom for the territory
of present-day Germany;
Whereas the Hermann Monument located in Hermann Heights
Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, was dedicated in 1897 in honor of
the spirit of freedom and later dedicated to all German
immigrants who settled in New Ulm and elsewhere in the United
States; and
Whereas the Hermann Monument has been recognized as a site
of special historical significance by the United States
Government, by placement on the National Register of Historic
Places: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights
Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, are recognized by the Congress to
be a national symbol for the contributions of Americans of
German heritage.
____________________
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1756) to enhance the
ability of the National Laboratories to meet Department of Energy
missions, and for other purposes, which had been reported by the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike
out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in
italic.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Laboratories
Partnership Improvement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
(2) the term ``departmental mission'' means any of the
functions vested in the Secretary of Energy by the Department
of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) or other
law;
(3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section
[[Page 20967]]
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1141(a));
(4) the term ``National Laboratory'' means any of the
following institutions owned by the Department of Energy--
(A) Argonne National Laboratory;
(B) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(C) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory;
(D) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
(E) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
(F) Los Alamos National Laboratory;
(G) National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
(H) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(I) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; or
(J) Sandia National Laboratory;
(5) the term ``facility'' means any of the following
institutions owned by the Department of Energy--
(A) Ames Laboratory;
(B) East Tennessee Technology Park;
(C) Environmental Measurement Laboratory;
(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
(E) Kansas City Plant;
(F) National Energy Technology Laboratory;
(G) Nevada Test Site;
(H) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory;
(I) Savannah River Technology Center;
(J) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center;
(K) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility;
(L) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
(M) Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; or
(N) other similar organization of the Department designated
by the Secretary that engages in technology transfer,
partnering, or licensing activities;
(6) the term ``nonprofit institution'' has the meaning
given such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(5));
(7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
(8) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632);
(9) the term ``technology-related business concern'' means
a for-profit corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, or small business concern that--
(A) conducts scientific or engineering research,
(B) develops new technologies,
(C) manufacturers products based on new technologies, or
(D) performs technological services;
(10) the term ``technology cluster'' means a concentration
of--
(A) technology-related business concerns;
(B) institution of higher education; or
(C) other nonprofit institutions,
that reinforce each other's performance through formal or
informal relationships;
(11) the term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns'' has the meaning given such term in
section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(4)); and
(12) the term ``NNSA'' means the National Nuclear Security
Administration established by Title XXXII of National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the appropriate
officials of the Department, shall establish a Technology
Infrastructure Pilot Program in accordance with this section.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
improve the ability of National Laboratories or facilities to
support departmental missions by--
(1) stimulating the development of technology clusters that
can support the missions of the National Laboratories or
facilities;
(2) improving the ability of National Laboratories or
facilities to leverage and benefit from commercial research,
technology, products, processes, and services; and
(3) encouraging the exchange of scientific and
technological expertise between National Laboratories or
facilities and--
(A) institutions of higher education,
(B) technology-related business concerns,
(C) nonprofit institutions, and
(D) agencies of State, tribal, or local governments,
that can support the missions of the National Laboratories
and facilities.
(c) Pilot Program.--In each of the first three fiscal years
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
may provide no more than $10,000,000, divided equally, among
no more than ten National Laboratories or facilities selected
by the Secretary to conduct Technology Infrastructure Program
Pilot Programs.
(d) Projects.--The Secretary shall authorize the Director
of each National Laboratory or facility designated under
subsection (c) to implement the Technology Infrastructure
Pilot Program at such National Laboratory or facility through
projects that meet the requirements of subsections (e) and
(f).
(e) Program Requirements.--Each project funded under this
section shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Minimum participants.--Each project shall at a minimum
include--
(A) a National Laboratory of facility; and
(B) one of the following entities--
(i) a business,
(ii) an institution of higher education,
(iii) a nonprofit institution, or
(iv) an agency of a State, local, or tribal government.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) Minimum amount.--Not less than 50 percent of the costs
of each project funded under this section shall be provided
from non-Federal sources.
(B) Qualified funding and resources.--
(i) The calculation of costs paid by the non-Federal
sources to a project shall include cash, personnel, services,
equipment, and other resources expended on the project.
(ii) Independent research and development expenses of
government contractors that qualify for reimbursement under
section 31-205-18(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) may be credited
towards costs paid by non-Federal sources to a project, if
the expenses meet the other requirements of this section.
(iii) No funds or other resources expended either before
the start of a project under this section or outside the
project's scope of work shall be credited toward the costs
paid by the non-Federal sources to the project.
(3) Competitive selection.--All projects where a party
other than the Department or a National Laboratory or
facility receives funding under this section shall, to the
extent practicable, be competitively selected by the National
Laboratory or facility using procedures determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary or his designee.
(4) Accounting standards.--Any participant receiving
funding under this section, other than a National Laboratory
or facility, may use generally accepted accounting principles
for maintaining accounts, books, and records relating to the
project.
(5) Limitations.--No Federal funds shall be made available
under this section for--
(A) construction; or
(B) any project for more than five years.
(f) Selection Criteria.--
(1) Threshold funding criteria.--The Secretary shall
authorize the provision of Federal funds for projects under
this section only when the Director of the National
Laboratory or facility managing such a project determines
that the project is likely to improve the participating
National Laboratory or facility's ability to achieve
technical success in meeting departmental missions.
(2) Additional criteria.--The Secretary shall also require
the Director of the National Laboratory or facility managing
a project under this section to consider the following
criteria in selecting a project to receive federal funds--
(A) the potential of the project to succeed, based on its
technical merit, team members, management approach,
resources, and project plan;
(B) to potential of the project to promote the development
of a commercially sustainable technology cluster, one that
will derive most of the demand for its products or services
from the private sector, that can support the missions of the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(C) the potential of the project to promote the use of
commercial research, technology, products, processes, and
services by the participating National Laboratory or facility
to achieve its departmental mission or the commercial
development of technological innovations made at the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(D) the commitment shown by non-Federal organizations to
the project, based primarily on the nature and amount of the
financial and other resources they will risk on the project;
(E) the extent to which the project involves a wide variety
and number of institutions of higher education, nonprofit
institutions, and technology-related business concerns that
can support the missions of the participating National
Laboratory or facility and that will make substantive
contributions to achieving the goals of the project;
(F) the extent of participation in the project by agencies
of State, tribal, or local governments that will make
substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the
project; and
(G) the extent to which the project focuses on promoting
the development of technology-related business concerns that
are small business concerns or involves such small business
concerns substantively in the project.
(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit
the Secretary from requiring the consideration of other
criteria, as appropriate, in determining whether projects
should be funded under this section.
(g) Report to Congress on Full Implementation.--Not later
than 120 days after the start of the third fiscal year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
report to Congress on whether the Technology Infrastructure
Program should be continued beyond the pilot stage, and, if
so, how the fully implemented program should be managed. This
report shall take into consideration the results of the pilot
program to date the views of the relevant Directors of the
National laboratories and facilities. The report shall
include any proposals for legislation considered necessary by
the Secretary to fully implement the program.
SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE.
(a) Advocacy Function.--The Secretary shall direct the
Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the
Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, to establish a small business advocacy function
that is organizationally independent of the procurement
function at the National Laboratory or facility. The person
or office vested with the small business advocacy function
shall--
(1) work to increase the participation of small business
concerns, including socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns, in procurements, collaborative
research,
[[Page 20968]]
technology licensing, and technology transfer activities
conducted by the National Laboratory or facility;
(2) report to the Director of the National Laboratory or
facility on the actual participation of small business
concerns in procurements and collaborative research along
with recommendations, if appropriate, on how to improve
participation;
(3) make available to small business concerns training,
mentoring, and clear, up-to-date information on how to
participate in the procurements and collaborative research,
including how to submit effective proposals;
(4) increase the awareness inside the National Laboratory
or facility of the capabilities and opportunities presented
by small business concerns, and
(5) establish guidelines for the program under subsection
(b) and report on the effectiveness of such program to the
Director of the National Laboratory or facility.
(b) Establishment of Small Business Assistance Program.--
The Secretary shall direct the Director of each National
Laboratory, and may direct the Director of each facility the
Secretary determines to be appropriate, to establish a
program to provide small business concerns--
(1) assistance directed at making them more effective and
efficient subcontractors or suppliers to the National
Laboratory or facility; or
(2) general technical assistance, the cost of which shall
not exceed $10,000 per instance of assistance, to improve the
small business concern's products or services.
(c) Use of Funds.--None of the funds expended under
subsection (b) may be used for direct grants to the small
business concerns.
SEC. 5. TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS OMBUDSMAN.
(a) Appointment of Ombudsman.--The Secretary shall direct
the Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the
Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, to appoint a technology partnership ombudsman to
hear and help resolve complaints from outside organizations
regarding each laboratory's policies and actions with respect
to technology partnerships (including cooperative research
and development agreements), patents, and technology
licensing. Each ombudsman shall--
(1) be a senior official of the National Laboratory or
facility who is not involved in day-to-day technology
partnerships, patents, or technology licensing, or, if
appointed from outside the laboratory, function as such a
senior official; and
(2) have direct access to the Director of the National
Laboratory or facility.
(b) Duties.--Each ombudsman shall--
(1) serve as the focal point for assisting the public and
industry in resolving complaints and disputes with the
laboratory regarding technology partnerships, patents, and
technology licensing;
(2) promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute
resolution techniques such as mediation to facilitate the
speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes,
when appropriate; and
(3) report, through the Director of the National Laboratory
or facility, to the Department annually on the number and
nature of complaints and disputes raised, along with
ombudsman's assessment of their resolution, consistent with
the protection of confidential and sensitive information.
(c) Dual Appointment.--A person vested with the small
business advocacy function of section 4 may also serve as the
technology partnership ombudsman.
SEC. 6. STUDIES RELATED TO IMPROVING MISSION EFFECTIVENESS,
PARTNERSHIPS, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AT
NATIONAL LABORATORIES.
(a) Studies.--The Secretary shall direct the Laboratory
Operations Board to study and report to him, not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this section, on the
following topics.
(1) the possible benefits from the need for policies and
procedures to facilitate the transfer of scientific,
technical, and professional personnel among National
Laboratories and facilities; and
(2) the possible benefits from and need for changes in--
(A) the indemnification requirements for patents or other
intellectual property licensed from a National Laboratory or
facility;
(B) the royalty and fee schedules and types of compensation
that may be used for patents or other intellectual property
licensed to a small business concern from a National
Laboratory or facility;
(C) the licensing procedures and requirements for patents
and other intellectual property;
(D) the rights given to small business concern that has
licensed a patent or other intellectual property from a
National Laboratory or facility to bring suit against third
parties infringing such intellectual property;
(E) the advance funding requirements for small business
concern funding a project at a National Laboratory or
facility through a Funds-In-Agreement;
(F) the intellectual property rights allocated to a
business when it is funding a project at a National
Laboratory or facility through a Funds-In-Agreement; and
(G) policies on royalty payments to inventors employed by a
contractor-operated National Laboratory or facility,
including those for inventions made under a Funds-In-
Agreement.
(b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``Funds-In-Agreement'' means a contract between the
Department and a non-Federal organization where that
organization pays the Department to provide a service or
material not otherwise available in the domestic private
sector.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than one month after
receiving the report under subsection (a), the Secretary
transmit the report, along with this recommendations for
action and proposals for legislation to implement the
recommendations, to Congress.
SEC. 7. OTHER TRANSACTIONS AUTHORITY.
(a) New Authority.--Section 646 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7256) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Other Transactions Authority.--(1) In addition to
other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into
procurement contracts, leases, cooperative agreements,
grants, and other similar arrangements, the Secretary may
enter into other transactions with public agencies, private
organizations, or persons on such terms as the Secretary may
deem appropriate in furtherance of basic, applied, and
advanced research functions now or hereafter vested in the
Secretary. Such other transactions shall not be subject to
the provisions of section 9 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5908.)
``(2)(A) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that--
``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, no transaction
entered into under paragraph (1) provides for research that
duplicates research being conducted under existing programs
carried out by the Department of Energy; and
``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines
practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a
transaction authorized by paragraph (1) do not exceed the
total amount provided by other parties to the transaction.
``(B) A transaction authorized by paragraph (1) may be used
for a research project when the use of a standard contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not
feasible or appropriate.
``(3)(A) The Secretary shall not disclose any trade secret
or commercial or financial information submitted by a non-
Federal entity under paragraph (1) that is privileged and
confidential.
``(B) The Secretary shall not disclose, for five years
after the date the information is received, any other
information submitted by a non-Federal entity under paragraph
(1), including any proposal, proposal abstract, document
supporting a proposal, business plan, or technical
information that is privileged and confidential.
``(C) The Secretary may protect from disclosure, for up to
five years, any information developed pursuant to a
transaction under paragraph (1) that would be protected from
disclosure under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States
Code, if obtained from a person other than a Federal
agency.''.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than six months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Department shall
establish guidelines for the use of other transactions. Other
transactions shall be made available, if needed, in order to
implement projects funded under section 3.
SEC. 8. CONFORMANCE WITH NNSA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
All actions taken by the Secretary in carrying out this Act
with respect to National Laboratories and facilities that are
part of the NNSA shall be through the Administrator for
Nuclear Security in accordance with the requirements of Title
XXXII of National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
2000.
SEC. 9. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED
LABORATORIES.
(a) Strategic Plans.--Subsection (a) of section 12 of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a) is amended by striking ``joint work statement,'' and
inserting ``joint work statement or, if permitted by the
agency, in an agency-approved annual strategic plan,''.
(b) Experimental Federal Waivers.--Subsection (b) of that
section is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6)(A) In the case of a Department of Energy laboratory,
a designated official of the Department of Energy may waive
any license retained by the Government under paragraph
(1)(A), (2), or (3)(D), in whole or in part and according to
negotiated terms and conditions, if the designated official
finds that the retention of the license by the Department of
Energy would substantially inhibit the commercialization of
an invention that would otherwise serve an important federal
mission.
``(B) The authority to grant a waiver under subparagraph
(A) shall expire on the date that is 5 years after the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001.
``(C) The expiration under subparagraph (B) of authority to
grant a waiver under subparagraph (A) shall not effect any
waiver granted under subparagraph (A) before the expiration
of such authority.''.
(c) Time Required for Approval.--Subsection (c)(5) of that
section is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) in subparagraph (C) as so redesignated--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``with a small business firm''; and
[[Page 20969]]
(ii) by inserting ``if'' after ``statement''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(iv) Any agency that has contracted with a non-Federal
entity to operate a laboratory may develop and provide to
such laboratory one or more model cooperative research and
development agreements, for the purposes of standardizing
practices and procedures, resolving common legal issues, and
enabling review of cooperative research and development
agreements to be carried out in a routine and prompt manner.
``(v) A Federal agency may waive the requirements of clause
(i) or (ii) under such circumstances as the agency considers
appropriate. However, the agency may not take longer than 30
days to review and approve, request modifications to, or
disapprove any proposed agreement or joint work statement
that it elects to receive.''.
SEC. 10. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Objective for Obligation of Funds.--It shall be an
objective of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration to obligate funds for cooperative
research and development agreements (as that term is defined
in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1)), or similar
cooperative, cost-shared research partnerships with non-
Federal organizations, in a fiscal year covered by subsection
(b) in an amount at least equal to the percentage of the
total amount appropriated for the Administration for such
fiscal year that is specified for such fiscal year under
subsection (b).
(b) Fiscal Year Percentages.--The percentages of funds
appropriated for the National Nuclear Security Administration
that are obligated in accordance with the objective under
subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) In each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 0.5 percent.
(2) In any fiscal year after fiscal year 2002, the
percentage recommend by the Administrator for each such
fiscal year in the report under subsection (c).
(c) Recommendtions for Percentages in Later Fiscal Years.--
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report setting forth the Administrator's
recommendations for appropriate percentages of funds
appropriated for the National Nuclear Security Administration
to be obligated for agreements described in subsection (a)
during each fiscal year covered by the report.
(d) Consistency of Agreements.--Any agreement entered into
under this section shall be consistent with and in support of
the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
(e) Reports on Achievement of Objective.--(1) Not later
than March 30, 2002, and each year thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on whether funds of the National Nuclear
Security Administration were obligated in the fiscal year
ending in the preceding year in accordance with the objective
for such fiscal year under this section.
(2) If funds were not obligated in a fiscal year in
accordance with the objective under this section for such
fiscal year, the report under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) describe the actions the Administrator proposes to take
to ensure that the objective under this section for the
current fiscal year and future fiscal years will be met; and
(B) include any recommendations for legislation required to
achieve such actions.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1756), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
THE CALENDAR
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following reported by the
Energy Committee: Calendar No. 470, H.R. 1725; Calendar No. 632, S.
1367; Calendar No. 795, S. 2439; Calendar No. 827, S. 2950; Calendar
No. 850, S. 2691; Calendar No. 885, S. 2345; and Calendar No. 926, S.
2331.
I further ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be
agreed to, where appropriate, and the following amendments at the desk:
amendment No. 4290 to H.R. 1725; amendment No. 4291 to S. 1367;
amendment No. 4292 to S. 2439; amendment No. 4293 to S. 2950; amendment
No. 4294 to S. 2691; amendment No. 4295 to S. 2345; and amendment No.
4296 to S. 2331 be agreed to, the bills, as amended, be read the third
time, passed, and any title amendment be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action, and that
any statements thereto be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MIWALETA PARK EXPANSION ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 1725) to provide for
the conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management to Douglas County, OR,
of a county park and certain adjacent land.
amendment no. 4290
(Purpose: To add clarifying language related to management of conveyed
lands)
On page 3, beginning on line 6 strike Section 2(b)(1) and
insert:
``(1) In general.--After conveyance of land under
subsection (a), the County shall manage the land for public
park purposes consistent with the plan for expansion of the
Miwaleta Park as approved in the Decision Record for
Galesville Campground, EA #OR110-99-01, dated September 17,
1999.''.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) strike ``purposes--'' and insert:
``purposes as described in paragraph 2(b)(1)--''.
The amendment (No. 4290) was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 1725), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
SAINT-GAUDENS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE MODIFICATIONS
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1367) to amend the act
which established the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, in the
State of New Hampshire, by modifying the boundary and for other
purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, with an amendment to omit the parts in black
brackets and insert the parts printed in italic.
S. 1367
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That [the
Act of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 749),] Public Law 88-543 (16
U.S.C. 461 (note)), which established Saint-Gaudens National
Historic Site is amended--
(1) in section 3 by striking ``not to exceed sixty-four
acres of lands and interests therein'' and inserting ``215
acres of lands and buildings, or interests therein'';
(2) in section 6 by striking ``$2,677,000'' from the first
sentence and inserting ``$10,632,000''; and
(3) in section 6 by striking ``$80,000'' from the last
sentence and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
amendment no. 4291
(Purpose: Technical and clarifying corrections)
On page 2, line 3, strike ``215'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``279''.
The amendment (No. 4291) was agreed to.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1367), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 1367
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Public Law 88-543 (16 U.S.C. 461 (note)), which established
Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site is amended--
(1) in section 3 by striking ``not to exceed sixty-four
acres of lands and interests therein'' and inserting ``279
acres of lands and buildings, or interests therein'';
(2) in section 6 by striking ``$2,677,000'' from the first
sentence and inserting ``$10,632,000''; and
(3) in section 6 by striking ``$80,000'' from the last
sentence and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
____________________
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA INTERTIE SYSTEM
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2439) to authorize the
appropriation of funds for the construction of the Southeastern Alaska
Intertie system, and for other purposes.
The amendment (No. 4292) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4292
(Purpose: To limit the authorization for the Southeastern Alaska
Intertie and provide an authorization for Navajo electrification)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
``That upon the completion and submission to the United
States Congress by the Forest Service of the ongoing High
Voltage Direct Current viability analysis pursuant to USFS
Collection Agreement #00CO-111005-105 or no later than
February 1, 2001, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Energy such sums as may be
necessary to assist in the construction of the Southeastern
Alaska Intertie system as generally identified in Report #97-
01 of the Southeast Conference. Such sums shall equal 80
percent of the cost of the system and may not exceed $384
million. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or
waive any otherwise applicable State or Federal Law.
[[Page 20970]]
``SEC. 2. NAVAJO ELECTRIFICATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall
establish a five year program to assist the Navajo Nation to
meet its electricity needs. The purpose of the program shall
be to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The
goal of the program shall be to ensure that every household
on the Navajo Nation that requests it has access to a
reliable and affordable source of electricity by the year
2006.
``(b) Scope.--In order to meet the goal in subsection (a),
the Secretary of Energy shall provide grants to the Navajo
Nation to--
``(1) extend electric transmission and distribution lines
to new or existing structures that are not served by electric
power and do not have adequate electric power service;
``(2) purchase and install distributed power generating
facilities, including small gas turbines, fuel cells, solar
photovoltaic systems, solar thermal systems, geothermal
systems, wind power systems, or biomass-fueled systems;
``(3) purchase and install other equipment associated with
the generation, transmission, distribution, and storage of
electric power; or
``(4) provide training in the installation operation, or
maintenance of the lines, facilities, or equipment in
paragraphs (1) through (3); or
``(5) support other activities that the Secretary of Energy
determines are necessary to met the goal of the program.
``(c) Technical Support.--At the request of the Navajo
Nation, the Secretary of Energy may provide technical support
through Department of Energy laboratories and facilities to
the Navajo Nation to assist in achieving the goal of this
program.
``(d) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1, 2002 and
for each of the five succeeding years, the Secretary of
Energy shall submit a report to Congress on the status of the
programs and the progress towards meeting its goal under
subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to
carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.''
The bill (S. 2439), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2439
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA INTERTIE AUTHORIZATION LIMIT.
Upon the completion and submission to the United States
Congress by the Forest Service of the ongoing High Voltage
Direct Current viability analysis pursuant to United States
Forest Service Collection Agreement #00CO-111005-105 or no
later than February 1, 2001, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Energy such sums as may be
necessary to assist in the construction of the Southeastern
Alaska Intertie system as generally identified in Report #97-
01 of the Southeast Conference. Such sums shall equal 80
percent of the cost of the system and may not exceed
$384,000,000. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit
or waive any otherwise applicable State or Federal law.
SEC. 2. NAVAJO ELECTRIFICATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish
a 5-year program to assist the Navajo nation to meet its
electricity needs. The purpose of the program shall be to
provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The
goal of the program shall be to ensure that every household
on the Navajo Nation that requests it has access to a
reliable and affordable source of electricity by the year
2006.
(b) Scope.--In order to meet the goal in subsection (a),
the Secretary of Energy shall provide grants to the Navajo
Nation to--
(1) extend electric transmission and distribution lines to
new or existing structures that are not served by electric
power and do not have adequate electric power service;
(2) purchase and install distributed power generating
facilities, including small gas turbines, fuel cells, solar
photovoltaic systems, solar thermal systems, geothermal
systems, wind power systems, or biomass-fueled systems;
(3) purchase and install other equipment associated with
the generation, transmission, distribution, and storage of
electric power;
(4) provide training in the installation, operation, or
maintenance of the lines, facilities, or equipment in
paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) support other activities that the Secretary of Energy
determines are necessary to meet the goal of the program.
(c) Technical Support.--At the request of the Navajo
Nation, the Secretary of Energy may provide technical support
through Department of Energy laboratories and facilities to
the Navajo Nation to assist in achieving the goal of this
program.
(d) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1, 2002 and
for each of the five succeeding years, the Secretary of
Energy shall submit a report to Congress on the status of the
programs and the progress towards meeting its goal under
subsection (a).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
this section $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
____________________
SAND CREEK MASSACRE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2950) to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre National
Historic Site in the State of Colorado, which had been reported from
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with amendments to omit
the parts in black brackets and insert the parts printed in italic.
S. 2950
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 ``Sand Creek Massacre National
Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) on November 29, 1864, a peaceful village of Cheyenne
and [Northern and Southern] Arapaho [Indians] Indians under
the leadership of Chief Black Kettle, along Sand Creek in
southeastern Colorado territory was attacked by approximately
700 volunteer soldiers commanded by Colonel John M.
Chivington;
(2) more than 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho were killed in the
attack, most of whom were women, children, or elderly;
(3) during the massacre and the following day, the soldiers
committed atrocities on the dead before withdrawing from the
field;
(4) the site of the Sand Creek Massacre is of great
significance[,] to descendants of the victims of the massacre
and their respective tribes, for the commemoration of
ancestors at the site;
(5) the site is a reminder of the tragic extremes sometimes
reached in the 500 years of conflict between Native Americans
and people of European and other origins concerning the land
that now comprises the United States;
(6) Congress, in enacting the Sand Creek Massacre National
Historic Site Study Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-243; 112
Stat. 1579), directed the National Park Service to complete a
resources study of the site;
(7) the study completed under that Act--
(A) identified the location and extent of the area in which
the massacre took place; and
(B) confirmed the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of, and evaluated management options for, that
area, including designation of the site as a unit of the
National Park System; and
(8) the study included an evaluation of environmental
impacts and preliminary cost estimates for facility
development, administration, and necessary land acquisition.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize the importance of the Sand Creek Massacre
as--
(A) a nationally significant element of frontier military
and Native American history; and
(B) a symbol of the struggles of Native American tribes to
maintain their way of life on ancestral land;
(2) to authorize, on acquisition of sufficient land, the
establishment of the site of the Sand Creek Massacre as a
national historic site; and
(3) to provide opportunities for [tribes] for the tribes
and the State to be involved in the formulation of general
management plans and educational programs for the national
historic site.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Descendant.--The term ``descendant'' means a member of
a tribe, an ancestor of whom was injured or killed in, or
otherwise affected by, the Sand Creek Massacre.
(2) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan required to be developed for the site
under section 7(a).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(4) Site.--The term ``site'' means the Sand Creek Massacre
National Historic Site established under section 4(a).
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.
(6) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' means--
(A) the [Cheyenne Tribe] Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of
Oklahoma;
[(B) the Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma;
[(C)] (B) the Northern Cheyenne Tribe; or
[(D)] (C) the Northern Arapaho Tribe.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--
[[Page 20971]]
(1) Determination.--On a determination by the Secretary
that land described in subsection (b)(1) containing a
sufficient quantity of resources to provide for the
preservation, memorialization, commemoration, and
interpretation of the Sand Creek Massacre has been acquired
by the National Park Service, the Secretary shall establish
the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, Colorado.
(2) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of the determination of the
Secretary under paragraph (1).
(b) Boundary.--
(1) Map and acreage.--The site shall consist of
approximately 12,480 acres in Kiowa County, Colorado, the
site of the Sand Creek Massacre, as generally depicted on the
map entitled, ``Boundary of the Sand Creek Massacre Site'',
numbered, SAND 80,009 IR, and dated July 1, 2000.
(2) Legal description.--The Secretary shall prepare a legal
description of the land and interests in land described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Public availability.--The map prepared under paragraph
(1) and the legal description prepared under paragraph (2)
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
(4) Boundary revision.--The Secretary may, as necessary,
make minor revisions to the boundary of the site in
accordance with section 7(c) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)).
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the site in
accordance with--
(1) this Act;
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
(3) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); and
(4) other laws generally applicable to management of units
of the National Park System.
(b) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the site--
(1) to protect and preserve the site, including--
(A) the topographic features that the Secretary determines
are important to the site;
(B) artifacts and other physical remains of the Sand Creek
Massacre; and
(C) the cultural landscape of the site, in a manner that
preserves, as closely as practicable, the cultural landscape
of the site as it appeared at the time of the Sand Creek
Massacre;
(2)(A) to interpret the natural and cultural resource
values associated with the site; and
(B) provide for public understanding and appreciation of,
and preserve for future generations, those values; and
(3) to memorialize, commemorate, and provide information to
visitors to the site to--
(A) enhance cultural understanding about the site; and
(B) assist in minimizing the chances of similar incidents
in the future.
(c) Consultation and Training.--
(1) In general.--In developing the management plan and
preparing educational programs for the public about the site,
the Secretary shall consult [with the] with and solicit
advice and recommendations from the tribes and the State.
(2) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with the tribes (including boards, committees,
enterprises, and traditional leaders of the tribes) and the
State to carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the boundaries of the site--
(1) through purchase (including purchase with donated or
appropriated funds) only from a willing seller; and
(2) by donation, exchange, or other means, except that any
land or interest in land owned by the State (including a
political subdivision of the State) may be acquired only by
donation.
[(b) Agriculture; Ranching.--The Secretary shall permit
traditional agricultural and ranching activities conducted at
the site on the date of enactment of this Act to continue on
privately owned land within the designated boundary of the
site in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
[(c)] (b) Priority for Acquisition.--The Secretary shall
give priority to the acquisition of land containing the
marker in existence on the date of enactment of this Act,
which states ``Sand Creek Battleground, November 29 and 30,
1864'', within the boundary of the site.
[(d)] (c) Cost-Effectiveness.--
(1) In general.--In acquiring land for the site, the
Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall use cost-
effective alternatives to Federal fee ownership, including--
(A) the acquisition of conservation easements; and
(B) other means of acquisition that are consistent with
local zoning requirements.
(2) Support facilities.--A support facility for the site
that is not within the designated boundary of the site may be
located in Kiowa County, Colorado, subject to an agreement
between the Secretary and the Commissioners of Kiowa County,
Colorado.
SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary shall prepare a management plan for the site.
(b) Inclusions.--The management plan shall cover, at a
minimum--
(1) measures for the preservation of the resources of the
site;
(2) requirements for the type and extent of development and
use of the site, including, for each development--
(A) the general location;
(B) timing and implementation requirements; and
(C) anticipated costs;
(3) requirements for offsite support facilities in Kiowa
County;
(4) identification of, and implementation commitments for,
visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the site;
(5) opportunities for involvement by the tribes and the
State in the formulation of educational programs for the
site; and
(6) opportunities for involvement by the tribes, the State,
and other local and national entities in the responsibilities
of developing and supporting the site.
SEC. 8. SPECIAL NEEDS OF DESCENDANTS.
(a) In General.--A descendant shall have [special]
reasonable rights of access to, and use of, federally
acquired land within the site, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of a written agreement between the Secretary
and the tribe of which the descendant is a member.
(b) Commemorative Needs.--In addition to the rights
described in subsection (a), any [special] reasonable need of
a descendant shall be considered in park planning and
operations, especially with respect to commemorative
activities in designated areas within the site.
SEC. 9. TRIBAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL
OBSERVANCE.
(a) Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall grant to any
descendant or other member of a tribe reasonable access to
federally acquired land within the site for the purpose of
carrying out a traditional, cultural, or historical
observance.
(2) No fee.--The Secretary shall not charge any fee for
access granted under paragraph (1).
[(b) Temporary Measures.--
[(1) In general.--In addition to access granted under
subsection (a), the Secretary, on a request by a tribe, may
take such temporary measures as are necessary, regarding 1 or
more portions of federally acquired land within the site, to
protect the privacy of any traditional, cultural, or
historical observance of the tribe that is conducted on that
land.
[(2) Duration; area.--A temporary measure under paragraph
(1) shall remain in effect only for the duration of, and with
respect to the area in the site that is involved in, the
carrying out of a traditional, cultural, or historical
observance under paragraph (1).]
(b) Conditions of Access.--In granting access under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall temporarily close to the
general public one or more specific portions of the site in
order to protect the privacy of tribal members engaging in a
traditional, cultural, or historical observance in those
portions; and any such closure shall be made in a manner that
affects the smallest practicable area for the minimum period
necessary for the purposes described above.
(c) Sand Creek Repatriation Site.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall dedicate a portion of
the federally acquired land within the site to the
establishment and operation of a site at which certain items
referred to in paragraph (2) that are repatriated under the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25
U.S.C. 300 et seq.) or any other provision of law may be
interred, reinterred, preserved, or otherwise protected.
(2) Acceptable items.--The items referred to in paragraph
(1) are any items associated with the Sand Creek Massacre,
such as--
(A) Native American human remains;
(B) associated funerary objects;
(C) unassociated funerary objects;
(D) sacred objects; and
(E) objects of cultural patrimony.
(d) Tribal Consultation.--In exercising any authority under
this section, the Secretary shall consult with, and solicit
advice and recommendations from, descendants and [tribes
located in the vicinity of the site.] the tribes.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
The amendment (No. 4293) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4293
(Purpose: Technical and clarifying corrections)
On page 5, line 23, strike ``Boundary of the San Creek
Massacre Site'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Sand Creek
Massacre Historic Site''.
On page 5, line 25, strike ``SAND 80,009 IR'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``SAND 80,013 IR''.
[[Page 20972]]
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 2950), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2950
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 ``Sand Creek Massacre National
Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) on November 29, 1864, a peaceful village of Cheyenne
and Arapaho Indians under the leadership of Chief Black
Kettle, along Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado territory
was attacked by approximately 700 volunteer soldiers
commanded by Colonel John M. Chivington;
(2) more than 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho were killed in the
attack, most of whom were women, children, or elderly;
(3) during the massacre and the following day, the soldiers
committed atrocities on the dead before withdrawing from the
field;
(4) the site of the Sand Creek Massacre is of great
significance to descendants of the victims of the massacre
and their respective tribes, for the commemoration of
ancestors at the site;
(5) the site is a reminder of the tragic extremes sometimes
reached in the 500 years of conflict between Native Americans
and people of European and other origins concerning the land
that now comprises the United States;
(6) Congress, in enacting the Sand Creek Massacre National
Historic Site Study Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-243; 112
Stat. 1579), directed the National Park Service to complete a
resources study of the site;
(7) the study completed under that Act--
(A) identified the location and extent of the area in which
the massacre took place; and
(B) confirmed the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of, and evaluated management options for, that
area, including designation of the site as a unit of the
National Park System; and
(8) the study included an evaluation of environmental
impacts and preliminary cost estimates for facility
development, administration, and necessary land acquisition.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize the importance of the Sand Creek Massacre
as--
(A) a nationally significant element of frontier military
and Native American history; and
(B) a symbol of the struggles of Native American tribes to
maintain their way of life on ancestral land;
(2) to authorize, on acquisition of sufficient land, the
establishment of the site of the Sand Creek Massacre as a
national historic site; and
(3) to provide opportunities for the tribes and the State
to be involved in the formulation of general management plans
and educational programs for the national historic site.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Descendant.--The term ``descendant'' means a member of
a tribe, an ancestor of whom was injured or killed in, or
otherwise affected by, the Sand Creek Massacre.
(2) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan required to be developed for the site
under section 7(a).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(4) Site.--The term ``site'' means the Sand Creek Massacre
National Historic Site established under section 4(a).
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.
(6) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' means--
(A) the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma;
(B) the Northern Cheyenne Tribe; or
(C) the Northern Arapaho Tribe.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--
(1) Determination.--On a determination by the Secretary
that land described in subsection (b)(1) containing a
sufficient quantity of resources to provide for the
preservation, memorialization, commemoration, and
interpretation of the Sand Creek Massacre has been acquired
by the National Park Service, the Secretary shall establish
the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, Colorado.
(2) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of the determination of the
Secretary under paragraph (1).
(b) Boundary.--
(1) Map and acreage.--The site shall consist of
approximately 12,480 acres in Kiowa County, Colorado, the
site of the Sand Creek Massacre, as generally depicted on the
map entitled, ``Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site'',
numbered, SAND 80,013 IR, and dated July 1, 2000.
(2) Legal description.--The Secretary shall prepare a legal
description of the land and interests in land described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Public availability.--The map prepared under paragraph
(1) and the legal description prepared under paragraph (2)
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
(4) Boundary revision.--The Secretary may, as necessary,
make minor revisions to the boundary of the site in
accordance with section 7(c) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)).
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the site in
accordance with--
(1) this Act;
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
(3) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); and
(4) other laws generally applicable to management of units
of the National Park System.
(b) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the site--
(1) to protect and preserve the site, including--
(A) the topographic features that the Secretary determines
are important to the site;
(B) artifacts and other physical remains of the Sand Creek
Massacre; and
(C) the cultural landscape of the site, in a manner that
preserves, as closely as practicable, the cultural landscape
of the site as it appeared at the time of the Sand Creek
Massacre;
(2)(A) to interpret the natural and cultural resource
values associated with the site; and
(B) provide for public understanding and appreciation of,
and preserve for future generations, those values; and
(3) to memorialize, commemorate, and provide information to
visitors to the site to--
(A) enhance cultural understanding about the site; and
(B) assist in minimizing the chances of similar incidents
in the future.
(c) Consultation and Training.--
(1) In general.--In developing the management plan and
preparing educational programs for the public about the site,
the Secretary shall consult with and solicit advice and
recommendations from the tribes and the State.
(2) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with the tribes (including boards, committees,
enterprises, and traditional leaders of the tribes) and the
State to carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the boundaries of the site--
(1) through purchase (including purchase with donated or
appropriated funds) only from a willing seller; and
(2) by donation, exchange, or other means, except that any
land or interest in land owned by the State (including a
political subdivision of the State) may be acquired only by
donation.
(b) Priority for Acquisition.--The Secretary shall give
priority to the acquisition of land containing the marker in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act, which states
``Sand Creek Battleground, November 29 and 30, 1864'', within
the boundary of the site.
(c) Cost-Effectiveness.--
(1) In general.--In acquiring land for the site, the
Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall use cost-
effective alternatives to Federal fee ownership, including--
(A) the acquisition of conservation easements; and
(B) other means of acquisition that are consistent with
local zoning requirements.
(2) Support facilities.--A support facility for the site
that is not within the designated boundary of the site may be
located in Kiowa County, Colorado, subject to an agreement
between the Secretary and the Commissioners of Kiowa County,
Colorado.
SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary shall prepare a management plan for the site.
(b) Inclusions.--The management plan shall cover, at a
minimum--
(1) measures for the preservation of the resources of the
site;
(2) requirements for the type and extent of development and
use of the site, including, for each development--
(A) the general location;
(B) timing and implementation requirements; and
(C) anticipated costs;
(3) requirements for offsite support facilities in Kiowa
County;
(4) identification of, and implementation commitments for,
visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the site;
(5) opportunities for involvement by the tribes and the
State in the formulation of educational programs for the
site; and
(6) opportunities for involvement by the tribes, the State,
and other local and national entities in the responsibilities
of developing and supporting the site.
[[Page 20973]]
SEC. 8. NEEDS OF DESCENDANTS.
(a) In General.--A descendant shall have reasonable rights
of access to, and use of, federally acquired land within the
site, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
written agreement between the Secretary and the tribe of
which the descendant is a member.
(b) Commemorative Needs.--In addition to the rights
described in subsection (a), any reasonable need of a
descendant shall be considered in park planning and
operations, especially with respect to commemorative
activities in designated areas within the site.
SEC. 9. TRIBAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL
OBSERVANCE.
(a) Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall grant to any
descendant or other member of a tribe reasonable access to
federally acquired land within the site for the purpose of
carrying out a traditional, cultural, or historical
observance.
(2) No fee.--The Secretary shall not charge any fee for
access granted under paragraph (1).
(b) Conditions of Access.--In granting access under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall temporarily close to the
general public one or more specific portions of the site in
order to protect the privacy of tribal members engaging in a
traditional, cultural, or historical observance in those
portions; and any such closure shall be made in a manner that
affects the smallest practicable area for the minimum period
necessary for the purposes described above.
(c) Sand Creek Repatriation Site.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall dedicate a portion of
the federally acquired land within the site to the
establishment and operation of a site at which certain items
referred to in paragraph (2) that are repatriated under the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25
U.S.C. 300 et seq.) or any other provision of law may be
interred, reinterred, preserved, or otherwise protected.
(2) Acceptable items.--The items referred to in paragraph
(1) are any items associated with the Sand Creek Massacre,
such as--
(A) Native American human remains;
(B) associated funerary objects;
(C) unassociated funerary objects;
(D) sacred objects; and
(E) objects of cultural patrimony.
(d) Tribal Consultation.--In exercising any authority under
this section, the Secretary shall consult with, and solicit
advice and recommendations from, descendants and the tribes.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
____________________
PROTECTIONS FOR LITTLE SANDY RIVER
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2691) to provide
further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part
of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other
purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources with an amendment to insert the part printed in
italic.
S. 2691
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE LITTLE
SANDY RIVER WATERSHED IN THE BULL RUN WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT UNIT, OREGON.
(a) In General.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is
amended by striking section 1 and inserting the following:
``SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
UNIT; DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established, subject to valid
existing rights, a special resources management unit in the
State of Oregon comprising approximately 98,272 acres, as
depicted on a map dated May 2000, and entitled `Bull Run
Watershed Management Unit'.
``(2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the offices of
the Regional Forester-Pacific Northwest Region, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, and in the offices of the
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior.
``(3) Boundary adjustments.--Minor adjustments in the
boundaries of the unit may be made from time to time by the
Secretary after consultation with the city and appropriate
public notice and hearings.
``(b) Definition of Secretary.--In this Act, the term
`Secretary' means--
``(1) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and
``(2) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
(1) Secretary.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is
amended by striking ``Secretary of Agriculture'' each place
it appears (except subsection (b) of section 1, as added by
subsection (a), and except in the amendments made by
paragraph (2)) and inserting ``Secretary''.
(2) Applicable law.--
(A) In general.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 95-200 (16
U.S.C. 482b note) is amended by striking ``applicable to
National Forest System lands'' and inserting ``applicable to
National Forest System land (in the case of land administered
by the Secretary of Agriculture) or applicable to land under
the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management (in the case of land administered by the Secretary
of the Interior)''.
(B) Management plans.--The first sentence of section 2(c)
of Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is amended--
(i) by striking ``subsection (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
(ii) by striking ``, through the maintenance'' and
inserting ``(in the case of land administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture) or section 202 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) (in the
case of land administered by the Secretary of the Interior),
through the maintenance''.
SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Timber Harvesting Restrictions.--Section 2(b) of Public
Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall prohibit the cutting of trees on Federal land in the
entire unit, as designated in section 1 and depicted on the
map referred to in that section.''.
(b) Repeal of Management Exception.--The Oregon Resource
Conservation Act of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-208)
is amended by striking section 606 (110 Stat. 3009-543).
(c) Repeal of Duplicative Enactment.--Section 1026 of
division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4228) and the
amendments made by that section are repealed.
(d) Water Rights.--Nothing in this section strengthens,
diminishes, or has any other effect on water rights held by
any person or entity.
SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) Within six months of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall identify
any Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands) subject
to the distribution provision of the Act of August 28, 1937
(chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1181f)
within the boundary of the special resources management area
described in Section 1 of this Act.
(b) Interior shall identify public domain lands within the
Medford, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem and Coos Bay Districts and
the Klamath Resource Area of the Lakeview District of the
Bureau of Land Management approximately equal in size and
condition as those lands identified in paragraph (a) but not
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181f). For purposes of this paragraph, ``public domain
lands'' shall have the meaning given the term ``public
lands'' in Section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702), but excluding
therefrom any lands managed pursuant to the Act of August 28,
1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181f).
(c) Within two years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress
and publish in the Federal Register a map or maps identifying
those public domain lands pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this Section. After an opportunity for public comment, the
Secretary of the Interior shall complete an administrative
land reclassification such that those lands identified
pursuant to paragraph (a) become public domain lands not
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181f) and those lands identified pursuant to paragraph
(b) become Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands)
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181f).
SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this
Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated $10
million under the provisions of section 323 of the FY 1999
Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) for Clackamas
County, Oregon, for watershed restoration near the Bull Run
Management Unit.
The amendment (No. 4294) was agreed to, as follows:
Amendment No. 4294
(Purpose: The amendment replaces two sections of the bill to require
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to complete an
administrative reclassification such that Oregon and California
Railroad lands within the area described in the Act become public
domains lands not subject to distribution provisions, and to authorize
ecosystem restoration activities in Clackamas County, Oregon)
Strike Section 3, through the end of the bill, and insert:
[[Page 20974]]
SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) Within six months of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall identify
any Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands) subject
to the distribution provision of the Act of August 28, 1937
(chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1181f)
within the boundary of the special resources management area
described in Section 1 of this Act.
(b) Within eighteen months of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall identify public
domain lands within the Medford, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem and
Coos Bay Districts and the Klamath Resource Area of the
Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management
approximately equal in size and condition as those lands
identified in paragraph (a) but not subject to the Act of
August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1181a-f). For purposes of this paragraph,
``public domain lands'' shall have the meaning given the term
``public lands'' in Section 103 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702), but excluding
there from any lands managed pursuant to the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C.
1181a-f).
(c) Within two years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress
and publish in the Federal Register a map or maps identifying
those public domain lands pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this Section. After an opportunity for public comment, the
Secretary of the Interior shall complete an administrative
land reclassification such that those lands identified
pursuant to paragraph (a) become public domain lands not
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. Sec.
1181f) and those lands identified pursuant to paragraph (b)
become Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands)
subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II,
50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f).
SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this
Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated $10
million under the provisions of section 323 of the FY 1999
Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) for Clackamas
County, Oregon, for watershed restoration, except timber
extraction, that protects or enhances water quality or
relates to the recovery of species listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205) near the Bull Run
Management Unit.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2691), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2691
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE LITTLE
SANDY RIVER WATERSHED IN THE BULL RUN WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT UNIT, OREGON.
(a) In General.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is
amended by striking section 1 and inserting the following:
``SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
UNIT; DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established, subject to valid
existing rights, a special resources management unit in the
State of Oregon comprising approximately 98,272 acres, as
depicted on a map dated May 2000, and entitled `Bull Run
Watershed Management Unit'.
``(2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the offices of
the Regional Forester-Pacific Northwest Region, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, and in the offices of the
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior.
``(3) Boundary adjustments.--Minor adjustments in the
boundaries of the unit may be made from time to time by the
Secretary after consultation with the city and appropriate
public notice and hearings.
``(b) Definition of Secretary.--In this Act, the term
`Secretary' means--
``(1) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and
``(2) with respect to land administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
(1) Secretary.--Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is
amended by striking ``Secretary of Agriculture'' each place
it appears (except subsection (b) of section 1, as added by
subsection (a), and except in the amendments made by
paragraph (2)) and inserting ``Secretary''.
(2) Applicable law.--
(A) In general.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 95-200 (16
U.S.C. 482b note) is amended by striking ``applicable to
National Forest System lands'' and inserting ``applicable to
National Forest System land (in the case of land administered
by the Secretary of Agriculture) or applicable to land under
the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management (in the case of land administered by the Secretary
of the Interior)''.
(B) Management plans.--The first sentence of section 2(c)
of Public Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is amended--
(i) by striking ``subsection (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
(ii) by striking ``, through the maintenance'' and
inserting ``(in the case of land administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture) or section 202 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) (in the
case of land administered by the Secretary of the Interior),
through the maintenance''.
SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Timber Harvesting Restrictions.--Section 2(b) of Public
Law 95-200 (16 U.S.C. 482b note) is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall prohibit the cutting of trees on Federal land in the
entire unit, as designated in section 1 and depicted on the
map referred to in that section.''.
(b) Repeal of Management Exception.--The Oregon Resource
Conservation Act of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-208)
is amended by striking section 606 (110 Stat. 3009-543).
(c) Repeal of Duplicative Enactment.--Section 1026 of
division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4228) and the
amendments made by that section are repealed.
(d) Water Rights.--Nothing in this section strengthens,
diminishes, or has any other effect on water rights held by
any person or entity.
SEC. 3. LAND RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall identify
any Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands) subject
to the distribution provision of the Act of August 28, 1937
(chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. sec. 1181f)
within the boundary of the special resources management area
described in section 1 of this Act.
(b) Within 18 months of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Interior shall identify public domain
lands within the Medford, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem and Coos
Bay Districts and the Klamath Resource Area of the Lakeview
District of the Bureau of Land Management approximately equal
in size and condition as those lands identified in subsection
(a) but not subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (chapter
876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. sec. 1181a-f). For
purposes of this subsection, ``public domain lands'' shall
have the meaning given the term ``public lands'' in section
103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1702), but excluding therefrom any lands managed
pursuant to the Act of August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title
II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f).
(c) Within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress and
publish in the Federal Register a map or maps identifying
those public domain lands pursuant to subsections (a) and (b)
of this section. After an opportunity for public comment, the
Secretary of the Interior shall complete an administrative
land reclassification such that those lands identified
pursuant to subsection (a) become public domain lands not
subject to the distribution provision of the Act of August
28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II, 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. Sec.
1181f) and those lands identified pursuant to subsection (b)
become Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C lands)
subject to the Act of August 28, 1937 (chapter 876, title II,
50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f).
SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this
Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 under the provisions of section 323 of the FY
1999 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) for Clackamas
County, Oregon, for watershed restoration, except timber
extraction, that protects or enhances water quality or
relates to the recovery of species listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) near the Bull Run
Management Unit.
____________________
HARRIET TUBMAN SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY ACT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2345) to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study
concerning the preservation and public use of sites associated with
Harriet Tubman located in Auburn, NY, and for other purposes, which had
been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with
an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
part printed in italic.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Harriet Tubman Special
Resource Study Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
[[Page 20975]]
(1) Harriet Tubman was born into slavery on a plantation in
Dorchester County, Maryland, in 1821;
(2) in 1849, Harriet Tubman escaped the plantation on foot,
using the North Star for direction and following a route
through Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania to Philadelpha,
where she gained her freedom;
(3) Harriet Tubman is an important figure in the history of
the United States, and is most famous for her role as a
``conductor'' on the Underground Railroad, in which, as a
fugitive slave, she helped hundreds of enslaved individuals
to esacape to freedom before and during the Civil War;
(4) during the Civil War, Harriet Tubman served the Union
Army as a guide, spy, and nurse;
(5) after the Civil War, Harriet Tubman was an advocate for
the education of black children;
(6) Harriet Tubman settled in Auburn, New York, in 1857,
and lived there until 1913;
(7) while in Auburn, Harriet Tubman dedicated her life to
caring selflessly and tirelessly for people who could not
care for themselves, was an influential member of the
community and an active member of the Thompson Memorial
A.M.E. Zion Church, and established a home for the elderly;
(8) Harriet Tubman was a friend of William Henry Seward,
who served as the Governor of and a Senator from the State of
New York and as Secretary of State under President Abraham
Lincoln;
(9) 4 sites in Auburn that directly relate to Harriet
Tubman and are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places are--
(A) Harriet Tubman's home;
(B) the Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged;
(C) the Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church; and
(D) Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged and William Henry
Seward's home in Auburn are national historic landmarks.
SEC. 3. STUDY CONCERNING SITES IN AUBURN, NEW YORK,
ASSOCIATED WITH HARRIET TUBMAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a special resource study of the national
significance, feasibility of long-term preservation, and
public use of the following sites associated with Harriet
Tubman:
(1) Harriet Tubman's Birthplace, located on Greenbriar
Road, off of Route 50, in Dorchester County, Maryland.
(2) Bazel Church, located 1 mile South of Greenbriar Road
in Cambridge, Maryland.
(3) Harriet Tubman's home, located at 182 South Street,
Auburn, New York.
(4) The Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged, located at 180
South Street, Auburn, New York.
(5) The Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church, located at 33
Parker Street, Auburn, New York.
(6) Harriet Tubman's grave at Port Hill Cemetery, located
at 19 Fort Street, Auburn, New York.
(7) William Henry Seward's home, located at 33 South
Street, Auburn, New York.
(b) Inclusion of Sites in the National Park System.--The
study under subsection (a) shall include an analysis and any
recommendations of the Secretary concerning the suitability
and feasibility of--
(1) designating one or more of the sites specified in
subsection (a) as units of the National Park System; and
(2) establishing a national heritage corridor that
incorporates the sites specified in subsection (a) and any
other sites associated with Harriet Tubman.
(c) Study Guidelines.--In conducting the study authorized
by this Act, the Secretary shall use the criteria for the
study of areas for potential inclusion in the National Park
System contained in Section 8 of P.L. 91-383, as amended by
Section 303 of the National Park Omnibus Management Act
((P.L. 105-391), 112 Stat. 3501).
(d) Consultation.--In preparing and conducting the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Governors of the States of Maryland and New York;
(2) a member of the Board of County Commissioners of
Dorchester County, Maryland;
(3) the Mayor of the city of Auburn, New York;
(4) the owner of the sites specified in subsection (a); and
(5) the appropriate representatives of--
(A) the Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church;
(B) the Bazel Church;
(C) the Harriet Tubman Foundation; and
(D) the Harriet Tubman Organization, Inc.
(e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
funds are made available for the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing
the results of the study.
The amendment (No. 4295) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4295
(Purpose: To make a technical correction)
On page 7, line 24, strike ``Port Hill Cemetery,'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``Fort Hill Cemetery,''.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2345), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2345
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 ``Harriet Tubman Special
Resource Study Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Harriet Tubman was born into slavery on a plantation in
Dorchester County, Maryland, in 1821;
(2) in 1849, Harriet Tubman escaped the plantation on foot,
using the North Star for direction and following a route
through Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania to Philadelphia,
where she gained her freedom;
(3) Harriet Tubman is an important figure in the history of
the United States, and is most famous for her role as a
``conductor'' on the Underground Railroad, in which, as a
fugitive slave, she helped hundreds of enslaved individuals
to escape to freedom before and during the Civil War;
(4) during the Civil War, Harriet Tubman served the Union
Army as a guide, spy, and nurse;
(5) after the Civil War, Harriet Tubman was an advocate for
the education of black children;
(6) Harriet Tubman settled in Auburn, New York, in 1857,
and lived there until 1913;
(7) while in Auburn, Harriet Tubman dedicated her life to
caring selflessly and tirelessly for people who could not
care for themselves, was an influential member of the
community and an active member of the Thompson Memorial
A.M.E. Zion Church, and established a home for the elderly;
(8) Harriet Tubman was a friend of William Henry Seward,
who served as the Governor of and a Senator from the State of
New York and as Secretary of State under President Abraham
Lincoln;
(9) 4 sites in Auburn that directly relate to Harriet
Tubman and are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places are--
(A) Harriet Tubman's home;
(B) the Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged;
(C) the Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church; and
(D) Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged and William Henry
Seward's home in Auburn are national historic landmarks.
SEC. 3. STUDY CONCERNING SITES IN AUBURN, NEW YORK,
ASSOCIATED WITH HARRIET TUBMAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a special resource study of the national
significance, feasibility of long-term preservation, and
public use of the following sites associated with Harriet
Tubman:
(1) Harriet Tubman's Birthplace, located on Greenbriar
Road, off of Route 50, in Dorchester County, Maryland.
(2) Bazel Church, located 1 mile South of Greenbriar Road
in Cambridge, Maryland.
(3) Harriet Tubman's home, located at 182 South Street,
Auburn, New York.
(4) The Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged, located at 180
South Street, Auburn, New York.
(5) The Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church, located at 33
Parker Street, Auburn, New York.
(6) Harriet Tubman's grave at Fort Hill Cemetery, located
at 19 Fort Street, Auburn, New York.
(7) William Henry Seward's home, located at 33 South
Street, Auburn, New York.
(b) Inclusion of Sites in the National Park System.--The
study under subsection (a) shall include an analysis and any
recommendations of the Secretary concerning the suitability
and feasibility of--
(1) designating one or more of the sites specified in
subsection (a) as units of the National Park System; and
(2) establishing a national heritage corridor that
incorporates the sites specified in subsection (a) and any
other sites associated with Harriet Tubman.
(c) Study Guidelines.--In conducting the study authorized
by this Act, the Secretary shall use the criteria for the
study of areas for potential inclusion in the National Park
System contained in Section 8 of P.L. 91-383, as amended by
Section 303 of the National Park Omnibus Management Act
((P.L. 105-391), 112 Stat. 3501).
(d) Consultation.--In preparing and conducting the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Governors of the States of Maryland and New York;
(2) a member of the Board of County Commissioners of
Dorchester County, Maryland;
(3) the Mayor of the city of Auburn, New York;
(4) the owner of the sites specified in subsection (a); and
(5) the appropriate representatives of--
(A) the Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church;
(B) the Bazel Church;
(C) the Harriet Tubman Foundation; and
(D) the Harriet Tubman Organization, Inc.
(e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
funds are made available for the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing
the results of the study.
____________________
[[Page 20976]]
RECALCULATING FRANCHISE FEE OWED BY FORT SUMTER TOURS, INC.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2331) to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to recalculate the franchise fee owed by Fort
Sumter Tours, Inc., a concessioner providing service to Fort Sumter
National Monument, SC, which had been reported from the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike out all after
the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic.
SECTION 1. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENT.
The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall, upon the request of Fort Sumter
Tours, Inc. (in this Act referred to as the
``Concessioner''), agree to binding arbitration to determine
the franchise fee payable under the contract executed on June
13, 1986, by the Concessioner and the National Park Service,
under which the Concessioner provides passenger boat service
to Fort Sumter National Monument in Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina (in this Act referred to as ``the Contract'').
SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR.
(a) Mutual Agreement.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, The Secretary and the
Concessioner shall jointly select a single arbitrator to
conduct the arbitration under this Act.
(b) Failure To Agree.--If the Secretary and the
concessioner are unable to agree on the selection of a single
arbitrator within 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, within 30 days thereafter the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall each select an arbitrator, the two
arbitrators selected by the Secretary and the Concessioner
shall jointly select a third arbitrator, and the three
arbitrators shall jointly conduct the arbitration.
(c) Qualifications.--Any arbitrator selected under either
subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be a neutral who meets
the criteria of section 573 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Payment of Expenses.--The Secretary and the
Concessioner shall share equally the expenses of the
arbitration.
(e) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term
``arbitrator'' includes either a single arbitrator selected
under subsection (a) or a three-member panel of arbitrators
selected under (b).
SEC. 3. SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION.
(a) Sole Issue To Be Decided.--The arbitrator shall
determine--
(1) the appropriate amount of the franchise fee under the
Contract for the period from June 13, 1991, through December
31, 2000, in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and
(2) any interest or penalties on the amount owed under
paragraph (1).
(b) De Novo Decision.--The arbitrator shall not be bound by
any prior determination of the appropriate amount of the fee
by the Secretary.
(c) Basis for Decision.--The arbitrator shall determine the
appropriate amount of the fee based upon the law in effect on
the effective date of the Contract and the terms of section 9
of the Contract.
SEC. 4. EFFECT OF DECISION.
(a) Retroactive Effect.--The amount of the fee determined
by the arbitrator under section 3(a) shall be retroactive to
June 13, 1991.
(b) No Further Review.--Notwithstanding subchapter IV of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act), the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and conclusive upon the Secretary
and the Concessioner and shall not be subject to judicial
review.
SEC. 5. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
Except to the extent inconsistent with this Act, the
arbitration under this Act shall be conducted in accordance
with subchapter IV of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or
refusal of another to arbitrate under this Act, or by any
unreasonable delay in the appointment of the arbitrator or
the conduct of the arbitration, may petition the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina or
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
for an order directing that the arbitration proceed in the
manner provided by this Act.
Amend the title to read: ``A bill to require the
Secretary of the Interior to submit the dispute over the
franchise fee owed by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. to binding
arbitration.''.
The amendment (No. 4296) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4296
Strike all and insert the following:
``SECTION 1. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENT.
``The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to as
the `Secretary') shall, upon the request of Fort Sumter
Tours, Inc. (in this Act referred to as the `Concessioner'),
agree to binding arbitration to determine the franchise fee
payable under the contract executed on June 13, 1986 by the
Concessioner and the National Park Service, under which the
Concessioner provides passenger boat service to Fort Sumter
National Monument in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina (in
this Act referred to as `the Contract').
``SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR.
``(a) Mutual Agreement.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall jointly select a single arbitrator to
conduct the arbitration under this Act.
``(b) Failure To Agree.--If the Secretary and the
Concessioner are unable to agree on the selection of a single
arbitrator within 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, within 30 days thereafter the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall each select an arbitrator, the two
arbitrators selected by the Secretary and the Concessioner
shall jointly select a third arbitrator, and the three
arbitrators shall jointly conduct the arbitration.
``(c) Qualifications.--Any arbitrator selected under either
subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be a neutral who meets
the criteria of section 573 of title 5, United States Code.
``(d) Payment of Expenses.--The Secretary and the
Concessioner shall share equally the expenses of the
arbitration.
``(e) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term
`arbitrator' includes either a single arbitrator selected
under subsection (a) or a three-member panel of arbitrators
selected under subsection (b).
``SEC. 3. SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION.
``(a) Sole Issues To Be Decided.--The arbitrator shall,
after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard in
accordance with section 579 of title 5, United States Code,
determine--
``(1) the appropriate amount of the franchise fee under the
Contract for the period from June 13, 1991 through December
31, 2000 in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and
``(2) any interest or penalties on the amount owed under
paragraph (1).
``(b) De Novo Decision.--The arbitrator shall not be bound
by an prior determination of the appropriate amount of the
fee by the Secretary or any prior court review thereof.
``(c) Basis for Decision.--The arbitrator shall determine
the appropriate amount of the fee based upon law in effect on
the effective date of the contract and the terms of the
Contract.
``SEC. 4. FINAL DECISION.
``The arbitrator shall issue a final decision not later
than 300 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
``SEC. 5. EFFECT OF DECISION.
``(a) Retroactive Effect.--The amount of the fee determined
by the arbitrator under section 3(a) shall be retroactive to
June 13, 1991.
``(b) No Further Review.--Notwithstanding subchapter IV of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act), the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and conclusive upon the Secretary
and the Concessioner and shall not be subject to judicial
review.
``SEC. 6. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
``Except to the extent inconsistent with this Act, the
arbitration under this Act shall be conducted in accordance
with subchapter IV of title 5, United States Code.''.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2331), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2331
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENT.
The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall, upon the request of Fort Sumter
Tours, Inc. (in this Act referred to as the
``Concessioner''), agree to binding arbitration to determine
the franchise fee payable under the contract executed on June
13, 1986 by the Concessioner and the National Park Service,
under which the Concessioner provides passenger boat service
to Fort Sumter National Monument in Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina (in this Act referred to as ``the Contract'').
SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR.
(a) Mutual Agreement.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall jointly select a single arbitrator to
conduct the arbitration under this Act.
(b) Failure To Agree.--If the Secretary and the
Concessioner are unable to agree on the selection of a single
arbitrator within 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, within 30 days thereafter the Secretary and the
Concessioner shall each select an arbitrator, the two
arbitrators selected by the Secretary and the Concessioner
shall jointly select a third arbitrator, and the three
arbitrators shall jointly conduct the arbitration.
(c) Qualifications.--Any arbitrator selected under either
subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be a neutral who meets
the criteria of section 573 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Payment of Expenses.--The Secretary and the
Concessioner shall share equally the expenses of the
arbitration.
(e) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term
``arbitrator'' includes either a single arbitrator selected
under subsection (a) or a three-member panel of arbitrators
selected under subsection (b).
SEC. 3. SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION.
(a) Sole Issues To Be Decided.--The arbitrator shall, after
affording the parties an
[[Page 20977]]
opportunity to be heard in accordance with section 579 of
title 5, United States Code, determine--
(1) the appropriate amount of the franchise fee under the
Contract for the period from June 13, 1991 through December
31, 2000 in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and
(2) any interest or penalties on the amount owed under
paragraph (1).
(b) De Novo Decision.--The arbitrator shall not be bound by
any prior determination of the appropriate amount of the fee
by the Secretary or any prior court review thereof.
(c) Basis for Decision.--The arbitrator shall determine the
appropriate amount of the fee based upon the law in effect on
the effective date of the Contract and the terms of the
Contract.
SEC. 4. FINAL DECISION.
The arbitrator shall issue a final decision not later than
300 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF DECISION.
(a) Retroactive Effect.--The amount of the fee determined
by the arbitrator under section 3(a) shall be retroactive to
June 13, 1991.
(b) No Further Review.--Notwithstanding subchapter IV of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act), the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and conclusive upon the Secretary
and the Concessioner and shall not be subject to judicial
review.
SEC. 6. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
Except to the extent inconsistent with this Act, the
arbitration under this Act shall be conducted in accordance
with subchapter IV of title 5, United States Code.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to require the
Secretary of the Interior to submit the dispute over the franchise fee
owed by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. to binding arbitration.''.
____________________
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992
______
DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE PRESERVATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed, en bloc, to the immediate consideration of the following items
which are at the desk: H.R. 2641 and H.R. 5036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2641) to make technical corrections to title X
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
A bill (H.R. 5036) to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage
Preservation Act of 1992 to clarify the areas included in the
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and to
authorize appropriations for that park.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be
read the third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bills (H.R. 2641 and H.R. 5036) were read the third time and
passed.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 1236 AND S. 1849
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the Chair to lay before the Senate, en bloc, messages from the
House on S. 1236 and S. 1849, that the Senate concur, en bloc, to the
House amendment, and that the action be reconsidered and tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ARROWROCK DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1236) entitled
``An Act to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
for commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam
Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission project numbered 4656, the Commission may, at the
request of the licensee for the project and after reasonable
notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and
public interest requirements of that section and the
Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time
period during which the licensee is required to commence the
construction of the project for three consecutive 2-year
periods.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on
the date of the expiration of the extension issued by the
Commission prior to the date of the enactment of this Act
under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
(c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period
required for commencement of construction of the project
described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the
license effective as of the date of its expiration and the
first extension authorized under subsection (a) shall take
effect on the date of such expiration.
The Senate concurred in the amendment of the House.
____________________
WHITE CLAY CREEK WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1849) entitled
``An Act to designate segments and tributaries of White Clay
Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania, as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System'', do pass with the
following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``White Clay Creek Wild and
Scenic Rivers System Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Public Law 102-215 (105 Stat. 1664) directed the
Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation and consultation
with appropriate State and local governments and affected
landowners, to conduct a study of the eligibility and
suitability of White Clay Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania,
and the tributaries of the creek for inclusion in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
(2) as a part of the study described in paragraph (1), the
White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Study Task Force and the
National Park Service prepared a watershed management plan
for the study area entitled ``White Clay Creek and Its
Tributaries Watershed Management Plan'', dated May 1998, that
establishes goals and actions to ensure the long-term
protection of the outstanding values of, and compatible
management of land and water resources associated with, the
watershed; and
(3) after completion of the study described in paragraph
(1), Chester County, Pennsylvania, New Castle County,
Delaware, Newark, Delaware, and 12 Pennsylvania
municipalities located within the watershed boundaries passed
resolutions that--
(A) expressed support for the White Clay Creek Watershed
Management Plan;
(B) expressed agreement to take action to implement the
goals of the Plan; and
(C) endorsed the designation of the White Clay Creek and
the tributaries of the creek for inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WHITE CLAY CREEK.
Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(162) White Clay Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania.--The
190 miles of river segments of White Clay Creek (including
tributaries of White Clay Creek and all second order
tributaries of the designated segments) in the States of
Delaware and Pennsylvania, as depicted on the recommended
designation and classification maps (dated June 2000), to be
administered by the Secretary of the Interior, as follows:
``(A) 30.8 miles of the east branch, including Trout Run,
beginning at the headwaters within West Marlborough township
downstream to a point that is 500 feet north of the Borough
of Avondale wastewater treatment facility, as a recreational
river.
``(B) 15.0 miles of the east branch beginning at the
southern boundary line of the Borough of Avondale to a point
where the East Branch enters New Garden Township at the
Franklin Township boundary line, including Walnut Run and
Broad Run outside the boundaries of the White Clay Creek
Preserve, as a recreational river.
``(C) 4.0 miles of the east branch that flow through the
boundaries of the White Clay Creek Preserve, Pennsylvania,
beginning at the northern boundary line of London Britain
township and downstream to the confluence of the middle and
east branches, as a scenic river.
``(D) 6.8 miles of the middle branch, beginning at the
headwaters within Londonderry township downstream to a point
that is 500 feet north of the Borough of West Grove
wastewater treatment facility, as a recreational river.
``(E) 14 miles of the middle branch, beginning at a point
that is 500 feet south of the Borough of West Grove
wastewater treatment facility downstream to the boundary of
the White Clay Creek Preserve in London Britain township, as
a recreational river.
[[Page 20978]]
``(F) 2.1 miles of the middle branch that flow within the
boundaries of the White Clay Creek Preserve in London Britain
township, as a scenic river.
``(G) 17.2 miles of the west branch, beginning at the
headwaters within Penn township downstream to the confluence
with the middle branch, as a recreational river.
``(H) 12.7 miles of the main stem, excluding Lamborn Run,
that flow through the boundaries of the White Clay Creek
Preserve, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and White Clay Creek
State Park, Delaware, beginning at the confluence of the east
and middle branches in London Britain township, Pennsylvania,
downstream to the northern boundary line of the city of
Newark, Delaware, as a scenic river.
``(I) 5.4 miles of the main stem (including all second
order tributaries outside the boundaries of the White Clay
Creek Preserve and White Clay Creek State Park), beginning at
the confluence of the east and middle branches in London
Britain township, Pennsylvania, downstream to the northern
boundary of the city of Newark, Delaware, as a recreational
river.
``(J) 16.8 miles of the main stem beginning at Paper Mill
Road downstream to the Old Route 4 bridge, as a recreational
river.
``(K) 4.4 miles of the main stem beginning at the southern
boundary of the property of the corporation known as United
Water Delaware downstream to the confluence of White Clay
Creek with the Christina River, as a recreational river.
``(L) 1.3 miles of Middle Run outside the boundaries of the
Middle Run Natural Area, as a recreational river.
``(M) 5.2 miles of Middle Run that flow within the
boundaries of the Middle Run Natural Area, as a scenic river.
``(N) 15.6 miles of Pike Creek, as a recreational river.
``(O) 38.7 miles of Mill Creek, as a recreational river.''.
SEC. 4. BOUNDARIES.
With respect to each of the segments of White Clay Creek
and its tributaries designated by the amendment made by
section 3, in lieu of the boundaries provided for in section
3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(b)),
the boundaries of the segment shall be 250 feet as measured
from the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the
segment.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) By Secretary of the Interior.--The segments designated
by the amendment made by section 3 shall be administered by
the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this Act as the
``Secretary''), in cooperation with the White Clay Creek
Watershed Management Committee as provided for in the plan
prepared by the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Study Task
Force and the National Park Service, entitled ``White Clay
Creek and Its Tributaries Watershed Management Plan'' and
dated May 1998 (referred to in this Act as the ``Management
Plan'').
(b) Requirement for Comprehensive Management Plan.--The
Management Plan shall be considered to satisfy the
requirements for a comprehensive management plan under
section 3(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1274(d)).
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--In order to provide for the
long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement of the
segments designated by the amendment made by section 3, the
Secretary shall offer to enter into a cooperative agreement
pursuant to sections 10(c) and 11(b)(1) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e), 1282(b)(1)) with the
White Clay Creek Watershed Management Committee as provided
for in the Management Plan.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL ROLE IN MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Park Service
(or a designee) shall represent the Secretary in the
implementation of the Management Plan, this Act, and the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act with respect to each of the segments
designated by the amendment made by section 3, including the
review, required under section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1278(a)), of proposed federally-
assisted water resources projects that could have a direct
and adverse effect on the values for which the segment is
designated.
(b) Assistance.--To assist in the implementation of the
Management Plan, this Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
with respect to each of the segments designated by the
amendment made by section 3, the Secretary may provide
technical assistance, staff support, and funding at a cost to
the Federal Government in an amount, in the aggregate, of not
to exceed $150,000 for each fiscal year.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--Any cooperative agreement
entered into under section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e)) relating to any of the
segments designated by the amendment made by section 3--
(1) shall be consistent with the Management Plan; and
(2) may include provisions for financial or other
assistance from the United States to facilitate the long-term
protection, conservation, and enhancement of the segments.
(d) National Park System.--Notwithstanding section 10(c) of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(c)), any
portion of a segment designated by the amendment made by
section 3 that is not in the National Park System as of the
date of the enactment of this Act shall not, under this Act--
(1) be considered a part of the National Park System;
(2) be managed by the National Park Service; or
(3) be subject to laws (including regulations) that govern
the National Park System.
SEC. 7. STATE REQUIREMENTS.
State and local zoning laws and ordinances, as in effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act, shall be considered to
satisfy the standards and requirements under section 6(c) of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)) with
respect to the segment designated by the amendment made by
section 3.
SEC. 8. NO LAND ACQUISITION.
The Federal Government shall not acquire, by any means, any
right or title in or to land, any easement, or any other
interest along the segments designated by the amendment made
by section 3 for the purpose of carrying out the amendment or
this Act.
The Senate concurred in the amendment of the House.
____________________
THE CALENDAR
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy
Committee be discharged from the following bills and resolutions and,
further, the Senate now proceed to their consideration en bloc: H.R.
1509, H.R. 2778, H.R. 3676, H.R. 3817, S. 2273 with amendment No. 4297,
and S. Res. 326.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 4297 be agreed to, the
bills be considered read the third time and passed, the resolution and
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to any of the bills or
resolutions be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DISABLED VETERANS' LIFE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
The bill (H.R. 1509) to authorize the Disabled Veterans' Life
Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia
or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
DESIGNATING THE TAUNTON RIVER FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO NATIONAL WILD
AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
The bill (H.R. 2778) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered
to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
SANTA ROSA AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT
The bill (H.R. 3676) to establish the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument in the State of California, was considered,
ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
DEDICATION OF BIG SOUTH TRAIL TO LEGACY OF JARYD ATADERO
The bill (H.R. 3817) to dedicate the Big South Trail in the Comanche
Peak Wilderness Area of Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado to the
legacy of Jaryd Atadero, was considered, ordered to a third reading,
read the third time, and passed.
____________________
BLACK ROCK DESERT-HIGH ROCK CANYON EMIGRANT TRAILS NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA ACT OF 2000
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2273) to establish the
Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National
Conservation Area, and for other purposes, which was reported from the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The amendment (No. 4297) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4297
(Purpose: to provide a complete substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
[[Page 20979]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Black Rock Desert-High Rock
Canon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The areas of northwestern Nevada known as the Black
Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon contain and surround the
last nationally significant, untouched segments of the
historic California Emigrant Trails, including wagon ruts,
historic inscriptions, and a wilderness landscape largely
unchanged since the days of the pioneers.
(2) The relative absence of development in the Black Rock
Desert and High Rock Canyon areas from emigrant times to the
present day offers a unique opportunity to capture the
terrain, sights, and conditions of the overland trails as
they were experienced by the emigrants and to make available
to both present and future generations of Americans the
opportunity of experiencing emigrant conditions in an
unaltered setting.
(3) The Black Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon areas are
unique segments of the Northern Great Basin and contain broad
representation of the Great Basin's land forms and plant and
animal species, including golden eagles and other birds of
prey, sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn
sheep, free roaming horses and burros, threatened fish and
sensitive plants.
(4) The Black Rock-High Rock region contains a number of
cultural and natural resources that have been declared
eligible for National Historic Landmark and Natural Landmark
status, including a portion of the 1843-44 John Charles
Fremont exploration route, the site of the death of Peter
Lassen, early military facilities, and examples of early
homesteading and mining.
(5) The archaeological, paleontological, and geographical
resources of the Black Rock-High Rock region include numerous
prehistoric and historic Native American sites, wooly mammoth
sites, some of the largest natural potholes of North America,
and a remnant dry Pelistocene lakebed (playa) where the
curvature of the Earth may be observed.
(6) The two large wilderness mosaics that frame the
conservation area offer exceptional opportunities for
solitude and serve to protect the integrity of the viewshed
of the historic emigrant trails.
(7) Public lands in the conservation area have been used
for domestic livestock grazing for over a century, with
resultant benefits to community stability and contributions
to the local and State economies. It has not been
demonstrated that continuation of this use would be
incompatible with appropriate protection and sound management
of the resource values of these lands; therefore, it is
expected that such grazing will continue in accordance with
the management plan for the conservation area and other
applicable laws and regulations.
(8) The Black Rock Desert playa is a unique natural
resource that serves as the primary destination for the
majority of visitors to the conservation area, including
visitors associated with large-scale permitted events. It is
expected that such permitted events will continue to be
administered in accordance with the management plan for the
conservation area and other applicable laws and regulations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) The term ``public lands'' has the meaning stated in
section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(3) The term ``conservation area'' means the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area established pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) Establishment and Purposes.--In order to conserve,
protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations the unique and nationally important
historical, cultural, paleontological, scenic, scientific,
biological, educational, wildlife, riparian, wilderness,
endangered species, and recreational values and resources
associated with the Applegate-Lassen and Nobles Trails
corridors and surrounding areas, there is hereby established
the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails
National Conservation Area in the State of Nevada.
(b) Areas Included.--The conservation area shall consist of
approximately 797,100 acres of public lands as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Emigrant
Trail National Conservation Area'' and dated July 19, 2000.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
conservation area. The map and legal description shall have
the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except
the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors
in such map and legal description. Copies of the map and
legal description shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land
Management.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Management.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau
of Land Management, shall manage the conservation area in a
manner that conserves, protects and enhances its resources
and values, including those resources and values specified in
subsection 4(a), in accordance with this Act, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.), and other applicable provisions of law.
(b) Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain adequate
access for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the
conservation area.
(2) Private land.--The Secretary shall provide reasonable
access to privately owned land or interests in land within
the boundaries of the conservation area.
(3) Existing public roads.--The Secretary is authorized to
maintain existing public access within the boundaries of the
conservation areas in a manner consistent with the purposes
for which the conservation area was established.
(c) Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses
of the conservation area as the Secretary finds will further
the purposes for which the conservation area is established.
(2) Off-highway vehicle use.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of
motorized vehicles in the conservation area shall be
permitted only on roads and trails and in other areas
designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the
management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(3) Permitted events.--The Secretary may continue to permit
large-scale events in defined, low impact areas of the Black
Rock Desert plays in the conservation area in accordance with
the management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(d) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to diminish the jurisdiction of the State of
Nevada with respect to fish and wildlife management,
including regulation of hunting and fishing, on public lands
within the conservation area.
(e) Management plan.--Within three years following the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive resource management plan for the long-term
protection and management of the conservation area. The plan
shall be developed with full public participation and shall
developed with full public participation and shall describe
the appropriate uses and management of the conservation area
consistent with the provisions of this Act. The plan may
incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any current
management or activity plan for the area and may use
information developed in previous studies of the lands within
or adjacent to the conservation area.
(f) Grazing.--Where the Secretary of the Interior currently
permits livestock grazing in the conservation area, such
grazing shall be allowed to continue subject to all
applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders.
(g) Visitor Service Facilities.--The Secretary is
authorized to establish, in cooperation with other public or
private entities as the Secretary may deem appropriate,
visitor service facilities for the purpose of providing
information about the historical, cultural, ecological,
recreational, and other resources of the conservation area.
SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
Federal lands within the conservation area and all lands and
interests therein which are hereafter acquired by the United
States are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, from
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, from
operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws
and from the minerals materials laws and all amendments
thereto.
SEC. 7. NO BUFFER ZONES.
The Congress does not intend for the establishment of the
conservation area to lead to the creation of protective
perimeters or buffer zones around the conservation area. The
fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside
the conservation area that would not be permitted in the
conservation area shall not preclude such activities or uses
on such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area
consistent with other applicable laws.
SEC. 8. WILDERNESS.
(a) Designatin.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the
following lands in the State of Nevada are designated as
wilderness, and, therefore, as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Certain lands in the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 315,700 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Black Rock Desert Wilderness.
(2) Certain lands in the Pahute Peak Wilderness Study Area
comprised of approximately 57,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Pahute Peak Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Pahute Peak Wilderness.
(3) Certain lands in the North Black Rock Range Wilderness
Study Area comprised of
[[Page 20980]]
approximately 30,800 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``North Black Rock Range Wilderness--Proposed'' and
dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known as the North
Black Rock Range Wilderness.
(4) Certain lands in the East Fork High Rock Canyon
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 52,800
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``East Fork
High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the East Fork High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(5) Certain lands in the High Rock Lake Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 59,300 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``High Rock Lake Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the High Rock Lake Wilderness.
(6) Certain lands in the Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 48,700 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``Little High Rock
Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the Little High Rock Canyon
Wilderness.
(7) Certain lands in the High Rock Canyon Wilderness Study
Area and Yellow Rock Canyon Wilderness Study Area comprised
of approximately 46,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated
July 19, 2000, and which shall be known as the High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(8) Certain land in the Calico Mountains Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 65,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Calico Mountains Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Calico Mountains Wilderness.
(9) Certain lands in the South Jackson Mountains Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 56,800 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``South Jackson
Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the South Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(10) Certain lands in the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 24,000
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``North
Jackson Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(b) Administration of Wilderness Areas.--Subject to valid
existing rights, each wilderness area designated by this Act
shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the
provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference
in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness
Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act and any reference to the Secretary of
Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
wilderness areas designated under this Act. The map and legal
description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in such map and legal
description. Copies of the map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
(d) Grazing.--Within the wilderness areas designated under
subsection (a), the grazing of livestock, where established
prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be
permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations,
policies, and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, as
long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully
conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding
grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed in the
Wilderness Act and section 101(f) of Public Law 101-628.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
The bill (S. 2273), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
S. 2273
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 ``Black Rock Desert-High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The areas of northwestern Nevada known as the Black
Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon contain and surround the
last nationally significant, untouched segments of the
historic California emigrant Trails, including wagon ruts,
historic inscriptions, and a wilderness landscape largely
unchanged since the days of the pioneers.
(2) The relative absence of development in the Black Rock
Desert and high Rock Canyon areas from emigrant times to the
present day offers a unique opportunity to capture the
terrain, sights, and conditions of the overland trails as
they were experienced by the emigrants and to make available
to both present and future generations of Americans the
opportunity of experiencing emigrant conditions in an
unaltered setting.
(3) The Black Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon areas are
unique segments of the Northern Great Basin and contain broad
representation of the Great Basin's land forms and plant and
animal species, including golden eagles and other birds of
prey, sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn
sheep, free roaming horses and burros, threatened fish and
sensitive plants.
(4) The Black Rock-High Rock region contains a number of
cultural and natural resources that have been declared
eligible for National Historic Landmark and Natural Landmark
status, including a portion of the 1843-44 John Charles
Fremont exploration route, the site of the death of Peter
Lassen, early military facilities, and examples of early
homesteading and mining.
(5) The archeological, paleontological, and geographical
resources of the Black Rock-High Rock region include numerous
prehistoric and historic Native American sites, wooly mammoth
sites, some of the largest natural potholes of North America,
and a remnant dry Pleistocene lakebed (playa) where the
curvature of the Earth may be observed.
(6) The two large wilderness mosaics that frame the
conservation area offer exceptional opportunities for
solitude and serve to protect the integrity of the viewshed
of the historic emigrant trails.
(7) Public lands in the conservation area have been used
for domestic livestock grazing for over a century, with
resultant benefits to community stability and contributions
to the local and State economies. It has not been
demonstrated that continuation of this use would be
incompatible with appropriate protection and sound management
of the resource values of these lands; therefore, it is
expected that such grazing will continue in accordance with
the management plan for the conservation area and other
applicable laws and regulations.
(8) The Black Rock Desert playa is a unique natural
resource that serves as the primary destination for the
majority of visitors to the conservation area, including
visitors associated with large-scale permitted events. It is
expected that such permitted events will continue to be
administered in accordance with the management plan for the
conservation area and other applicable laws and regulations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) The term ``public lands'' has the meaning stated in
section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(3) The term ``conservation area'' means the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area established pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) Establishment and Purposes.--In order to conserve,
protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations the unique and nationally important
historical, cultural, paleontological, scenic, scientific,
biological, educational, wildlife, riparian, wilderness,
endangered species, and recreational values and resources
associated with the Applegate-Lassen and Nobles Trails
corridors and surrounding areas, there is hereby established
the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails
National Conservation Area in the State of Nevada.
(b) Areas Included.--The conservation area shall consist of
approximately 797,100 acres of public lands as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Emigrant
Trail National Conservation Area'' and dated July 19, 2000.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
conservation area. The map and legal description shall have
the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except
the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors
in such map and legal description. Copies of the map and
legal description shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land
Management.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Management.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau
of Land Management, shall manage the conservation area in a
manner that conserves, protects and enhances its resources
and values, including those resources and values specified in
subsection 4(a), in accordance with this Act, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.), and other applicable provisions of law.
(b) Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain adequate
access for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the
conservation area.
(2) Private land.--The Secretary shall provide reasonable
access to privately owned land or interests in land within
the boundaries of the conservation area.
[[Page 20981]]
(3) Existing public roads.--The Secretary is authorized to
maintain existing public access within the boundaries of the
conservation area in a manner consistent with the purposes
for which the conservation area was established.
(c) Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses
of the conservation area as the Secretary finds will further
the purposes for which the conservation area is established.
(2) Off-highway vehicle use.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of
motorized vehicles in the conservation area shall be
permitted only on roads and trails and in other areas
designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the
management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(3) Permitted events.--The Secretary may continue to permit
large-scale events in defined, low impact areas of the Black
Rock Desert playa in the conservation area in accordance with
the management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (e).
(d) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to diminish the jurisdiction of the State of
Nevada with respect to fish and wildlife management,
including regulation of hunting and fishing, on public lands
within the conservation area.
(e) Management Plan.--Within three years following the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive resource management plan for the long-term
protection and management of the conservation area. The plan
shall be developed with full public participation and shall
describe the appropriate uses and management of the
conservation area consistent with the provisions of this Act.
The plan may incorporate appropriate decisions contained in
any current management or activity plan for the area and may
use information developed in previous studies of the lands
within or adjacent to the conservation area.
(f) Grazing.--Where the Secretary of the Interior currently
permits livestock grazing in the conservation area, such
grazing shall be allowed to continue subject to all
applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders.
(g) Visitor Service Facilities.--The Secretary is
authorized to establish, in cooperation with other public or
private entities as the Secretary may deem appropriate,
visitor service facilities for the purpose of providing
information about the historical, cultural, ecological,
recreational, and other resources of the conservation area.
SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
Federal lands within the conservation area and all lands and
interests therein which are hereafter acquired by the United
States are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, from
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, from
operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws
and from the minerals materials laws and all amendments
thereto.
SEC. 7. NO BUFFER ZONES.
The Congress does not intend for the establishment of the
conservation area to lead to the creation of protective
perimeters or buffer zones around the conservation area. The
fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside
the conservation area that would not be permitted in the
conservation area shall not preclude such activities or uses
on such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area
consistent with other applicable laws.
SEC. 8. WILDERNESS.
(a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the
following lands in the State of Nevada are designated as
wilderness, and, therefore, as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Certain lands in the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 315,700 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Black Rock Desert Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Black Rock Desert Wilderness.
(2) Certain lands in the Pahute Peak Wilderness Study Area
comprised of approximately 57,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Pahute Peak Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Pahute Peak Wilderness.
(3) Certain lands in the North Black Rock Range Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 30,800 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``North Black Rock Range
Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which
shall be known as the North Black Rock Range Wilderness.
(4) Certain lands in the East Fork High Rock Canyon
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 52,800
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``East Fork
High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the East Fork High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(5) Certain lands in the High Rock Lake Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 59,300 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``High Rock Lake Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the High Rock Lake Wilderness.
(6) Certain lands in the Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 48,700 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``Little High Rock
Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the Little High Rock Canyon
Wilderness.
(7) Certain lands in the High Rock Canyon Wilderness Study
Area and Yellow Rock Canyon Wilderness Study Area comprised
of approximately 46,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``High Rock Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated
July 19, 2000, and which shall be known as the High Rock
Canyon Wilderness.
(8) Certain lands in the Calico Mountains Wilderness Study
Area comprised of approximately 65,400 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Calico Mountains Wilderness--
Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and which shall be known
as the Calico Mountains Wilderness.
(9) Certain lands in the South Jackson Mountains Wilderness
Study Area comprised of approximately 56,800 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``South Jackson
Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19, 2000, and
which shall be known as the South Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(10) Certain lands in the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 24,000
acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``North
Jackson Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'' and dated July 19,
2000, and which shall be known as the North Jackson Mountains
Wilderness.
(b) Administration of Wilderness Areas.--Subject to valid
existing rights, each wilderness area designated by this Act
shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the
provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference
in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness
Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act and any reference to the Secretary of
Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
wilderness areas designated under this Act. The map and legal
description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in such map and legal
description. Copies of the map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
(d) Grazing.--Within the wilderness areas designated under
subsection (a), the grazing of livestock, where established
prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be
permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations,
policies, and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, as
long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully
conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding
grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed in the
Wilderness Act and section 101(f) of Public Law 101-628.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
____________________
NATIONAL COWBOY POETRY GATHERING
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 326)
designating the Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Elko, NV, as the ``National
Cowboy Poetry Gathering''.
The resolution (S. Res. 326) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 326
Whereas working cowboys and the ranching community have
contributed greatly to the establishment and perpetuation of
western life in the United States;
Whereas the practice of composing verses about life and
work on the range dates back to at least the trail drive era
of the late 19th century;
Whereas the Cowboy Poetry Gathering has revived and
continues to preserve the art of cowboy poetry by increasing
awareness and appreciation of this tradition-based art form;
Whereas the reemergence of cowboy poetry both highlights
recitation traditions that are a central form of artistry in
communities throughout the West and promotes popular poetry
and literature to the general public;
Whereas the Cowboy Poetry Gathering serves as a bridge
between urban and rural people by creating a forum for the
presentation of art and for the discussion of cultural issues
in a humane and non-political manner;
Whereas the Western Folklife Center in Reno, Nevada,
established and hosted the inaugural Cowboy Poetry Gathering
in January of 1985;
[[Page 20982]]
Whereas since its inception 16 years ago, some 200 similar
local spin-off events are now held in communities throughout
the West; and
Whereas it is proper and desirable to recognize Elko,
Nevada, as the original home of the Cowboy Poetry Gathering:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate designates the Cowboy Poetry
Gathering in Elko, Nevada, as the ``National Cowboy Poetry
Gathering''.
____________________
WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF
2000
Mr. MACK. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 891, H.R. 4063.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4063) to establish the Rosie the Riveter/World
War II Home Front National Historic Park in the State of
California, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which was reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
with amendments.
[Omit the parts in black brackets and insert the parts printed in
italic.]
H.R. 4063
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 ``Rosie the Riveter/World War
II Home Front National Historical Park Establishment Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. ROSIE THE RIVETER/WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) Establishment.--In order to preserve for the benefit
and inspiration of the people of the United States as a
national historical park certain sites, structures, and areas
located in Richmond, California, that are associated with the
industrial, governmental, and citizen efforts that led to
victory in World War II, there is established the Rosie the
Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park (in
this Act referred to as the ``park'').
(b) Areas Included.--The boundaries of the park shall be
those generally depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed
Boundary Map, Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front
National Historical Park'' numbered 963/80000 and dated May
2000. The map shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) In General.--
(1) General administration.--The Secretary of the Interior
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
administer the park in accordance with this Act and the
provisions of law generally applicable to units of the
National Park System, including the Act entitled ``An Act to
establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes,''
approved August 35, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 through
4), and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C.
461-467).
(2) Specific authorities.--The Secretary may interpret the
story of Rosie the Riveter and the World War II home front,
conduct and maintain oral histories that relate to the World
War II home front theme, and provide technical assistance in
the preservation of historic properties that support this
story.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--
(1) General agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with the owners of the World War II
Child Development Centers, the World War II worker housing,
the Kaiser-Permanente Field Hospital, and Fire Station 67A,
pursuant to which the Secretary may mark, interpret, improve,
restore, and provide technical assistance with respect to the
preservation and interpretation of such properties. Such
agreements shall contain, but need not be limited to,
provisions under which the Secretary shall have the right of
access at reasonable times to public portions of the property
for interpretive and other purposes, and that no changes or
alterations shall be made in the property except by mutual
agreement.
(2) Limited agreements.--The Secretary may consult and
enter into cooperative agreements with interested persons for
interpretation and technical assistance with the preservation
of--
(A) the Ford Assembly Building;
(B) the intact dry docks/basin docks and five historic
structures at Richmond Shipyard #3;
(C) the Shimada Peace Memorial Park;
(D) Westshore Park;
(E) the Rosie the Riveter Memorial;
(F) Sheridan Observation Point Park;
(G) the Bay Trail/Esplanade;
(H) Vincent Park; and
(I) the vessel S.S. RED OAK VICTORY, and Whirley Cranes
associated with shipbuilding in Richmond.
(c) Education Center.--The Secretary may establish a World
War II Home Front Education Center in the Ford Assembly
Building. Such center shall include a program that allows for
distance learning and linkages to other representative sites
across the country, for the purpose of educating the public
as to the significance of the site and the World War II Home
Front.
[(d) Use of Federal Funds.--
[(1) Non-federal matching.--(A) As a condition of expending
any funds appropriated to the Secretary for the purposes of
the cooperative agreements under subsection (b)(2), the
Secretary shall require that such expenditure must be matched
by expenditure of an equal amount of funds, goods, services,
or in-kind contributions provided by non-Federal sources.
[(B) With the approval of the Secretary, any donation of
property, services, or goods from a non-Federal source may be
considered as a contribution of funds from a non-Federal
source for purposes of this paragraph.]
(d)(1) The Secretary shall require a match of not less than
50% for the expenditure of any federal funds for the purpose
of the cooperative agreements under subsection (b)(2). The
non-federal match may be in funds or, with the approval of
the Secretary, in goods, services, or in-kind contributions.
(2) Cooperative agreement.--Any payment made by the
Secretary pursuant to a cooperative agreement under this
section shall be subject to an agreement that conversion,
use, or disposal of the project so assisted for purposes
contrary to the purposes of this Act, as determined by the
Secretary, shall entitle the United States to reimbursement
of the greater of--
(A) all funds paid by the Secretary to such project; or
(B) the proportion of the increased value of the project
attributable to such payments, determined at the time of such
conversion, use, or disposal.
(e) Acquisition.--
(1) Ford assembly building.--The Secretary may acquire a
leasehold interest in the Ford Assembly Building for the
purposes of operating a World War II Home Front Education
Center.
(2) Other facilities.--The Secretary may acquire, from
willing sellers, lands or [interests in] interests within the
boundaries of the park in the World War II day care centers,
the World War II worker housing, the Kaiser-Permanente Field
Hospital, and Fire Station 67, through donation, purchase
with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from any other
Federal Agency, or exchange.
(3) Artifacts.--The Secretary may acquire and provide for
the curation of historic artifacts that relate to the park.
(f) Donations.--The Secretary may accept and use donations
of funds, property, and services to carry out this Act.
(g) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 complete fiscal years
after the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall
prepare, in consultation with the City of Richmond,
California, and transmit to the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a general management plan for
the park in accordance with the provisions of section 12(b)
of the Act of August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)), popularly
known as the National Park System General Authorities Act,
and other applicable law.
(2) Preservation of setting.--The general management plan
shall include a plan to preserve the historic setting of the
Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical
Park, which shall be jointly developed and approved by the
City of Richmond.
(3) Additional sites.--The general management plan shall
include a determination of whether there are additional
representative sites in Richmond that should be added to the
park or sites in the rest of the United States that relate to
the industrial, governmental, and citizen efforts during
World War II that should be linked to and interpreted at the
park. Such determination shall consider any information or
findings developed in the National Park Service study of the
World War II Home Front under section 4.
SEC. 4. WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT STUDY.
The Secretary shall conduct a theme study of the World War
II home front to determine whether other sites in the United
States meet the criteria for potential inclusion in the
National Park System in accordance with Section 8 of Public
Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Oral histories, preservation, and visitor services.--
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to conduct oral histories and to carry out the
preservation, interpretation, education, and other essential
visitor services provided for by this Act.
(2) Artifacts.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$1,000,000 for the acquisition and curation of historical
artifacts related to the park.
(b) Property Acquisition.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to acquire the
properties listed in section 3(e)(2).
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds for S.S. RED OAK VICTORY.--
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this
section may be used for the operation, maintenance,
[[Page 20983]]
or preservation of the vessel S.S. RED OAK VICTORY.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be withdrawn, the bill be read the third time and passed,
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were withdrawn.
The bill (H.R. 4063) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 3676
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 143, submitted
earlier today by Senators Murkowski and Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 143) to make
technical corrections in the enrollment of the H.R. 3676.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 143) was agreed to, as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 143
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3676 to
establish the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument in the State of California, the Clerk of the House
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
(1) In the second sentence of section 2(d)(1), strike ``and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry''.
(2) In the second sentence of section 4(a)(3), strike
``Nothing in this section'' and insert ``Nothing in this
Act''.
(3) In section 4(c)(1), strike ``any person, including''.
(4) In section 5, add at the end the following:
``(j) Wilderness Protection.--Nothing in this Act alters
the management of any areas designated as Wilderness which
are within the boundaries of the National Monument. All such
areas shall remain subject to the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.), the laws designating such areas as Wilderness,
and other applicable laws. If any part of this Act conflicts
with any provision of those laws with respect to the
management of the Wilderness areas, such provisions shall
control''.
____________________
INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 898, S. 2872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2872) to improve the cause of action for
misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2872) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2872
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 ``Indian Arts and Crafts
Enforcement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL ACTION PROVISIONS.
Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to promote the
development of Indian arts and crafts and to create a board
to assist therein, and for other purposes'' (25 U.S.C. 305e)
(as added by section 105 of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-644; 104 Stat. 4664)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
directly or indirectly,'' after ``against a person who''; and
(B) by inserting the following flush language after
paragraph (2)(B):
``For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), damages shall include any
and all gross profits accrued by the defendant as a result of
the activities found to violate this subsection.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) by an Indian arts and crafts organization on behalf
of itself, or by an Indian on behalf of himself or
herself.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) by striking ``the amount recovered the amount'' and
inserting ``the amount recovered--
``(i) the amount''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) the amount for the costs of investigation awarded
pursuant to subsection (b) and reimburse the Board the amount
of such costs incurred as a direct result of Board activities
in the suit; and'';
(3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``subject to
subsection (f),'' after ``(2)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000, the
Board shall promulgate regulations to include in the
definition of the term `Indian product' specific examples of
such product to provide guidance to Indian artisans as well
as to purveyors and consumers of Indian arts and crafts, as
defined under this Act.''.
____________________
JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN PROGRAM ACT OF 1994
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 904, H.R. 2496.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2496) to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2496) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
CAT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT ACT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 906, H.R. 3292.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3292) to provide for the establishment of the
Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge in West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which was reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
with amendments.
[Omit the parts in black brackets and insert the parts printed in
italic.]
H.R. 3292
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 ``Cat Island National Wildlife
Refuge Establishment Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) as the southernmost unleveed portion of the Mississippi
River, Cat Island, Louisiana, is one of the last remaining
tracts in the lower Mississippi Valley that is still
influenced by the natural dynamics of the river;
(2) Cat Island supports one of the highest densities of
virgin bald cypress trees in the entire Mississippi River
Valley, including the Nation's champion cypress tree which is
17 feet wide and has a circumference of 53 feet;
(3) Cat Island is important habitat for several declining
species of forest songbirds and supports thousands of
wintering waterfowl;
(4) Cat Island supports high populations of deer, turkey,
and furbearers, such as mink and bobcats;
(5) conservation and enhancement of this area through
inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System would help
meet the habitat conservation goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan;
[[Page 20984]]
(6) these forested wetlands represent one of the most
valuable and productive wildlife habitat types in the United
States, and have extremely high recreational value for
hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, nature photographers, and
others; and
(7) the Cat Island area is deserving of inclusion in the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Refuge'' means the Cat Island National
Wildlife Refuge; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
The purposes for which the Refuge is established and shall
be managed are--
(1) to conserve, restore, and manage habitats as necessary
to contribute to the migratory bird population goals and
habitat objective as established through the Lower
Mississippi Valley Joint Venture;
(2) to conserve, restore, and manage the significant
aquatic resource values associated with the area's forested
wetlands and to achieve the habitat objectives of the
``Mississippi River Aquatic Resources Management Plan'';
(3) to conserve, enhance, and restore the historic native
bottomland community characteristics of the lower Mississippi
alluvial valley and its associated fish, wildlife, and plant
species;
(4) to conserve, enhance, and restore habitat to maintain
and assist in the recovery of endangered, and threatened
plants and animals; and
[(5) to provide opportunities for priority public wildlife
dependent uses for compatible hunting, fishing, trapping,
wildlife observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation; and
[(6)](5) to encourage the use of volunteers and facilitate
partnerships among the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, local communities, conservation organizations, and
other non-Federal entities to promote public awareness of the
resources of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge
System and public participation in the conservation of those
resources.
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF REFUGE.
(a) Acquisition Boundary.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish the Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge, consisting
of approximately 36,500 acres of land and water, as depicted
upon a map entitled ``Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge-
Proposed'', dated February 8, 2000, and available for
inspection in appropriate offices of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.
(b) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such minor
revisions of the boundary designated under this section as
may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Refuge or
to facilitate the acquisition of property within the Refuge.
(c) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
the lands and waters, or interests therein, within the
acquisition boundary described in subsection (a) of this
section.
(d) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish the
Refuge by publication of a notice to that effect in the
Federal Register and publications of local circulation
whenever sufficient property has been acquired to constitute
an area that can be efficiently managed as a National
Wildlife Refuge.
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer all lands,
waters, and interests therein acquired under this Act in
accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). The Secretary
may use such additional statutory authority as may be
available for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the
provision of fish- and wildlife-oriented recreational
opportunities as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry
out the purposes of this Act.
(b) Priority Uses.--In providing opportunities for
compatible fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation, the
Secretary, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)), shall ensure
that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation are the
priority public uses of the Refuge.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of the Interior--
(1) such funds as may be necessary for the acquisition of
lands and waters designated in section 5(c); and
(2) such funds as may be necessary for the development,
operation, and maintenance of the Refuge.
Amendment No. 4298
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], for Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 4298.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF HERBERT H. BATEMAN EDUCATION AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER.
(a) In General.--A building proposed to be located within
the boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
on Assateague Island, Virginia, shall be known and designated
as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Education and Administrative
Center''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Herbert H. Bateman Education and
Administrative Center.
SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Act entitled, ``An Act to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994'' (106th
Congress), section 6 of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation
and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note; Public
Law 103-340), relating to an environmental education center
and refuge, is redesignated as section 7.
(b) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act
(106th Congress), section 6 of that Act is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)'' and inserting ``the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 4(a)(3) and (4)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668ee(a)(3), (4))'' and inserting
``paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 4(a) of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd(a))''.
(c) Effective on the day after the date of enactment of the
Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act (106th Congress),
section 4(b)(2)(D) of that Act is amended by striking
``section 4(a)(3) and (4) of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668ee(a)(3),
(4))'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 4(a)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a))''.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to, the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read
the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4298) was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 3292), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
CAHABA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT ACT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 908, H.R. 4286.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4286) to provide for the establishment of the
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Bibb County,
Alabama.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4286) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO A MAP RELATING TO THE COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 920, H.R. 34.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 34) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
make technical corrections to a map relating to the Coastal
Barrier Resources System.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which
[[Page 20985]]
was reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, with
amendments.
[Omit the parts in black brackets and insert the parts printed in
italic.]
H.R. 34
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall,
before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map
described in subsection (b) as are necessary to ensure that
depictions of areas on that map are consistent with the
depictions of areas appearing on the map entitled
``Amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources System'',
[dated ------------, and on file with the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives.] dated June 5,
2000.
(b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is
the map that--
(1) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier
Resources System'', dated November 2, 1994; and
(2) relates to unit P19-P of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
(c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep
the map described in subsection (b) on file and available for
public inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed,
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 34), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
CLARIFYING BOUNDARIES ON THE MAP RELATING TO THE COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 922, H.R. 4435.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4435) to clarify certain boundaries on the map
relating to Unit NC-01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4435) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 144, submitted
earlier by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. 144) commemorating
the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of the Congress in
Washington, DC.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the
resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 144) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution with its preamble reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 144
Whereas November 17, 2000, is the 200th anniversary of the
first meeting of Congress in Washington, DC;
Whereas Congress, having previously convened at the Federal
Hall in New York City and at the Congress Hall in
Philadelphia, has met in the United States Capitol Building
since November 17, 1800;
Whereas President John Adams, on November 22, 1800,
addressed a joint session of Congress in Washington, DC, for
the first time, stating, ``I congratulate the people of the
United States on the assembling of Congress at the permanent
seat of their Government; and I congratulate you, gentlemen,
on the prospect of a residence not to be changed.'';
Whereas, on December 12, 1900, Congress convened a joint
meeting to observe the centennial of its residence in
Washington, DC;
Whereas since its first meeting in Washington, DC, on
November 17, 1800, Congress has continued to cultivate and
build upon a heritage of respect for individual liberty,
representative government, and the attainment of equal and
inalienable rights, all of which are symbolized in the
physical structure of the United States Capitol Building; and
Whereas it is appropriate for Congress, as the first branch
of the government under the Constitution, to commemorate the
200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in
Washington, DC, in order to focus public attention on its
present duties and responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) November 17, 2000, be designated as a day of national
observance for the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of
Congress in Washington, DC; and
(2) the people of the United States be urged and invited to
observe such date by celebrating and examining the
legislative process by which members of Congress convene and
air differences, learn from one another, subordinate
parochial interests, compromise, and work towards achieving a
constructive consensus for the good of the people of the
United States.
____________________
ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a
message from the House to accompany H.R. 707, an act to amend the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to
authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to streamline the
administration of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs of
disaster assistance, and for other purposes.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 707) entitled ``An Act to amend the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to
streamline the administration of disaster relief, to control
the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other
purposes'', with the following House Amendment to Senate
Amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION
Sec. 101. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Predisaster hazard mitigation.
Sec. 103. Interagency task force.
Sec. 104. Mitigation planning; minimum standards for public and private
structures.
TITLE II--STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION
Sec. 201. Technical amendments.
Sec. 202. Management costs.
Sec. 203. Public notice, comment, and consultation requirements.
Sec. 204. State administration of hazard mitigation grant program.
Sec. 205. Assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace
damaged facilities.
Sec. 206. Federal assistance to individuals and households.
Sec. 207. Community disaster loans.
Sec. 208. Report on State management of small disasters initiative.
Sec. 209. Study regarding cost reduction.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Technical correction of short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Fire management assistance.
Sec. 304. President's Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness.
Sec. 305. Disaster grant closeout procedures.
Sec. 306. Public safety officer benefits for certain Federal and State
employees.
Sec. 307. Buy American.
Sec. 308. Treatment of certain real property.
[[Page 20986]]
Sec. 309. Study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency
management.
TITLE I--PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis,
tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, pose great
danger to human life and to property throughout the United
States;
(2) greater emphasis needs to be placed on--
(A) identifying and assessing the risks to States and local
governments (including Indian tribes) from natural disasters;
(B) implementing adequate measures to reduce losses from
natural disasters; and
(C) ensuring that the critical services and facilities of
communities will continue to function after a natural
disaster;
(3) expenditures for postdisaster assistance are increasing
without commensurate reductions in the likelihood of future
losses from natural disasters;
(4) in the expenditure of Federal funds under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), high priority should be given to
mitigation of hazards at the local level; and
(5) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness
and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal
support, States and local governments (including Indian
tribes) will be able to--
(A) form effective community-based partnerships for hazard
mitigation purposes;
(B) implement effective hazard mitigation measures that
reduce the potential damage from natural disasters;
(C) ensure continued functionality of critical services;
(D) leverage additional non-Federal resources in meeting
natural disaster resistance goals; and
(E) make commitments to long-term hazard mitigation efforts
to be applied to new and existing structures.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a
national disaster hazard mitigation program--
(1) to reduce the loss of life and property, human
suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs
resulting from natural disasters; and
(2) to provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation
funding that will assist States and local governments
(including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard
mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued
functionality of critical services and facilities after a
natural disaster.
SEC. 102. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
``(a) Definition of Small Impoverished Community.--In this
section, the term `small impoverished community' means a
community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is economically
disadvantaged, as determined by the State in which the
community is located and based on criteria established by the
President.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The President may
establish a program to provide technical and financial
assistance to States and local governments to assist in the
implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation measures that
are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss
of life, and damage and destruction of property, including
damage to critical services and facilities under the
jurisdiction of the States or local governments.
``(c) Approval by President.--If the President determines
that a State or local government has identified natural
disaster hazards in areas under its jurisdiction and has
demonstrated the ability to form effective public-private
natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships, the
President, using amounts in the National Predisaster
Mitigation Fund established under subsection (i) (referred to
in this section as the `Fund'), may provide technical and
financial assistance to the State or local government to be
used in accordance with subsection (e).
``(d) State Recommendations.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Recommendations.--The Governor of each State may
recommend to the President not fewer than five local
governments to receive assistance under this section.
``(B) Deadline for submission.--The recommendations under
subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to the President not
later than October 1, 2001, and each October 1st thereafter
or such later date in the year as the President may
establish.
``(C) Criteria.--In making recommendations under
subparagraph (A), a Governor shall consider the criteria
specified in subsection (g).
``(2) Use.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in providing assistance to local governments under this
section, the President shall select from local governments
recommended by the Governors under this subsection.
``(B) Extraordinary circumstances.--In providing assistance
to local governments under this section, the President may
select a local government that has not been recommended by a
Governor under this subsection if the President determines
that extraordinary circumstances justify the selection and
that making the selection will further the purpose of this
section.
``(3) Effect of failure to nominate.--If a Governor of a
State fails to submit recommendations under this subsection
in a timely manner, the President may select, subject to the
criteria specified in subsection (g), any local governments
of the State to receive assistance under this section.
``(e) Uses of Technical and Financial Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Technical and financial assistance
provided under this section--
``(A) shall be used by States and local governments
principally to implement predisaster hazard mitigation
measures that are cost-effective and are described in
proposals approved by the President under this section; and
``(B) may be used--
``(i) to support effective public-private natural disaster
hazard mitigation partnerships;
``(ii) to improve the assessment of a community's
vulnerability to natural hazards; or
``(iii) to establish hazard mitigation priorities, and an
appropriate hazard mitigation plan, for a community.
``(2) Dissemination.--A State or local government may use
not more than 10 percent of the financial assistance received
by the State or local government under this section for a
fiscal year to fund activities to disseminate information
regarding cost-effective mitigation technologies.
``(f) Allocation of Funds.--The amount of financial
assistance made available to a State (including amounts made
available to local governments of the State) under this
section for a fiscal year--
``(1) shall be not less than the lesser of--
``(A) $500,000; or
``(B) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the total
funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal
year;
``(2) shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds
described in paragraph (1)(B); and
``(3) shall be subject to the criteria specified in
subsection (g).
``(g) Criteria for Assistance Awards.--In determining
whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a
State or local government under this section, the President
shall take into account--
``(1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be mitigated;
``(2) the degree of commitment of the State or local
government to reduce damages from future natural disasters;
``(3) the degree of commitment by the State or local
government to support ongoing non-Federal support for the
hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the
technical and financial assistance;
``(4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures to
be carried out using the technical and financial assistance
contribute to the mitigation goals and priorities established
by the State;
``(5) the extent to which the technical and financial
assistance is consistent with other assistance provided under
this Act;
``(6) the extent to which prioritized, cost-effective
mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable
outcomes are clearly identified;
``(7) if the State or local government has submitted a
mitigation plan under section 322, the extent to which the
activities identified under paragraph (6) are consistent with
the mitigation plan;
``(8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net
benefits to society;
``(9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation
activities in small impoverished communities; and
``(10) such other criteria as the President establishes in
consultation with State and local governments.
``(h) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--Financial assistance provided under this
section may contribute up to 75 percent of the total cost of
mitigation activities approved by the President.
``(2) Small impoverished communities.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the President may contribute up to 90 percent
of the total cost of a mitigation activity carried out in a
small impoverished community.
``(i) National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--The President may establish in the
Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the
`National Predisaster Mitigation Fund', to be used in
carrying out this section.
``(2) Transfers to fund.--There shall be deposited in the
Fund--
``(A) amounts appropriated to carry out this section, which
shall remain available until expended; and
``(B) sums available from gifts, bequests, or donations of
services or property received by the President for the
purpose of predisaster hazard mitigation.
``(3) Expenditures from fund.--Upon request by the
President, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from
the Fund to the President such amounts as the President
determines are necessary to provide technical and financial
assistance under this section.
``(4) Investment of amounts.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States.
``(B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
``(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
[[Page 20987]]
``(C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
``(D) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
``(E) Transfers of amounts.--
``(i) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred
to the Fund under this subsection shall be transferred at
least monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the
Fund on the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
``(ii) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
``(j) Limitation on Total Amount of Financial Assistance.--
The President shall not provide financial assistance under
this section in an amount greater than the amount available
in the Fund.
``(k) Multihazard Advisory Maps.--
``(1) Definition of multihazard advisory map.--In this
subsection, the term `multihazard advisory map' means a map
on which hazard data concerning each type of natural disaster
is identified simultaneously for the purpose of showing areas
of hazard overlap.
``(2) Development of maps.--In consultation with States,
local governments, and appropriate Federal agencies, the
President shall develop multihazard advisory maps for areas,
in not fewer than five States, that are subject to commonly
recurring natural hazards (including flooding, hurricanes and
severe winds, and seismic events).
``(3) Use of technology.--In developing multihazard
advisory maps under this subsection, the President shall use,
to the maximum extent practicable, the most cost-effective
and efficient technology available.
``(4) Use of maps.--
``(A) Advisory nature.--The multihazard advisory maps shall
be considered to be advisory and shall not require the
development of any new policy by, or impose any new policy
on, any government or private entity.
``(B) Availability of maps.--The multihazard advisory maps
shall be made available to the appropriate State and local
governments for the purposes of--
``(i) informing the general public about the risks of
natural hazards in the areas described in paragraph (2);
``(ii) supporting the activities described in subsection
(e); and
``(iii) other public uses.
``(l) Report on Federal and State Administration.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, the President, in consultation with State and local
governments, shall submit to Congress a report evaluating
efforts to implement this section and recommending a process
for transferring greater authority and responsibility for
administering the assistance program established under this
section to capable States.
``(m) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided by
this section terminates December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Title II of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by striking the title heading
and inserting the following:
``TITLE II--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE''.
SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) (as amended
by section 102(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 204. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
``(a) In General.--The President shall establish a Federal
interagency task force for the purpose of coordinating the
implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs
administered by the Federal Government.
``(b) Chairperson.--The Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall serve as the chairperson of the task
force.
``(c) Membership.--The membership of the task force shall
include representatives of--
``(1) relevant Federal agencies;
``(2) State and local government organizations (including
Indian tribes); and
``(3) the American Red Cross.''.
SEC. 104. MITIGATION PLANNING; MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 322. MITIGATION PLANNING.
``(a) Requirement of Mitigation Plan.--As a condition of
receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation
measures under subsection (e), a State, local, or tribal
government shall develop and submit for approval to the
President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for
identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities
of the area under the jurisdiction of the government.
``(b) Local and Tribal Plans.--Each mitigation plan
developed by a local or tribal government shall--
``(1) describe actions to mitigate hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities identified under the plan; and
``(2) establish a strategy to implement those actions.
``(c) State Plans.--The State process of development of a
mitigation plan under this section shall--
``(1) identify the natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of areas in the State;
``(2) support development of local mitigation plans;
``(3) provide for technical assistance to local and tribal
governments for mitigation planning; and
``(4) identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the
State will support, as resources become available.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Federal contributions under section 404
may be used to fund the development and updating of
mitigation plans under this section.
``(2) Maximum federal contribution.--With respect to any
mitigation plan, a State, local, or tribal government may use
an amount of Federal contributions under section 404 not to
exceed 7 percent of the amount of such contributions
available to the government as of a date determined by the
government.
``(e) Increased Federal Share for Hazard Mitigation
Measures.--
``(1) In general.--If, at the time of the declaration of a
major disaster, a State has in effect an approved mitigation
plan under this section, the President may increase to 20
percent, with respect to the major disaster, the maximum
percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a).
``(2) Factors for consideration.--In determining whether to
increase the maximum percentage under paragraph (1), the
President shall consider whether the State has established--
``(A) eligibility criteria for property acquisition and
other types of mitigation measures;
``(B) requirements for cost effectiveness that are related
to the eligibility criteria;
``(C) a system of priorities that is related to the
eligibility criteria; and
``(D) a process by which an assessment of the effectiveness
of a mitigation action may be carried out after the
mitigation action is complete.
``SEC. 323. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STRUCTURES.
``(a) In General.--As a condition of receipt of a disaster
loan or grant under this Act--
``(1) the recipient shall carry out any repair or
construction to be financed with the loan or grant in
accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and
sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes,
specifications, and standards; and
``(2) the President may require safe land use and
construction practices, after adequate consultation with
appropriate State and local government officials.
``(b) Evidence of Compliance.--A recipient of a disaster
loan or grant under this Act shall provide such evidence of
compliance with this section as the President may require by
regulation.''.
(b) Losses From Straight Line Winds.--The President shall
increase the maximum percentage specified in the last
sentence of section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) from
15 percent to 20 percent with respect to any major disaster
that is in the State of Minnesota and for which assistance is
being provided as of the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that additional assistance provided under this
subsection shall not exceed $6,000,000. The mitigation
measures assisted under this subsection shall be related to
losses in the State of Minnesota from straight line winds.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is
amended--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``section 409'' and
inserting ``section 322''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``The total'' and
inserting ``Subject to section 322, the total''.
(2) Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5176) is repealed.
TITLE II--STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION
SEC. 201. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5154) is amended in
subsections (a)(1), (b), and (c) by striking ``section 803 of
the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965'' each
place it appears and inserting ``section 209(c)(2) of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3149(c)(2))''.
SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141
et seq.) (as amended by section 104(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 324. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
``(a) Definition of Management Cost.--In this section, the
term `management cost' includes any indirect cost, any
administrative expense, and any other expense not directly
chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster,
emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or
measure.
``(b) Establishment of Management Cost Rates.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any
administrative rule or guidance), the President shall by
regulation establish management cost rates, for grantees and
subgrantees, that shall be used to determine contributions
under this Act for management costs.
``(c) Review.--The President shall review the management
cost rates established under subsection (b) not later than 3
years after the date
[[Page 20988]]
of establishment of the rates and periodically thereafter.''.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a)
and (b) of section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection
(a)) shall apply to major disasters declared under that Act
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Interim authority.--Until the date on which the
President establishes the management cost rates under section
324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)), section 406(f)
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(f)) (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act) shall be used
to establish management cost rates.
SEC. 203. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION
REQUIREMENTS.
Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended
by section 202(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 325. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION
REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Public Notice and Comment Concerning New or Modified
Policies.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall provide for public
notice and opportunity for comment before adopting any new or
modified policy that--
``(A) governs implementation of the public assistance
program administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency under this Act; and
``(B) could result in a significant reduction of assistance
under the program.
``(2) Application.--Any policy adopted under paragraph (1)
shall apply only to a major disaster or emergency declared on
or after the date on which the policy is adopted.
``(b) Consultation Concerning Interim Policies.--
``(1) In general.--Before adopting any interim policy under
the public assistance program to address specific conditions
that relate to a major disaster or emergency that has been
declared under this Act, the President, to the maximum extent
practicable, shall solicit the views and recommendations of
grantees and subgrantees with respect to the major disaster
or emergency concerning the potential interim policy, if the
interim policy is likely--
``(A) to result in a significant reduction of assistance to
applicants for the assistance with respect to the major
disaster or emergency; or
``(B) to change the terms of a written agreement to which
the Federal Government is a party concerning the declaration
of the major disaster or emergency.
``(2) No legal right of action.--Nothing in this subsection
confers a legal right of action on any party.
``(c) Public Access.--The President shall promote public
access to policies governing the implementation of the public
assistance program.''.
SEC. 204. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Program Administration by States.--
``(1) In general.--A State desiring to administer the
hazard mitigation grant program established by this section
with respect to hazard mitigation assistance in the State may
submit to the President an application for the delegation of
the authority to administer the program.
``(2) Criteria.--The President, in consultation and
coordination with States and local governments, shall
establish criteria for the approval of applications submitted
under paragraph (1). The criteria shall include, at a
minimum--
``(A) the demonstrated ability of the State to manage the
grant program under this section;
``(B) there being in effect an approved mitigation plan
under section 322; and
``(C) a demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities.
``(3) Approval.--The President shall approve an application
submitted under paragraph (1) that meets the criteria
established under paragraph (2).
``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--If, after approving an
application of a State submitted under paragraph (1), the
President determines that the State is not administering the
hazard mitigation grant program established by this section
in a manner satisfactory to the President, the President
shall withdraw the approval.
``(5) Audits.--The President shall provide for periodic
audits of the hazard mitigation grant programs administered
by States under this subsection.''.
SEC. 205. ASSISTANCE TO REPAIR, RESTORE, RECONSTRUCT, OR
REPLACE DAMAGED FACILITIES.
(a) Contributions.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--The President may make contributions--
``(A) to a State or local government for the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public
facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster and for
associated expenses incurred by the government; and
``(B) subject to paragraph (3), to a person that owns or
operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by
a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction,
or replacement of the facility and for associated expenses
incurred by the person.
``(2) Associated expenses.--For the purposes of this
section, associated expenses shall include--
``(A) the costs of mobilizing and employing the National
Guard for performance of eligible work;
``(B) the costs of using prison labor to perform eligible
work, including wages actually paid, transportation to a
worksite, and extraordinary costs of guards, food, and
lodging; and
``(C) base and overtime wages for the employees and extra
hires of a State, local government, or person described in
paragraph (1) that perform eligible work, plus fringe
benefits on such wages to the extent that such benefits were
being paid before the major disaster.
``(3) Conditions for assistance to private nonprofit
facilities.--
``(A) In general.--The President may make contributions to
a private nonprofit facility under paragraph (1)(B) only if--
``(i) the facility provides critical services (as defined
by the President) in the event of a major disaster; or
``(ii) the owner or operator of the facility--
``(I) has applied for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and
``(II)(aa) has been determined to be ineligible for such a
loan; or
``(bb) has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount for
which the Small Business Administration determines the
facility is eligible.
``(B) Definition of critical services.--In this paragraph,
the term `critical services' includes power, water (including
water provided by an irrigation organization or facility),
sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency
medical care.
``(4) Notification to congress.--Before making any
contribution under this section in an amount greater than
$20,000,000, the President shall notify--
``(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate;
``(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
``(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.''.
(b) Federal Share.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Federal Share.--
``(1) Minimum federal share.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Federal share of assistance under this
section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible
cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement
carried out under this section.
``(2) Reduced federal share.--The President shall
promulgate regulations to reduce the Federal share of
assistance under this section to not less than 25 percent in
the case of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or
replacement of any eligible public facility or private
nonprofit facility following an event associated with a major
disaster--
``(A) that has been damaged, on more than one occasion
within the preceding 10-year period, by the same type of
event; and
``(B) the owner of which has failed to implement
appropriate mitigation measures to address the hazard that
caused the damage to the facility.''.
(c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--Section 406 of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (c) and
inserting the following:
``(c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--
``(1) For public facilities.--
``(A) In general.--In any case in which a State or local
government determines that the public welfare would not best
be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the
State or local government, the State or local government may
elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection
(a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of
the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the
facility and of management expenses.
``(B) Areas with unstable soil.--In any case in which a
State or local government determines that the public welfare
would not best be served by repairing, restoring,
reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or
controlled by the State or local government because soil
instability in the disaster area makes repair, restoration,
reconstruction, or replacement infeasible, the State or local
government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution
under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal
to 90 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of
the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing the facility and of management expenses.
``(C) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a State or local
government under this paragraph may be used--
``(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected public
facilities;
``(ii) to construct new facilities; or
``(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the State
or local government determines to be
[[Page 20989]]
necessary to meet a need for governmental services and
functions in the area affected by the major disaster.
``(D) Limitations.--Funds made available to a State or
local government under this paragraph may not be used for--
``(i) any public facility located in a regulatory floodway
(as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or
``(ii) any uninsured public facility located in a special
flood hazard area identified by the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
``(2) For private nonprofit facilities.--
``(A) In general.--In any case in which a person that owns
or operates a private nonprofit facility determines that the
public welfare would not best be served by repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility, the
person may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under
subsection (a)(1)(B), a contribution in an amount equal to 75
percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the
cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing
the facility and of management expenses.
``(B) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a person under
this paragraph may be used--
``(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected private
nonprofit facilities owned or operated by the person;
``(ii) to construct new private nonprofit facilities to be
owned or operated by the person; or
``(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the person
determines to be necessary to meet a need for the person's
services and functions in the area affected by the major
disaster.
``(C) Limitations.--Funds made available to a person under
this paragraph may not be used for--
``(i) any private nonprofit facility located in a
regulatory floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44,
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or
``(ii) any uninsured private nonprofit facility located in
a special flood hazard area identified by the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).''.
(d) Eligible Cost.--
(1) In general.--Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172)
is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e) Eligible Cost.--
``(1) Determination.--
``(A) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the
President shall estimate the eligible cost of repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or
private nonprofit facility--
``(i) on the basis of the design of the facility as the
facility existed immediately before the major disaster; and
``(ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and
standards (including floodplain management and hazard
mitigation criteria required by the President or under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.))
applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred.
``(B) Cost estimation procedures.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
shall use the cost estimation procedures established under
paragraph (3) to determine the eligible cost under this
subsection.
``(ii) Applicability.--The procedures specified in this
paragraph and paragraph (2) shall apply only to projects the
eligible cost of which is equal to or greater than the amount
specified in section 422.
``(2) Modification of eligible cost.--
``(A) Actual cost greater than ceiling percentage of
estimated cost.--In any case in which the actual cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility
under this section is greater than the ceiling percentage
established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under
paragraph (1), the President may determine that the eligible
cost includes a portion of the actual cost of the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement that exceeds the
cost estimated under paragraph (1).
``(B) Actual cost less than estimated cost.--
``(i) Greater than or equal to floor percentage of
estimated cost.--In any case in which the actual cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility
under this section is less than 100 percent of the cost
estimated under paragraph (1), but is greater than or equal
to the floor percentage established under paragraph (3) of
the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local
government or person receiving funds under this section shall
use the excess funds to carry out cost-effective activities
that reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or suffering
from a major disaster.
``(ii) Less than floor percentage of estimated cost.--In
any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring,
reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is
less than the floor percentage established under paragraph
(3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or
local government or person receiving assistance under this
section shall reimburse the President in the amount of the
difference.
``(C) No effect on appeals process.--Nothing in this
paragraph affects any right of appeal under section 423.
``(3) Expert panel.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph, the President,
acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, shall establish an expert panel, which
shall include representatives from the construction industry
and State and local government.
``(B) Duties.--The expert panel shall develop
recommendations concerning--
``(i) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent
with industry practices; and
``(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in
paragraph (2).
``(C) Regulations.--Taking into account the recommendations
of the expert panel under subparagraph (B), the President
shall promulgate regulations that establish--
``(i) cost estimation procedures described in subparagraph
(B)(i); and
``(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in
paragraph (2).
``(D) Review by president.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph
(C) and periodically thereafter, the President shall review
the cost estimation procedures and the ceiling and floor
percentages established under this paragraph.
``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph (C), 3
years after that date, and at the end of each 2-year period
thereafter, the expert panel shall submit to Congress a
report on the appropriateness of the cost estimation
procedures.
``(4) Special rule.--In any case in which the facility
being repaired, restored, reconstructed, or replaced under
this section was under construction on the date of the major
disaster, the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing,
or replacing the facility shall include, for the purposes of
this section, only those costs that, under the contract for
the construction, are the owner's responsibility and not the
contractor's responsibility.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and
applies to funds appropriated after the date of the enactment
of this Act, except that paragraph (1) of section 406(e) of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) takes effect on
the date on which the cost estimation procedures established
under paragraph (3) of that section take effect.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 406 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (f).
SEC. 206. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
(a) In General.--Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174)
is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 408. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Provision of assistance.--In accordance with this
section, the President, in consultation with the Governor of
a State, may provide financial assistance, and, if necessary,
direct services, to individuals and households in the State
who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary
expenses and serious needs in cases in which the individuals
and households are unable to meet such expenses or needs
through other means.
``(2) Relationship to other assistance.--Under paragraph
(1), an individual or household shall not be denied
assistance under paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subsection (c)
solely on the basis that the individual or household has not
applied for or received any loan or other financial
assistance from the Small Business Administration or any
other Federal agency.
``(b) Housing Assistance.--
``(1) Eligibility.--The President may provide financial or
other assistance under this section to individuals and
households to respond to the disaster-related housing needs
of individuals and households who are displaced from their
predisaster primary residences or whose predisaster primary
residences are rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage
caused by a major disaster.
``(2) Determination of appropriate types of assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall determine
appropriate types of housing assistance to be provided under
this section to individuals and households described in
subsection (a)(1) based on considerations of cost
effectiveness, convenience to the individuals and households,
and such other factors as the President may consider
appropriate.
``(B) Multiple types of assistance.--One or more types of
housing assistance may be made available under this section,
based on the suitability and availability of the types of
assistance, to meet the needs of individuals and households
in the particular disaster situation.
``(c) Types of Housing Assistance.--
``(1) Temporary housing.--
``(A) Financial assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance to individuals or households to rent alternate
housing accommodations, existing rental units, manufactured
housing, recreational vehicles, or other readily fabricated
dwellings.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of assistance under clause (i)
shall be based on the fair market rent for the accommodation
provided plus the cost of any transportation, utility
hookups, or unit installation not provided directly by the
President.
``(B) Direct assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The President may provide temporary
housing units, acquired by purchase or lease, directly to
individuals or households
[[Page 20990]]
who, because of a lack of available housing resources, would
be unable to make use of the assistance provided under
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Period of assistance.--The President may not provide
direct assistance under clause (i) with respect to a major
disaster after the end of the 18-month period beginning on
the date of the declaration of the major disaster by the
President, except that the President may extend that period
if the President determines that due to extraordinary
circumstances an extension would be in the public interest.
``(iii) Collection of rental charges.--After the end of the
18-month period referred to in clause (ii), the President may
charge fair market rent for each temporary housing unit
provided.
``(2) Repairs.--
``(A) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance for--
``(i) the repair of owner-occupied private residences,
utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as a private
access route) damaged by a major disaster to a safe and
sanitary living or functioning condition; and
``(ii) eligible hazard mitigation measures that reduce the
likelihood of future damage to such residences, utilities, or
infrastructure.
``(B) Relationship to other assistance.--A recipient of
assistance provided under this paragraph shall not be
required to show that the assistance can be met through other
means, except insurance proceeds.
``(C) Maximum amount of assistance.--The amount of
assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall
not exceed $5,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by
the Department of Labor.
``(3) Replacement.--
``(A) In general.--The President may provide financial
assistance for the replacement of owner-occupied private
residences damaged by a major disaster.
``(B) Maximum amount of assistance.--The amount of
assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor.
``(C) Applicability of flood insurance requirement.--With
respect to assistance provided under this paragraph, the
President may not waive any provision of Federal law
requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of
the receipt of Federal disaster assistance.
``(4) Permanent housing construction.--The President may
provide financial assistance or direct assistance to
individuals or households to construct permanent housing in
insular areas outside the continental United States and in
other remote locations in cases in which--
``(A) no alternative housing resources are available; and
``(B) the types of temporary housing assistance described
in paragraph (1) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-
effective.
``(d) Terms and Conditions Relating to Housing
Assistance.--
``(1) Sites.--
``(A) In general.--Any readily fabricated dwelling provided
under this section shall, whenever practicable, be located on
a site that--
``(i) is complete with utilities; and
``(ii) is provided by the State or local government, by the
owner of the site, or by the occupant who was displaced by
the major disaster.
``(B) Sites provided by the president.--A readily
fabricated dwelling may be located on a site provided by the
President if the President determines that such a site would
be more economical or accessible.
``(2) Disposal of units.--
``(A) Sale to occupants.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by
the President for the purpose of housing disaster victims may
be sold directly to the individual or household who is
occupying the unit if the individual or household lacks
permanent housing.
``(ii) Sale price.--A sale of a temporary housing unit
under clause (i) shall be at a price that is fair and
equitable.
``(iii) Deposit of proceeds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the proceeds of a sale under clause (i)
shall be deposited in the appropriate Disaster Relief Fund
account.
``(iv) Hazard and flood insurance.--A sale of a temporary
housing unit under clause (i) shall be made on the condition
that the individual or household purchasing the housing unit
agrees to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on
the housing unit.
``(v) Use of gsa services.--The President may use the
services of the General Services Administration to accomplish
a sale under clause (i).
``(B) Other methods of disposal.--If not disposed of under
subparagraph (A), a temporary housing unit purchased under
this section by the President for the purpose of housing
disaster victims--
``(i) may be sold to any person; or
``(ii) may be sold, transferred, donated, or otherwise made
available directly to a State or other governmental entity or
to a voluntary organization for the sole purpose of providing
temporary housing to disaster victims in major disasters and
emergencies if, as a condition of the sale, transfer, or
donation, the State, other governmental agency, or voluntary
organization agrees--
``(I) to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of
section 308; and
``(II) to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on
the housing unit.
``(e) Financial Assistance To Address Other Needs.--
``(1) Medical, dental, and funeral expenses.--The
President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may
provide financial assistance under this section to an
individual or household in the State who is adversely
affected by a major disaster to meet disaster-related
medical, dental, and funeral expenses.
``(2) Personal property, transportation, and other
expenses.--The President, in consultation with the Governor
of a State, may provide financial assistance under this
section to an individual or household described in paragraph
(1) to address personal property, transportation, and other
necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major
disaster.
``(f) State Role.--
``(1) Financial assistance to address other needs.--
``(A) Grant to state.--Subject to subsection (g), a
Governor may request a grant from the President to provide
financial assistance to individuals and households in the
State under subsection (e).
``(B) Administrative costs.--A State that receives a grant
under subparagraph (A) may expend not more than 5 percent of
the amount of the grant for the administrative costs of
providing financial assistance to individuals and households
in the State under subsection (e).
``(2) Access to records.--In providing assistance to
individuals and households under this section, the President
shall provide for the substantial and ongoing involvement of
the States in which the individuals and households are
located, including by providing to the States access to the
electronic records of individuals and households receiving
assistance under this section in order for the States to make
available any additional State and local assistance to the
individuals and households.
``(g) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the Federal share of the costs eligible to be paid using
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
``(2) Financial assistance to address other needs.--In the
case of financial assistance provided under subsection (e)--
``(A) the Federal share shall be 75 percent; and
``(B) the non-Federal share shall be paid from funds made
available by the State.
``(h) Maximum Amount of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--No individual or household shall receive
financial assistance greater than $25,000 under this section
with respect to a single major disaster.
``(2) Adjustment of limit.--The limit established under
paragraph (1) shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor.
``(i) Rules and Regulations.--The President shall prescribe
rules and regulations to carry out this section, including
criteria, standards, and procedures for determining
eligibility for assistance.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 502(a)(6) of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5192(a)(6)) is amended by striking ``temporary
housing''.
(c) Elimination of Individual and Family Grant Programs.--
Section 411 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5178) is repealed.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 207. COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS.
Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) The President'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--The President'';
(2) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Amount.--The amount'';
(3) by striking ``Repayment'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Repayment.--
``(1) Cancellation.--Repayment'';
(4) by striking ``(b) Any loans'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Effect on Other Assistance.--Any loans'';
(5) in subsection (b) (as designated by paragraph (2))--
(A) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and shall not exceed $5,000,000''; and
(6) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (3)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Condition on continuing eligibility.--A local
government shall not be eligible for further assistance under
this section during any period in which the local government
is in arrears with respect to a required repayment of a loan
under this section.''.
SEC. 208. REPORT ON STATE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL DISASTERS
INITIATIVE.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report
describing the results of the State Management of Small
Disasters Initiative, including--
(1) identification of any administrative or financial
benefits of the initiative; and
(2) recommendations concerning the conditions, if any,
under which States should be allowed the option to administer
parts of the assistance program under section 406 of the
Robert
[[Page 20991]]
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5172).
SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal
disaster assistance that has resulted and is likely to result
from the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF SHORT TITLE.
The first section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note) is amended
to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
``This Act may be cited as the `Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'.''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended--
(1) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking ``the
Northern'' and all that follows through ``Pacific Islands''
and inserting ``and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands'';
(2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) Local government.--The term `local government'
means--
``(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is incorporated as a
nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government;
``(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
Alaska Native village or organization; and
``(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or
other public entity, for which an application for assistance
is made by a State or political subdivision of a State.'';
and
(3) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``irrigation,'' after
``utility,''.
SEC. 303. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187)
is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 420. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
``(a) In General.--The President is authorized to provide
assistance, including grants, equipment, supplies, and
personnel, to any State or local government for the
mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or
private forest land or grassland that threatens such
destruction as would constitute a major disaster.
``(b) Coordination With State and Tribal Departments of
Forestry.--In providing assistance under this section, the
President shall coordinate with State and tribal departments
of forestry.
``(c) Essential Assistance.--In providing assistance under
this section, the President may use the authority provided
under section 403.
``(d) Rules and Regulations.--The President shall prescribe
such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 304. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC TERRORISM
PREPAREDNESS.
Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle C--President's Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness
``SEC. 651. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.
``(a) In General.--There is established a council to be
known as the President's Council on Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness (in this subtitle referred to as the `Council').
``(b) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of the
following members:
``(1) The President.
``(2) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
``(3) The Attorney General.
``(4) The Secretary of Defense.
``(5) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(6) The Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs.
``(7) Any additional members appointed by the President.
``(c) Chairman.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall serve as the
chairman of the Council.
``(2) Executive chairman.--The President may appoint an
Executive Chairman of the Council (in this subtitle referred
to as the `Executive Chairman'). The Executive Chairman shall
represent the President as chairman of the Council, including
in communications with Congress and State Governors.
``(3) Senate confirmation.--An individual selected to be
the Executive Chairman under paragraph (2) shall be appointed
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except that
Senate confirmation shall not be required if, on the date of
appointment, the individual holds a position for which Senate
confirmation was required.
``(d) First Meeting.--The first meeting of the Council
shall be held not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
``SEC. 652. DUTIES OF COUNCIL.
``The Council shall carry out the following duties:
``(1) Establish the policies, objectives, and priorities of
the Federal Government for enhancing the capabilities of
State and local emergency preparedness and response personnel
in early detection and warning of and response to all
domestic terrorist attacks, including attacks involving
weapons of mass destruction.
``(2) Publish a Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan and an
annual strategy for carrying out the plan in accordance with
section 653, including the end state of preparedness for
emergency responders established under section 653(b)(1)(D).
``(3) To the extent practicable, rely on existing resources
(including planning documents, equipment lists, and program
inventories) in the execution of its duties.
``(4) Consult with and utilize existing interagency boards
and committees, existing governmental entities, and non-
governmental organizations in the execution of its duties.
``(5) Ensure that a biennial review of the terrorist attack
preparedness programs of State and local governmental
entities is conducted and provide recommendations to the
entities based on the reviews.
``(6) Provide for the creation of a State and local
advisory group for the Council, to be composed of individuals
involved in State and local emergency preparedness and
response to terrorist attacks.
``(7) Provide for the establishment by the Council's State
and local advisory group of voluntary guidelines for the
terrorist attack preparedness programs of State and local
governmental entities in accordance with section 655.
``(8) Designate a Federal entity to consult with, and serve
as a contact for, State and local governmental entities
implementing terrorist attack preparedness programs.
``(9) Coordinate and oversee the implementation by Federal
departments and agencies of the policies, objectives, and
priorities established under paragraph (1) and the
fulfillment of the responsibilities of such departments and
agencies under the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan.
``(10) Make recommendations to the heads of appropriate
Federal departments and agencies regarding--
``(A) changes in the organization, management, and resource
allocations of the departments and agencies; and
``(B) the allocation of personnel to and within the
departments and agencies,
to implement the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan.
``(11) Assess all Federal terrorism preparedness programs
and ensure that each program complies with the Domestic
Terrorism Preparedness Plan.
``(12) Identify duplication, fragmentation, and overlap
within Federal terrorism preparedness programs and eliminate
such duplication, fragmentation and overlap.
``(13) Evaluate Federal emergency response assets and make
recommendations regarding the organization, need, and
geographic location of such assets.
``(14) Establish general policies regarding financial
assistance to States based on potential risk and threat,
response capabilities, and ability to achieve the end state
of preparedness for emergency responders established under
section 653(b)(1)(D).
``(15) Notify a Federal department or agency in writing if
the Council finds that its policies are not in compliance
with its responsibilities under the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan.
``SEC. 653. DOMESTIC TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS PLAN AND ANNUAL
STRATEGY.
``(a) Development of Plan.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the first meeting of the Council, the Council
shall develop a Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan and
transmit a copy of the plan to Congress.
``(b) Contents.--
``(1) In general.--The Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan
shall include the following:
``(A) A statement of the policies, objectives, and
priorities established by the Council under section 652(1).
``(B) A plan for implementing such policies, objectives,
and priorities that is based on a threat, risk, and
capability assessment and includes measurable objectives to
be achieved in each of the following 5 years for enhancing
domestic preparedness against a terrorist attack.
``(C) A description of the specific role of each Federal
department and agency, and the roles of State and local
governmental entities, under the plan developed under
subparagraph (B).
``(D) A definition of an end state of preparedness for
emergency responders that sets forth measurable, minimum
standards of acceptability for preparedness.
``(2) Evaluation of federal response teams.--In preparing
the description under paragraph (1)(C), the Council shall
evaluate each Federal response team and the assistance that
the team offers to State and local emergency personnel when
responding to a terrorist attack. The evaluation shall
include an assessment of how the Federal response team will
assist State and local emergency personnel after the
personnel has achieved the end state of preparedness for
emergency responders established under paragraph (1)(D).
``(c) Annual Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--The Council shall develop and transmit
to Congress, on the date of transmittal of the Domestic
Terrorism Preparedness Plan and, in each of the succeeding 4
fiscal
[[Page 20992]]
years, on the date that the President submits an annual
budget to Congress in accordance with section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, an annual strategy for carrying
out the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan in the fiscal
year following the fiscal year in which the strategy is
submitted.
``(2) Contents.--The annual strategy for a fiscal year
shall include the following:
``(A) An inventory of Federal training and exercise
programs, response teams, grant programs, and other programs
and activities related to domestic preparedness against a
terrorist attack conducted in the preceding fiscal year and a
determination as to whether any of such programs or
activities may be duplicative. The inventory shall consist of
a complete description of each such program and activity,
including the funding level and purpose of and goal to be
achieved by the program or activity.
``(B) If the Council determines under subparagraph (A) that
certain programs and activities are duplicative, a detailed
plan for consolidating, eliminating, or modifying the
programs and activities.
``(C) An inventory of Federal training and exercise
programs, grant programs, response teams, and other programs
and activities to be conducted in such fiscal year under the
Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan and measurable
objectives to be achieved in such fiscal year for enhancing
domestic preparedness against a terrorist attack. The
inventory shall provide for implementation of any plan
developed under subparagraph (B), relating to duplicative
programs and activities.
``(D) A complete assessment of how resource allocation
recommendations developed under section 654(a) are intended
to implement the annual strategy.
``(d) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--In developing the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan and each annual strategy for carrying out
the plan, the Council shall consult with--
``(A) the head of each Federal department and agency that
will have responsibilities under the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan or annual strategy;
``(B) Congress;
``(C) State and local officials;
``(D) congressionally authorized panels; and
``(E) emergency preparedness organizations with memberships
that include State and local emergency responders.
``(2) Reports.--As part of the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan and each annual strategy for carrying out
the plan, the Council shall include a written statement
indicating the persons consulted under this subsection and
the recommendations made by such persons.
``(e) Transmission of Classified Information.--Any part of
the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan or an annual
strategy for carrying out the plan that involves information
properly classified under criteria established by an
Executive order shall be presented to Congress separately.
``(f) Risk of Terrorist Attacks Against Transportation
Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--In developing the plan and risk
assessment under subsection (b), the Council shall designate
an entity to assess the risk of terrorist attacks against
transportation facilities, personnel, and passengers.
``(2) Contents.--In developing the plan and risk assessment
under subsection (b), the Council shall ensure that the
following three tasks are accomplished:
``(A) An examination of the extent to which transportation
facilities, personnel, and passengers have been the target of
terrorist attacks and the extent to which such facilities,
personnel, and passengers are vulnerable to such attacks.
``(B) An evaluation of Federal laws that can be used to
combat terrorist attacks against transportation facilities,
personnel, and passengers, and the extent to which such laws
are enforced. The evaluation may also include a review of
applicable State laws.
``(C) An evaluation of available technologies and practices
to determine the best means of protecting transportation
facilities, personnel, and passengers against terrorist
attacks.
``(3) Consultation.--In developing the plan and risk
assessment under subsection (b), the Council shall consult
with the Secretary of Transportation, representatives of
persons providing transportation, and representatives of
employees of such persons.
``(g) Monitoring.--The Council, with the assistance of the
Inspector General of the relevant Federal department or
agency as needed, shall monitor the implementation of the
Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan, including conducting
program and performance audits and evaluations.
``SEC. 654. NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS BUDGET.
``(a) Recommendations Regarding Resource Allocations.--
``(1) Transmittal to council.--Each Federal Government
program manager, agency head, and department head with
responsibilities under the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness
Plan shall transmit to the Council for each fiscal year
recommended resource allocations for programs and activities
relating to such responsibilities on or before the earlier
of--
``(A) the 45th day before the date of the budget submission
of the department or agency to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget for the fiscal year; or
``(B) August 15 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which the recommendations are being made.
``(2) Transmittal to the office of management and budget.--
The Council shall develop for each fiscal year
recommendations regarding resource allocations for each
program and activity identified in the annual strategy
completed under section 653 for the fiscal year. Such
recommendations shall be submitted to the relevant
departments and agencies and to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall consider such recommendations in
formulating the annual budget of the President submitted to
Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, and shall provide to the Council a written explanation
in any case in which the Director does not accept such a
recommendation.
``(3) Records.--The Council shall maintain records
regarding recommendations made and written explanations
received under paragraph (2) and shall provide such records
to Congress upon request. The Council may not fulfill such a
request before the date of submission of the relevant annual
budget of the President to Congress under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code.
``(4) New programs or reallocation of resources.--The head
of a Federal department or agency shall consult with the
Council before acting to enhance the capabilities of State
and local emergency preparedness and response personnel with
respect to terrorist attacks by--
``(A) establishing a new program or office; or
``(B) reallocating resources, including Federal response
teams.
``SEC. 655. VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND LOCAL
PROGRAMS.
``The Council shall provide for the establishment of
voluntary guidelines for the terrorist attack preparedness
programs of State and local governmental entities for the
purpose of providing guidance in the development and
implementation of such programs. The guidelines shall address
equipment, exercises, and training and shall establish a
desired threshold level of preparedness for State and local
emergency responders.
``SEC. 656. POWERS OF COUNCIL.
``In carrying out this subtitle, the Council may--
``(1) direct, with the concurrence of the Secretary of a
department or head of an agency, the temporary reassignment
within the Federal Government of personnel employed by such
department or agency;
``(2) use for administrative purposes, on a reimbursable
basis, the available services, equipment, personnel, and
facilities of Federal, State, and local agencies;
``(3) procure the services of experts and consultants in
accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to appointments in the Federal Service, at rates of
compensation for individuals not to exceed the daily
equivalent of the rate of pay payable for GS-18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States
Code;
``(4) accept and use donations of property from Federal,
State, and local government agencies;
``(5) use the mails in the same manner as any other
department or agency of the executive branch; and
``(6) request the assistance of the Inspector General of a
Federal department or agency in conducting audits and
evaluations under section 653(g).
``SEC. 657. ROLE OF COUNCIL IN NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
EFFORTS.
``The Council may, in the Council's role as principal
adviser to the National Security Council on Federal efforts
to assist State and local governmental entities in domestic
terrorist attack preparedness matters, and subject to the
direction of the President, attend and participate in
meetings of the National Security Council. The Council may,
subject to the direction of the President, participate in the
National Security Council's working group structure.
``SEC. 658. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF COUNCIL.
``(a) Executive Director.--The Council shall have an
Executive Director who shall be appointed by the President.
``(b) Staff.--The Executive Director may appoint such
personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate.
Such personnel shall be assigned to the Council on a full-
time basis and shall report to the Executive Director.
``(c) Administrative Support Services.--The Executive
Office of the President shall provide to the Council, on a
reimbursable basis, such administrative support services,
including office space, as the Council may request.
``SEC. 659. COORDINATION WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENTS
AND AGENCIES.
``(a) Requests for Assistance.--The head of each Federal
department and agency with responsibilities under the
Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan shall cooperate with the
Council and, subject to laws governing disclosure of
information, provide such assistance, information, and advice
as the Council may request.
``(b) Certification of Policy Changes by Council.--
``(1) In general.--The head of each Federal department and
agency with responsibilities under the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan shall, unless exigent circumstances require
otherwise, notify the Council in writing regarding any
proposed change in policies relating to the activities of
such department or agency under the Domestic Terrorism
Preparedness Plan prior to implementation of such change. The
Council shall promptly review such proposed change and
certify to the department or
[[Page 20993]]
agency head in writing whether such change is consistent with
the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan.
``(2) Notice in exigent circumstances.--If prior notice of
a proposed change under paragraph (1) is not possible, the
department or agency head shall notify the Council as soon as
practicable. The Council shall review such change and certify
to the department or agency head in writing whether such
change is consistent with the Domestic Terrorism Preparedness
Plan.
``SEC. 660. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 305. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 705. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
``(a) Statute of Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
administrative action to recover any payment made to a State
or local government for disaster or emergency assistance
under this Act shall be initiated in any forum after the date
that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final
expenditure report for the disaster or emergency.
``(2) Fraud exception.--The limitation under paragraph (1)
shall apply unless there is evidence of civil or criminal
fraud.
``(b) Rebuttal of Presumption of Record Maintenance.--
``(1) In general.--In any dispute arising under this
section after the date that is 3 years after the date of
transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster
or emergency, there shall be a presumption that accounting
records were maintained that adequately identify the source
and application of funds provided for financially assisted
activities.
``(2) Affirmative evidence.--The presumption described in
paragraph (1) may be rebutted only on production of
affirmative evidence that the State or local government did
not maintain documentation described in that paragraph.
``(3) Inability to produce documentation.--The inability of
the Federal, State, or local government to produce source
documentation supporting expenditure reports later than 3
years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure
report shall not constitute evidence to rebut the presumption
described in paragraph (1).
``(4) Right of access.--The period during which the
Federal, State, or local government has the right to access
source documentation shall not be limited to the required 3-
year retention period referred to in paragraph (3), but shall
last as long as the records are maintained.
``(c) Binding Nature of Grant Requirements.--A State or
local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any
other penalty for any payment made under this Act if--
``(1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement
specifying the costs;
``(2) the costs were reasonable; and
``(3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished.''.
SEC. 306. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
AND STATE EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended by
striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) `public safety officer' means--
``(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official
capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement
officer, as a firefighter, or as a member of a rescue squad
or ambulance crew;
``(B) an employee of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency who is performing official duties of the Agency in an
area, if those official duties--
``(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has
been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and
``(ii) are determined by the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to be hazardous duties; or
``(C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal emergency
management or civil defense agency who is performing official
duties in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in an area, if those official duties--
``(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has
been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and
``(ii) are determined by the head of the agency to be
hazardous duties.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies only to employees described in subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of section 1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (as amended by subsection (a)) who are
injured or who die in the line of duty on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 307. BUY AMERICAN.
(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds authorized
to be appropriated under this Act or any amendment made by
this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity, in
expending the funds, complies with the Buy American Act (41
U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
(b) Debarment of Persons Convicted of Fraudulent Use of
``Made in America'' Labels.--
(1) In general.--If the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency determines that a person has been convicted
of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ``Made in
America'' inscription to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in America, the Director
shall determine, not later than 90 days after determining
that the person has been so convicted, whether the person
should be debarred from contracting under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) Definition of debar.--In this subsection, the term
``debar'' has the meaning given the term in section 2393(c)
of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 308. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.), or
any other provision of law, or any flood risk zone
identified, delineated, or established under any such law (by
flood insurance rate map or otherwise), the real property
described in subsection (b) shall not be considered to be, or
to have been, located in any area having special flood
hazards (including any floodway or floodplain).
(b) Real Property.--The real property described in this
subsection is all land and improvements on the land located
in the Maple Terrace Subdivisions in the city of Sycamore,
DeKalb County, Illinois, including--
(1) Maple Terrace Phase I;
(2) Maple Terrace Phase II;
(3) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 1;
(4) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 2;
(5) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 3;
(6) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 1;
(7) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 2; and
(8) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 3.
(c) Revision of Flood Insurance Rate Lot Maps.--As soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
revise the appropriate flood insurance rate lot maps of the
agency to reflect the treatment under subsection (a) of the
real property described in subsection (b).
SEC. 309. STUDY OF PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall conduct a study of participation by
Indian tribes in emergency management.
(2) Required elements.--The study shall--
(A) survey participation by Indian tribes in training,
predisaster and postdisaster mitigation, disaster
preparedness, and disaster recovery programs at the Federal
and State levels; and
(B) review and assess the capacity of Indian tribes to
participate in cost-shared emergency management programs and
to participate in the management of the programs.
(3) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Director
shall consult with Indian tribes.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report on
the study under subsection (b) to--
(1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate;
(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
concur in the amendment of the House with a further amendment which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment (No. 4299) is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R.
707, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and urge its passage by the
full Senate. This legislation represents compromise language negotiated
with the House of Representatives, but, is, substantively, very similar
to the bill passed by the Senate in July of this year. This bill will
ensure that FEMA not only remains responsive to local communities after
a disaster, but also makes disaster preparedness and mitigation a
priority. Further, I am proud that this bill will also result in both
short and long term savings to the American taxpayer while, at the same
time, providing the states and local communities with added resources
for future mitigation efforts. Through added efficiencies this bill
saves billions in the long run.
[[Page 20994]]
I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of staff
members who have worked so hard on this bill. In particular, I would
like to recognize Marty Hall from my committee staff; Jo-Ellen Darcy,
committee staff for Senator Baucus; Andy Wheeler and Mike Murray from
Senator Inhofe's staff; and Jason McNamara from Senator Graham's staff.
emergency home repair assistance
Mr. GRAHAM. The bill includes a provision that caps emergency home
repair assistance for individuals and households at $5,000. Could the
Chairman elaborate on this provision to describe what additional
assistance might be available to individuals and households should
their emergency home repair costs exceed $5,000?
Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to elaborate on the provision. The bill
caps ``non-means-tested'' emergency home repair assistance at $5,000.
In other words, as long as insurance proceeds were not available, an
individual or household would be eligible for up to $5,000 of emergency
home repair assistance before he/she was required to seek additional
assistance from other sources, such as the SBA Disaster Loan Program.
If that individual or household was not able to obtain an SBA loan,
then he/she could be eligible for additional emergency home repair
assistance, as long as the total amount of FEMA assistance to this
individual or household does not exceed $25,000.
Mr. GRAHAM. Is it correct, then, that if an individual or household
was unable to obtain a loan from SBA, or assistance from another
source, then they could be eligible to receive additional emergency
home repair assistance, based upon the regulations that FEMA
promulgates for this section, and as long as the total FEMA assistance
received by that individual or household does not exceed $25,000?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chairman for the clarification.
____________________
RESTORATION OF ESTUARY HABITAT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a
message from the House to accompany S. 835, ``An Act to encourage the
restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing
and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration
programs, and for other purposes.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 835) entitled
``An Act to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat
through more efficient project financing and enhanced
coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration programs,
and for other purposes'', do pass with the following
amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean
Waters and Bays Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--ESTUARY RESTORATION
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
Sec. 104. Estuary habitat restoration program.
Sec. 105. Establishment of Estuary Habitat Restoration Council.
Sec. 106. Advisory board.
Sec. 107. Estuary habitat restoration strategy.
Sec. 108. Monitoring of estuary habitat restoration projects.
Sec. 109. Reporting.
Sec. 110. Funding.
Sec. 111. General provisions.
TITLE II--CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. Chesapeake Bay.
Sec. 204. Sense of the Congress; requirement regarding notice.
TITLE III--NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
Sec. 301. Additions to national estuary program.
Sec. 302. Grants.
Sec. 303. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IV--FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 403. Sense of the Congress; requirement regarding notice.
TITLE V--LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Nitrogen credit trading system and other measures.
Sec. 503. Assistance for distressed communities.
Sec. 504. Reauthorization of appropriations.
TITLE VI--LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. National estuary program.
Sec. 603. Lake Pontchartrain Basin.
Sec. 604. Sense of the Congress.
TITLE VII--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Grants for alternative water source projects.
Sec. 703. Sense of the Congress; requirement regarding notice.
TITLE VIII--CLEAN LAKES
Sec. 801. Grants to States.
Sec. 802. Demonstration program.
Sec. 803. Sense of the Congress; requirement regarding notice.
TITLE IX--MISSISSIPPI SOUND RESTORATION
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. National estuary program.
Sec. 903. Mississippi Sound.
Sec. 904. Sense of the Congress.
TITLE X--TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY ESTUARY AND BEACH CLEANUP
Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Purpose.
Sec. 1003. Definitions.
Sec. 1004. Actions to be taken by the Commission and the Administrator.
Sec. 1005. Negotiation of new treaty minute.
Sec. 1006. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--ESTUARY RESTORATION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Estuary Restoration Act of
2000''.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to promote the restoration of estuary habitat;
(2) to develop a national estuary habitat restoration
strategy for creating and maintaining effective estuary
habitat restoration partnerships among public agencies at all
levels of government and to establish new partnerships
between the public and private sectors;
(3) to provide Federal assistance for estuary habitat
restoration projects and to promote efficient financing of
such projects; and
(4) to develop and enhance monitoring and research
capabilities to ensure that estuary habitat restoration
efforts are based on sound scientific understanding and to
create a national database of estuary habitat restoration
information.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council established by section 105.
(2) Estuary.--The term ``estuary'' means a part of a river
or stream or other body of water that has an unimpaired
connection with the open sea and where the sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land
drainage. The term also includes near coastal waters and
wetlands of the Great Lakes that are similar in form and
function to estuaries.
(3) Estuary habitat.--The term ``estuary habitat'' means
the physical, biological, and chemical elements associated
with an estuary, including the complex of physical and
hydrologic features and living organisms within the estuary
and associated ecosystems.
(4) Estuary habitat restoration activity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``estuary habitat restoration
activity'' means an activity that results in improving
degraded estuaries or estuary habitat or creating estuary
habitat (including both physical and functional restoration),
with the goal of attaining a self-sustaining system
integrated into the surrounding landscape.
(B) Included activities.--The term ``estuary habitat
restoration activity'' includes--
(i) the reestablishment of chemical, physical, hydrologic,
and biological features and components associated with an
estuary;
(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (C), the cleanup of
pollution for the benefit of estuary habitat;
(iii) the control of nonnative and invasive species in the
estuary;
(iv) the reintroduction of species native to the estuary,
including through such means as planting or promoting natural
succession;
(v) the construction of reefs to promote fish and shellfish
production and to provide estuary habitat for living
resources; and
(vi) other activities that improve estuary habitat.
(C) Excluded activities.--The term ``estuary habitat
restoration activity'' does not include an activity that--
(i) constitutes mitigation required under any Federal or
State law for the adverse effects of an activity regulated or
otherwise governed by Federal or State law; or
(ii) constitutes restoration for natural resource damages
required under any Federal or State law.
(5) Estuary habitat restoration project.--The term
``estuary habitat restoration project''
[[Page 20995]]
means a project to carry out an estuary habitat restoration
activity.
(6) Estuary habitat restoration plan.--
(A) In general.--The term ``estuary habitat restoration
plan'' means any Federal or State plan for restoration of
degraded estuary habitat that was developed with the
substantial participation of appropriate public and private
stakeholders.
(B) Included plans and programs.--The term ``estuary
habitat restoration plan'' includes estuary habitat
restoration components of--
(i) a comprehensive conservation and management plan
approved under section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330);
(ii) a lakewide management plan or remedial action plan
developed under section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268);
(iii) a management plan approved under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); and
(iv) the interstate management plan developed pursuant to
the Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1267).
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given such term by section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(9) Non-federal interest.--The term ``non-federal
interest'' means a State, a political subdivision of a State,
an Indian tribe, a regional or interstate agency, or, as
provided in section 104(g)(2), a nongovernmental
organization.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of
Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
SEC. 104. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an estuary habitat
restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out
estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical
assistance in accordance with the requirements of this title.
(b) Origin of Projects.--A proposed estuary habitat
restoration project shall originate from a non-Federal
interest consistent with State or local laws.
(c) Required Elements of Project Proposals.--To be eligible
for the estuary habitat restoration program established under
this title, each proposed estuary habitat restoration project
must--
(1) address restoration needs identified in an estuary
habitat restoration plan;
(2) be consistent with the estuary habitat restoration
strategy developed under section 107;
(3) be technically feasible;
(4) include a monitoring plan that is consistent with
standards for monitoring developed under section 108 to
ensure that short-term and long-term restoration goals are
achieved; and
(5) include satisfactory assurance from the non-Federal
interests proposing the project that the non-Federal
interests will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority to carry out and properly maintain the project.
(d) Selection of Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, after considering the
advice and recommendations of the Council, shall select
estuary habitat restoration projects taking into account the
following factors:
(A) The scientific merit of the project.
(B) Whether the project will encourage increased
coordination and cooperation among Federal, State, and local
government agencies.
(C) Whether the project fosters public-private partnerships
and uses Federal resources to encourage increased private
sector involvement, including consideration of the amount of
private funds or in-kind contributions for an estuary habitat
restoration activity.
(D) Whether the project is cost-effective.
(E) Whether the State in which the non-Federal interest is
proposing the project has a dedicated source of funding to
acquire or restore estuary habitat, natural areas, and open
spaces for the benefit of estuary habitat restoration or
protection.
(F) Other factors that the Secretary determines to be
reasonable and necessary for consideration.
(2) Priority.--In selecting estuary habitat restoration
projects to be carried out under this title, the Secretary
shall give priority consideration to a project if, in
addition to meriting selection based on the factors under
paragraph (1)--
(A) the project occurs within a watershed in which there is
a program being carried out that addresses sources of
pollution and other activities that otherwise would re-impair
the restored habitat; or
(B) the project includes pilot testing or a demonstration
of an innovative technology having the potential for improved
cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat restoration.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an
estuary habitat restoration project carried out under this
title shall not exceed 65 percent of such cost.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of an estuary habitat restoration project carried out under
this title shall include lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations and may include services, or any other form of
in-kind contribution determined by the Secretary to be an
appropriate contribution equivalent to the monetary amount
required for the non-Federal share of the activity.
(f) Interim Actions.--
(1) In general.--Pending completion of the estuary habitat
restoration strategy to be developed under section 107, the
Secretary may take interim actions to carry out an estuary
habitat restoration activity.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an
estuary habitat restoration activity before the completion of
the estuary habitat restoration strategy shall not exceed 25
percent of such cost.
(g) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interests.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not select an estuary
habitat restoration project until a non-Federal interest has
entered into a written agreement with the Secretary in which
the non-Federal interest agrees to--
(A) provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations and any other elements the Secretary determines
appropriate under subsection (e)(2); and
(B) provide for maintenance and monitoring of the project
to the extent the Secretary determines necessary.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)),
for any project undertaken under this title, the Secretary,
upon the recommendation of the Governor of the State in which
the project is located and in consultation with appropriate
officials of political subdivisions of such State, may allow
a nongovernmental organization to serve as the non-Federal
interest.
(h) Delegation of Project Implementation.--In carrying out
this title, the Secretary may delegate project implementation
to another Federal department or agency on a reimbursable
basis if the Secretary, after considering the advice and
recommendations of the Council, determines such delegation is
appropriate.
SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION
COUNCIL.
(a) Council.--There is established a council to be known as
the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Council''.
(b) Duties.--The Council shall be responsible for--
(1) soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating project proposals
and making recommendations concerning such proposals based on
the factors specified in section 104(d)(1), including
recommendations as to a priority order for carrying out such
projects and as to whether a project should be carried out by
the Secretary or by another Federal department or agency
under section 104(h);
(2) developing and transmitting to Congress a national
strategy for restoration of estuary habitat;
(3) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the
national strategy in meeting the purposes of this title and,
as necessary, updating the national strategy; and
(4) providing advice on the development of the database,
monitoring standards, and report required under sections 108
and 109.
(c) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of the
following members:
(1) The Secretary (or the Secretary's designee).
(2) The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the
Department of Commerce (or the Under Secretary's designee).
(3) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (or the Administrator's designee).
(4) The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (or
such Secretary's designee).
(5) The Secretary of Agriculture (or such Secretary's
designee).
(6) The head of any other Federal agency designated by the
President to serve as an ex officio member of the Council.
(d) Prohibition of Compensation.--Members of the Council
may not receive compensation for their service as members of
the Council.
(e) Chairperson.--The chairperson shall be elected by the
Council from among its members for a 3-year term, except that
the first elected chairperson may serve a term of fewer than
3 years.
(f) Convening of Council.--
(1) First meeting.--The Secretary shall convene the first
meeting of the Council not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act for the purpose of electing a
chairperson.
(2) Additional meetings.--The chairperson shall convene
additional meetings of the Council as often as appropriate to
ensure that this title is fully carried out, but not less
often than annually.
(g) Council Procedures.--The Council shall establish
procedures for voting, the conduct of meetings, and other
matters, as necessary.
(h) Public Participation.--Meetings of the Council shall be
open to the public. The Council shall provide notice to the
public of such meetings.
[[Page 20996]]
SEC. 106. ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) In General.--The Council shall establish an advisory
board (in this section referred to as the ``board'').
(b) Duties.--The board shall provide advice and
recommendations to the Council--
(1) on the strategy developed pursuant to section 107; and
(2) on the Council's consideration of proposed estuary
habitat restoration projects and the Council's
recommendations to the Secretary pursuant to section
105(b)(1), including advice on the scientific merit,
technical merit, and feasibility of a project.
(c) Members.--The Council shall appoint members of the
board representing diverse public and private interests.
Members of the board shall be selected such that the board
consists of--
(1) three members with recognized academic scientific
expertise in estuary or estuary habitat restoration;
(2) three members representing State agencies with
expertise in estuary or estuary habitat restoration;
(3) two members representing local or regional government
agencies with expertise in estuary or estuary habitat
restoration;
(4) two members representing nongovernmental organizations
with expertise in estuary or estuary habitat restoration;
(5) two members representing fishing interests;
(6) two members representing estuary users other than
fishing interests;
(7) two members representing agricultural interests; and
(8) two members representing Indian tribes.
(d) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided by subparagraph (B),
members of the board shall be appointed for a term of 3
years.
(2) Initial members.--As designated by the chairperson of
the Council at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed--
(A) nine shall be appointed for a term of 1 year; and
(B) nine shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
(e) Vacancies.--Whenever a vacancy occurs among members of
the board, the Council shall appoint an appropriate
individual to fill that vacancy for the remainder of the
applicable term.
(f) Board Leadership.--The board shall elect from among its
members a chairperson of the board to represent the board in
matters related to its duties under this title.
(g) Compensation.--Members of the board shall not be
considered to be employees of the United States and may not
receive compensation for their service as members of the
board, except that while engaged in the performance of their
duties while away from their homes or regular place of
business, members of the board may be allowed necessary
travel expenses as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,
United States Code.
(h) Technical Support.--Technical support may be provided
to the board by regional and field staff of the Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Agriculture.
The Secretary shall coordinate the provision of such
assistance.
(i) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the board, the Secretary may provide to the board the
administrative support services necessary for the board to
carry out its responsibilities under this title.
(j) Funding.--From amounts appropriated for that purpose
under section 110, the Secretary shall provide funding for
the board to carry out its duties under this title.
SEC. 107. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION STRATEGY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Council, in consultation with
the advisory board established under section 106, shall
develop an estuary habitat restoration strategy designed to
ensure a comprehensive approach to maximize benefits derived
from estuary habitat restoration projects and to foster the
coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities related to
restoration of estuary habitat.
(b) Goal.--The goal of the strategy shall be the
restoration of 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by the year
2010.
(c) Integration of Estuary Habitat Restoration Plans,
Programs, and Partnerships.--In developing the estuary
habitat restoration strategy, the Council shall--
(1) conduct a review of estuary management or habitat
restoration plans and Federal programs established under
other laws that authorize funding for estuary habitat
restoration activities; and
(2) ensure that the estuary habitat restoration strategy is
developed in a manner that is consistent with the estuary
management or habitat restoration plans.
(d) Elements of the Strategy.--The estuary habitat
restoration strategy shall include proposals, methods, and
guidance on--
(1) maximizing the incentives for the creation of new
public-private partnerships to carry out estuary habitat
restoration projects and the use of Federal resources to
encourage increased private sector involvement in estuary
habitat restoration activities;
(2) ensuring that the estuary habitat restoration strategy
will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the
estuary management or habitat restoration plans;
(3) promoting estuary habitat restoration projects to--
(A) provide healthy ecosystems in order to support--
(i) wildlife, including endangered and threatened species,
migratory birds, and resident species of an estuary
watershed; and
(ii) fish and shellfish, including commercial and
recreational fisheries;
(B) improve surface and ground water quality and quantity,
and flood control;
(C) provide outdoor recreation and other direct and
indirect values; and
(D) address other areas of concern that the Council
determines to be appropriate for consideration;
(4) addressing the estimated historic losses, estimated
current rate of loss, and extent of the threat of future loss
or degradation of each type of estuary habitat;
(5) measuring the rate of change for each type of estuary
habitat;
(6) selecting a balance of smaller and larger estuary
habitat restoration projects; and
(7) ensuring equitable geographic distribution of projects
funded under this title.
(e) Public Review and Comment.--Before the Council adopts a
final or revised estuary habitat restoration strategy, the
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a draft of
the estuary habitat restoration strategy and provide an
opportunity for public review and comment.
(f) Periodic Revision.--Using data and information
developed through project monitoring and management, and
other relevant information, the Council may periodically
review and update, as necessary, the estuary habitat
restoration strategy.
SEC. 108. MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) Under Secretary.--In this section, the term ``Under
Secretary'' means the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.
(b) Database of Restoration Project Information.--The Under
Secretary, in consultation with the Council, shall develop
and maintain an appropriate database of information
concerning estuary habitat restoration projects carried out
under this title, including information on project
techniques, project completion, monitoring data, and other
relevant information.
(c) Monitoring Data Standards.--The Under Secretary, in
consultation with the Council, shall develop standard data
formats for monitoring projects, along with requirements for
types of data collected and frequency of monitoring.
(d) Coordination of Data.--The Under Secretary shall
compile information that pertains to estuary habitat
restoration projects from other Federal, State, and local
sources and that meets the quality control requirements and
data standards established under this section.
(e) Use of Existing Programs.--The Under Secretary shall
use existing programs within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to create and maintain the
database required under this section.
(f) Public Availability.--The Under Secretary shall make
the information collected and maintained under this section
available to the public.
SEC. 109. REPORTING.
(a) In General.--At the end of the third and fifth fiscal
years following the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary, after considering the advice and recommendations
of the Council, shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of activities carried out under this title.
(b) Contents of Report.--A report under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) data on the number of acres of estuary habitat restored
under this title, including descriptions of, and partners
involved with, projects selected, in progress, and completed
under this title that comprise those acres;
(2) information from the database established under section
108(b) related to ongoing monitoring of projects to ensure
that short-term and long-term restoration goals are achieved;
(3) an estimate of the long-term success of varying
restoration techniques used in carrying out estuary habitat
restoration projects;
(4) a review of how the information described in paragraphs
(1) through (3) has been incorporated in the selection and
implementation of estuary habitat restoration projects;
(5) a review of efforts made to maintain an appropriate
database of restoration projects carried out under this
title; and
(6) a review of the measures taken to provide the
information described in paragraphs (1) through (3) to
persons with responsibility for assisting in the restoration
of estuary habitat.
SEC. 110. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Estuary habitat restoration projects.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying
out and providing technical assistance for estuary habitat
restoration projects--
(A) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(C) $45,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
Such amounts shall remain available until expended.
(2) Monitoring.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the
Department of Commerce for the acquisition, maintenance, and
management of monitoring data on restoration projects carried
out under this title, $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005. Such amounts shall remain available until
expended.
(b) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses of the Council
and Advisory Board.--Not to exceed 3 percent of the amounts
appropriated
[[Page 20997]]
for a fiscal year under subsection (a)(1) or $1,500,000,
whichever is greater, may be used by the Secretary for
administration and operation of the Council and the advisory
board established under section 106.
SEC. 111. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Agency Consultation and Coordination.--In carrying out
this title, the Secretary shall, as necessary, consult with,
cooperate with, and coordinate its activities with the
activities of other Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Cooperative Agreements; Memoranda of Understanding.--In
carrying out this title, the Secretary may--
(1) enter into cooperative agreements with Federal, State,
and local government agencies and other entities; and
(2) execute such memoranda of understanding as are
necessary to reflect the agreements.
(c) Federal Agency Facilities and Personnel.--Federal
agencies may cooperate in carrying out scientific and other
programs necessary to carry out this title, and may provide
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the
Council in carrying out its duties under this title.
(d) Identification and Mapping of Dredged Material Disposal
Sites.--In consultation with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal public entities, the Secretary shall undertake, and
update as warranted by changed conditions, surveys to
identify and map sites appropriate for beneficial uses of
dredged material for the protection, restoration, and
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats,
including wetlands, in order to further the purposes of this
title.
(e) Study of Bioremediation Technology.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, with the participation of
the estuarine scientific community, shall begin a 2-year
study on the efficacy of bioremediation products.
(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation technology--
(i) on low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from
recreational boat bilges;
(ii) on low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from
stormwater discharges;
(iii) on nonpoint petroleum hydrocarbon discharges; and
(iv) as a first response tool for petroleum hydrocarbon
spills; and
(B) recommend management actions to optimize the return of
a healthy and balanced ecosystem and make improvements in the
quality and character of estuarine waters.
TITLE II--CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of worldwide significance;
(2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by
pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the
impacts of population growth and development in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
(3) the Federal Government (acting through the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as
Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a
comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water
quality and improvements in the productivity of living
resources of the Bay;
(4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3)
serves as a national and international model for the
management of estuaries; and
(5) there is a need to expand Federal support for
monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to
meet and further the original and subsequent goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
(2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
SEC. 203. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
Section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1267) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost'
means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in
administering a grant under this section.
``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall
provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(ii) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(v) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical
assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to achieve the goals
and requirements contained in subsection (g)(1), subject to
such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of
an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out
an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not
exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved
and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief
executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the
purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established
under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate; and
``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the
purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Proposals.--
``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that
the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time
period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water
quality standards or established goals and objectives under
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
[[Page 20998]]
``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the national goals established under section 101(a), the
Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an
implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed
50 percent of the cost of implementing the management
mechanisms during the fiscal year.
``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under
this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of
implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal
year.
``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a
document that lists and describes, in the greatest
practicable degree of detail--
``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal
year;
``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the
previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous
fiscal years.
``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal
agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions
taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake
Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and
plans.
``(3) Budget coordination.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission
of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to
restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific
investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of
the agency shall submit to the President a report that
describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this
section.
``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report
under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council
as appropriate.
``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in
coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and
implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to achieve--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and
Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on
human health;
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for wetlands, riparian forests, and other types
of habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(E) the restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for living resources associated with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator,
in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of
the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants
under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit
organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to
implement--
``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address
the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem; and
``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the tributary
basin strategies, including the creation, restoration,
protection, or enhancement of habitat associated with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every
5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with
the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and
submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of
the study.
``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(B) compare the current state of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem with its state in 1975, 1985, and 1995;
``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies
being implemented on the date of the enactment of this
section and the extent to which the priority needs are being
met;
``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of
the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies
being implemented on the date of the enactment of this
section or by adopting new strategies; and
``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily
transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration
programs.
``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
commence a 5-year special study with full participation of
the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish
and expand understanding of the response of the living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in
water quality that have resulted from investments made
through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
``(A) determine the current status and trends of living
resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of
recovery of the living resources in response to improved
water quality condition;
``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with
particular attention to the impact of changes within and
among trophic levels; and
``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return
of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to
improvements in the quality and character of the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.
SEC. 204. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING
NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under
section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1267), it is the sense of the Congress that entities
receiving such assistance should, in expending the
assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and
products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under section 117 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the head of each Federal agency shall
provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
shall report any expenditures on foreign-made items to
Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.
TITLE III--NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
SEC. 301. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
Section 320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``Lake
Ponchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi; Mississippi
Sound, Mississippi;'' before ``and Peconic Bay, New York.''.
SEC. 302. GRANTS.
Section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(g)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) and
(3) and inserting the following:
``(2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be made
to pay for activities necessary for the development and
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan under this section.
``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant to any
person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or
entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year--
``(A) shall not exceed--
``(i) 75 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the
development of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan; and
``(ii) 50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the
implementation of the plan; and
``(B) shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share
of the costs are provided from non-Federal sources.''.
SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,
and 1991'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2004''.
TITLE IV--FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Act of 2000''.
SEC. 402. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.
Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 121. FLORIDA KEYS.
``(a) In General.--Subject to the requirements of this
section, the Administrator may make grants to the Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority, appropriate agencies of
municipalities of Monroe County, Florida, and other
appropriate public agencies of the State of Florida or Monroe
County for the planning and construction of treatment works
to improve water quality in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary.
``(b) Criteria for Projects.--In applying for a grant for a
project under subsection (a), an applicant shall demonstrate
that--
[[Page 20999]]
``(1) the applicant has completed adequate planning and
design activities for the project;
``(2) the applicant has completed a financial plan
identifying sources of non-Federal funding for the project;
``(3) the project complies with--
``(A) applicable growth management ordinances of Monroe
County, Florida;
``(B) applicable agreements between Monroe County, Florida,
and the State of Florida to manage growth in Monroe County,
Florida; and
``(C) applicable water quality standards; and
``(4) the project is consistent with the master wastewater
and stormwater plans for Monroe County, Florida.
``(c) Consideration.--In selecting projects to receive
grants under subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider
whether a project will have substantial water quality
benefits relative to other projects under consideration.
``(d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
Administrator shall consult with--
``(1) the Water Quality Steering Committee established
under section 8(d)(2)(A) of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act (106 Stat. 5054);
``(2) the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
established by section 528(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771-3773);
``(3) the Commission on the Everglades established by
executive order of the Governor of the State of Florida; and
``(4) other appropriate State and local government
officials.
``(e) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of a project carried out using amounts from grants made under
subsection (a) shall not be less than 25 percent.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
section--
``(1) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(2) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(3) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through
2005.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 403. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING
NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
title (including any amendment made by this title), it is the
sense of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance
should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this title (including any
amendment made by this title), the head of each Federal
agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by
Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under this title shall report any expenditures on foreign-
made items to Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.
TITLE V--LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Long Island Sound
Restoration Act''.
SEC. 502. NITROGEN CREDIT TRADING SYSTEM AND OTHER MEASURES.
Section 119(c)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1269(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``,
including efforts to establish, within the process for
granting watershed general permits, a system for trading
nitrogen credits and any other measures that are cost-
effective and consistent with the goals of the Plan'' before
the semicolon at the end.
SEC. 503. ASSISTANCE FOR DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES.
Section 119 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1269) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Assistance to Distressed Communities.--
``(1) Eligible communities.--
``(A) States to determine criteria.--For the purposes of
this subsection, a distressed community is any community that
meets affordability criteria established by the State in
which the community is located, if such criteria are
developed after public review and comment.
``(B) Consideration of impact on water and sewer rates.--In
determining if a community is a distressed community for the
purposes of this subsection, the State shall consider the
extent to which the rate of growth of a community's tax base
has been historically slow such that implementing the plan
described in subsection (c)(1) would result in a significant
increase in any water or sewer rate charged by the
community's publicly-owned wastewater treatment facility.
``(C) Information to assist states.--The Administrator may
publish information to assist States in establishing
affordability criteria under subparagraph (A).
``(2) Revolving loan funds.--
``(A) Loan subsidies.--Subject to subparagraph (B), any
State making a loan to a distressed community from a
revolving fund under title VI for the purpose of assisting
the implementation of the plan described in subsection (c)(1)
may provide additional subsidization (including forgiveness
of principal).
``(B) Total amount of subsidies.--For each fiscal year, the
total amount of loan subsidies made by a State under
subparagraph (A) may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of
the capitalization grant received by the State for the year.
``(3) Priority.--In making assistance available under this
section for the upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities,
a State may give priority to a distressed community.''.
SEC. 504. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 119(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(as redesignated by section 503 of this Act) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``1991 through 2001'' and
inserting ``2000 through 2003''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``not to exceed $3,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 2001'' and
inserting ``not to exceed $80,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2003''.
TITLE VI--LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN RESTORATION
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Act of 2000''.
SEC. 602. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Lake Ponchartrain
Basin is an estuary of national significance.
(b) Addition to National Estuary Program.--Section
320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is further amended by inserting ``Lake
Ponchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi;'' before ``and
Peconic Bay, New York.''.
SEC. 603. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN.
Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 122. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN.
``(a) Establishment of Restoration Program.--The
Administrator shall establish within the Environmental
Protection Agency the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration
Program.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing and
funding restoration projects and related scientific and
public education projects.
``(c) Duties.--In carrying out the program, the
Administrator shall--
``(1) provide administrative and technical assistance to a
management conference convened for the Basin under section
320;
``(2) assist and support the activities of the management
conference, including the implementation of recommendations
of the management conference;
``(3) support environmental monitoring of the Basin and
research to provide necessary technical and scientific
information;
``(4) develop a comprehensive research plan to address the
technical needs of the program;
``(5) coordinate the grant, research, and planning programs
authorized under this section; and
``(6) collect and make available to the public
publications, and other forms of information the management
conference determines to be appropriate, relating to the
environmental quality of the Basin.
``(d) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants--
``(1) for restoration projects and studies recommended by a
management conference convened for the Basin under section
320;
``(2) for public education projects recommended by the
management conference; and
``(3) for the inflow and infiltration project sponsored by
the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board and Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Basin.--The term `Basin' means the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin, a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes
in the State of Louisiana and four counties in the State of
Mississippi.
``(2) Program.--The term `program' means the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program established under
subsection (a).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated--
``(A) $100,000,000 for the inflow and infiltration project
sponsored by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board and
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; and
``(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005
to carry out this section.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
``(2) Public education projects.--Not more that 15 percent
of the amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) in a
fiscal year may be expended on grants for public education
projects under subsection (d)(2).''.
SEC. 604. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that all recipients of
grants pursuant to this title shall abide by the Buy American
Act. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall give notice of the Buy American Act requirements to
grant applicants.
TITLE VII--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alternative Water Sources
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 702. GRANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.
Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page 21000]]
``SEC. 220. GRANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator may make grants to
State, interstate, and intrastate water resource development
agencies (including water management districts and water
supply authorities), local government agencies, private
utilities, and nonprofit entities for alternative water
source projects to meet critical water supply needs.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--The Administrator may make grants
under this section to an entity only if the entity has
authority under State law to develop or provide water for
municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in an area of
the State that is experiencing critical water supply needs.
``(c) Selection of Projects.--
``(1) Limitation.--A project that has received funds under
the reclamation and reuse program conducted under the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992
(43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) shall not be eligible for grant
assistance under this section.
``(2) Additional consideration.--In making grants under
this section, the Administrator shall consider whether the
project is located within the boundaries of a State or area
referred to in section 1 of the Reclamation Act of June 17,
1902 (32 Stat. 385), and within the geographic scope of the
reclamation and reuse program conducted under the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C.
390h et seq.).
``(d) Committee Resolution Procedure.--
``(1) In general.--No appropriation shall be made for any
alternative water source project under this section, the
total Federal cost of which exceeds $3,000,000, if such
project has not been approved by a resolution adopted by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives or the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
``(2) Requirements for securing consideration.--For
purposes of securing consideration of approval under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to a committee
referred to in paragraph (1) such information as the
committee requests and the non-Federal sponsor shall provide
to the committee information on the costs and relative needs
for the alternative water source project.
``(e) Uses of Grants.--Amounts from grants received under
this section may be used for engineering, design,
construction, and final testing of alternative water source
projects designed to meet critical water supply needs. Such
amounts may not be used for planning, feasibility studies or
for operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, or
rehabilitation.
``(f) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the eligible
costs of an alternative water source project carried out
using assistance made available under this section shall not
exceed 50 percent.
``(g) Reports.--
``(1) Reports to administrator.--Each recipient of a grant
under this section shall submit to the Administrator, not
later than 18 months after the date of receipt of the grant
and biennially thereafter until completion of the alternative
water source project funded by the grant, a report on
eligible activities carried out by the grant recipient using
amounts from the grant.
``(2) Report to congress.--On or before September 30, 2005,
the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the
progress made toward meeting the critical water supply needs
of the grant recipients under this section.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Alternative water source project.--The term
`alternative water source project' means a project designed
to provide municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
supplies in an environmentally sustainable manner by
conserving, managing, reclaiming, or reusing water or
wastewater or by treating wastewater.
``(2) Critical water supply needs.--The term `critical
water supply needs' means existing or reasonably anticipated
future water supply needs that cannot be met by existing
water supplies, as identified in a comprehensive statewide or
regional water supply plan or assessment projected over a
planning period of at least 20 years.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 703. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING
NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
title (including any amendment made by this title), it is the
sense of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance
should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this title (including any
amendment made by this title), the head of each Federal
agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by
Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under this title shall report any expenditures on foreign-
made items to Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.
TITLE VIII--CLEAN LAKES
SEC. 801. GRANTS TO STATES.
Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1324(c)(2)) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000'' the first place it appears and all that
follows through ``1990'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 802. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1324(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Otsego Lake, New York;
Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan
Lake, Itasca County, Minnesota;'' after ``Sauk Lake,
Minnesota;'';
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``By'' and inserting
``Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109
Stat. 734-736), by''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''.
SEC. 803. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING
NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
title (including any amendment made by this title), it is the
sense of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance
should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this title (including any
amendment made by this title), the head of each Federal
agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by
Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under this title shall report any expenditures on foreign-
made items to Congress within 180 days of expenditure.
TITLE IX--MISSISSIPPI SOUND RESTORATION
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Mississippi Sound
Restoration Act of 2000''.
SEC. 902. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Mississippi Sound is
an estuary of national significance.
(b) Addition to National Estuary Program.--Section
320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is further amended by inserting
``Mississippi Sound, Mississippi;'' before ``and Peconic Bay,
New York.''.
SEC. 903. MISSISSIPPI SOUND.
Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 123. MISSISSIPPI SOUND.
``(a) Establishment of Restoration Program.--The
Administrator shall establish within the Environmental
Protection Agency the Mississippi Sound Restoration Program.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
restore the ecological health of the Sound, including barrier
islands, coastal wetlands, keys, and reefs, by developing and
funding restoration projects and related scientific and
public education projects and by coordinating efforts among
Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and
nonregulatory organizations.
``(c) Duties.--In carrying out the program, the
Administrator shall--
``(1) provide administrative and technical assistance to a
management conference convened for the Sound under section
320;
``(2) assist and support the activities of the management
conference, including the implementation of recommendations
of the management conference;
``(3) support environmental monitoring of the Sound and
research to provide necessary technical and scientific
information;
``(4) develop a comprehensive research plan to address the
technical needs of the program;
``(5) coordinate the grant, research, and planning programs
authorized under this section; and
``(6) collect and make available to the public
publications, and other forms of information the management
conference determines to be appropriate, relating to the
environmental quality of the Sound.
``(d) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants--
``(1) for restoration projects and studies recommended by a
management conference convened for the Sound under section
320; and
``(2) for public education projects recommended by the
management conference.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Sound.--The term `Sound' means the Mississippi Sound
located on the Gulf Coast of the State of Mississippi.
``(2) Program.--The term `program' means the Mississippi
Sound Restoration Program established under subsection (a).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 904. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that all recipients of
grants under this title (including amendments made by this
title) shall abide by the Buy American Act. The Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall give notice of
the Buy American Act requirements to grant applicants under
this title.
[[Page 21001]]
TITLE X--TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY ESTUARY AND BEACH CLEANUP
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Tijuana River Valley
Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act of 2000''.
SEC. 1002. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to authorize the United States
to take actions to address comprehensively the treatment of
sewage emanating from the Tijuana River area, Mexico, that
flows untreated or partially treated into the United States
causing significant adverse public health and environmental
impacts.
SEC. 1003. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico.
(3) IWTP.--The term ``IWTP'' means the South Bay
International Wastewater Treatment Plant constructed under
the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), section 510 of the Water Quality Act of
1987 (101 Stat. 80-82), and Treaty Minutes to the Treaty for
the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers
and of the Rio Grande, dated February 3, 1944.
(4) Secondary treatment.--The term ``secondary treatment''
has the meaning such term has under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
(6) Mexican facility.--The term ``Mexican facility'' means
a proposed public-private wastewater treatment facility to be
constructed and operated under this title within Mexico for
the purpose of treating sewage flows generated within Mexico,
which flows impact the surface waters, health, and safety of
the United States and Mexico.
(7) MGD.--The term ``mgd'' means million gallons per day.
SEC. 1004. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Secondary Treatment.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the negotiation and conclusion
of a new Treaty Minute or the amendment of Treaty Minute 283
under section 1005 of this Act, and notwithstanding section
510(b)(2) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 81),
the Commission is authorized and directed to provide for the
secondary treatment of a total of not more than 50 mgd in
Mexico--
(A) of effluent from the IWTP if such treatment is not
provided for at a facility in the United States; and
(B) of additional sewage emanating from the Tijuana River
area, Mexico.
(2) Additional authority.--Subject to the results of the
comprehensive plan developed under subsection (b) revealing a
need for additional secondary treatment capacity in the San
Diego-Tijuana border region and recommending the provision of
such capacity in Mexico, the Commission may provide not more
than an additional 25 mgd of secondary treatment capacity in
Mexico for treatment described in paragraph (1).
(b) Comprehensive Plan.--Not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
develop a comprehensive plan with stakeholder involvement to
address the transborder sanitation problems in the San Diego-
Tijuana border region. The plan shall include, at a minimum--
(1) an analysis of the long-term secondary treatment needs
of the region;
(2) an analysis of upgrades in the sewage collection system
serving the Tijuana area, Mexico; and
(3) an identification of options, and recommendations for
preferred options, for additional sewage treatment capacity
for future flows emanating from the Tijuana River area,
Mexico.
(c) Contract.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations to carry out this subsection and
notwithstanding any provision of Federal procurement law,
upon conclusion of a new Treaty Minute or the amendment of
Treaty Minute 283 under section 5, the Commission may enter
into a fee-for-services contract with the owner of a Mexican
facility in order to carry out the secondary treatment
requirements of subsection (a) and make payments under such
contract.
(2) Terms.--Any contract under this subsection shall
provide, at a minimum, for the following:
(A) Transportation of the advanced primary effluent from
the IWTP to the Mexican facility for secondary treatment.
(B) Treatment of the advanced primary effluent from the
IWTP to the secondary treatment level in compliance with
water quality laws of the United States, California, and
Mexico.
(C) Return conveyance from the Mexican facility of any such
treated effluent that cannot be reused in either Mexico or
the United States to the South Bay Ocean Outfall for
discharge into the Pacific Ocean in compliance with water
quality laws of the United States and California.
(D) Subject to the requirements of subsection (a),
additional sewage treatment capacity that provides for
advanced primary and secondary treatment of sewage described
in subsection (a)(1)(B) in addition to the capacity required
to treat the advanced primary effluent from the IWTP.
(E) A contract term of 30 years.
(F) Arrangements for monitoring, verification, and
enforcement of compliance with United States, California, and
Mexican water quality standards.
(G) Arrangements for the disposal and use of sludge,
produced from the IWTP and the Mexican facility, at a
location or locations in Mexico.
(H) Payment of fees by the Commission to the owner of the
Mexican facility for sewage treatment services with the
annual amount payable to reflect all agreed upon costs
associated with the development, financing, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Mexican facility.
(I) Provision for the transfer of ownership of the Mexican
facility to the United States, and provision for a
cancellation fee by the United States to the owner of the
Mexican facility, if the Commission fails to perform its
obligations under the contract. The cancellation fee shall be
in amounts declining over the term of the contract
anticipated to be sufficient to repay construction debt and
other amounts due to the owner that remain unamortized due to
early termination of the contract.
(J) Provision for the transfer of ownership of the Mexican
facility to the United States, without a cancellation fee, if
the owner of the Mexican facility fails to perform the
obligations of the owner under the contract.
(K) To the extent practicable, the use of competitive
procedures by the owner of the Mexican facility in the
procurement of property or services for the engineering,
construction, and operation and maintenance of the Mexican
facility.
(L) An opportunity for the Commission to review and approve
the selection of contractors providing engineering,
construction, and operation and maintenance for the Mexican
facility.
(M) The maintenance by the owner of the Mexican facility of
all records (including books, documents, papers, reports, and
other materials) necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
terms of this Act and the contract.
(N) Access by the Inspector General of the Department of
State or the designee of the Inspector General for audit and
examination of all records maintained pursuant to
subparagraph (M) to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation
required under subsection (d).
(3) Limitation.--The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41
U.S.C. 601-613) shall not apply to a contract executed under
this section.
(d) Implementation.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of
State shall monitor the implementation of any contract
entered into under this section and evaluate the extent to
which the owner of the Mexican facility has met the terms of
this section and fulfilled the terms of the contract.
(2) Report.--The Inspector General shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the evaluation under paragraph
(1) not later than 2 years after the execution of any
contract with the owner of the Mexican facility under this
section, 3 years thereafter, and periodically after the
second report under this paragraph.
SEC. 1005. NEGOTIATION OF NEW TREATY MINUTE.
(a) Congressional Statement.--In light of the existing
threat to the environment and to public health and safety
within the United States as a result of the river and ocean
pollution in the San Diego-Tijuana border region, the
Secretary is requested to give the highest priority to the
negotiation and execution of a new Treaty Minute, or a
modification of Treaty Minute 283, consistent with the
provisions of this title, in order that the other provisions
of this title to address such pollution may be implemented as
soon as possible.
(b) Negotiation.--
(1) Initiation.--The Secretary is requested to initiate
negotiations with Mexico, within 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, for a new Treaty Minute or a
modification of Treaty Minute 283 consistent with the
provisions of this title.
(2) Implementation.--Implementation of a new Treaty Minute
or of a modification of Treaty Minute 283 under this title
shall be subject to the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(3) Matters to be addressed.--A new Treaty Minute or a
modification of Treaty Minute 283 under paragraph (1) should
address, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The siting of treatment facilities in Mexico and in the
United States.
(B) Provision for the secondary treatment of effluent from
the IWTP at a Mexican facility if such treatment is not
provided for at a facility in the United States.
(C) Provision for additional capacity for advanced primary
and secondary treatment of additional sewage emanating from
the Tijuana River area, Mexico, in addition to the treatment
capacity for the advanced primary effluent from the IWTP at
the Mexican facility.
(D) Provision for any and all approvals from Mexican
authorities necessary to facilitate water quality
verification and enforcement at the Mexican facility.
(E) Any terms and conditions considered necessary to allow
for use in the United States of treated effluent from the
Mexican facility, if there is reclaimed water which is
surplus to the needs of users in Mexico and such use is
consistent with applicable United States and California law.
(F) Any other terms and conditions considered necessary by
the Secretary in order to implement the provisions of this
title.
SEC. 1006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
[[Page 21002]]
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
disagree with the amendment of the House, agree to the request for a
conference, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the
part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bennett) appointed Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Warner, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Baucus, and Mrs. Boxer conferees
on the part of the Senate.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 3165
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 3165 is at the desk, and I
ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3165) to amend the Social Security Act to make
corrections and refinements in the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP health insurance programs, and for other purposes.
Mr. MACK. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 3173
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 3173 is at the desk, and I
ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3173) to improve the implementation of the
environmental streamlining provisions of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Mr. MACK. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 4292
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4292 is at the desk,
and I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4292) to protect infants who are born alive.
Mr. MACK. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMERCIALIZATION ACT OF 1999
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 209 and the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 209) to improve the ability of Federal
agencies to license federally-owned inventions.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 4300
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, Senators Edwards, Shelby, and Sessions have
an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) for Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Shelby, and Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered
4300.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS OMBUDSMAN.
(a) Appointment of Ombudsman.--The Secretary of Energy
shall direct the director of each national laboratory of the
Department of Energy, and may direct the director of each
facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy,
to appoint a technology partnership ombudsman to hear and
help resolve complaints from outside organizations regarding
the policies and actions of each such laboratory or facility
with respect to technology partnerships (including
cooperative research and development agreements), patents,
and technology licensing.
(b) Qualifications.--An ombudsman appointed under
subsection (a) shall be a senior official of the national
laboratory or facility who is not involved in day-to-day
technology partnerships, patents, or technology licensing,
or, if appointed from outside the laboratory of facility,
function as such a senior official.
(c) Duties.--Each ombudsman appointed under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) serve as the focal point for assisting the public and
industry in resolving complaints and disputes with the
national laboratory or facility regarding technology
partnerships, patents, and technology licensing;
(2) promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute
resolution technique such as mediation to facilitate the
speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes,
when appropriate; and
(3) report quarterly on the number and nature of complaints
and disputes raised, along with the ombudsman's assessment of
their resolution, consistent with the protection of
confidential and sensitive information, to--
(A) the Secretary;
(B) the Administrator for Nuclear Security;
(C) the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution of the
Department of Energy; and
(D) the employees of the Department responsible for the
administration of the contract for the operation of each
national laboratory or facility that is a subject of the
report, for consideration in the administration and review of
that contract.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Senator Edwards' amendment establishes a Technology
Partnership Ombudsman at Department of Energy's National Laboratories.
It is my understanding that the Ombudsman should promote the use of
collaborative alternative dispute resolution techniques such as
mediation to facilitate the speedy and low-cost resolution of
complaints and disputes with industry partners. To ensure fairness and
objectivity, however, it would be the Senator's intent that nothing in
this Section be interpreted to empower the Ombudsman to act as a
mediator or an arbitrator in the process.
Mr. EDWARDS. The Senator's understanding is correct. That is our
intention.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4300) was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 209), as amended, was passed.
____________________
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on a
conference report, a bill we have been working on all year, including a
couple of other provisions that have now been added. We are ready to
move forward with it. That is what the vote will address tomorrow.
I have put forward this bill on sex trafficking with Senator
Wellstone. He and I don't get together on too many bills, so when we
do, it is a bit noteworthy. We come from different perspectives,
different viewpoints. I think we both have good hearts but our heads
take us in different directions. But on this subject of stopping sex
trafficking, we don't disagree. We have worked together all year to get
this bill through which challenges this practice known as sex
trafficking.
Throughout the world, globalization has a dark side. We are seeing
increasing numbers of young women, even girls, being trafficked from
poorer countries to richer countries into the prostitution business.
They have been tricked, forced, coerced and defrauded into working as
prostitutes against their will. There are about 700,000 women and
girls, according to our Government's estimates, being moved each year
from poorer countries to richer countries into the prostitution
business. Our Government estimates that approximately 50,000 women and
children are trafficked annually into the United States, primarily from
Asia and Central America.
This is clearly a terrible practice. Many of these are young girls
who are
[[Page 21003]]
tricked and deceived into forced prostitution believe they are going to
a different country for another purpose. For example, those trafficked
to the United States are promised a job as a dish washer, or a factory
worker. Something that pays better than the job opportunities available
in their own, typically poorer, countries. However, once the victims
get here, there is no decent job waiting for them. Instead, the
trafficker will take their papers and passport so that they have no
legal identification. Then they are given false papers, if any. This
begins to prepare them for their new life of forced prostitution,
making it very difficult to track down and rescue the young woman or
girl who has been trapped. There is a point very early in this process
where the trafficker says something like the following to his victim,
``You are mine and you will do what I say. You will work in this
brothel as a prostitute and you have no choice.'' At this point, she
had become a slave in one of the most degrading fashions imaginable.
Senator Wellstone and I heard testimony to this effect. We have had
two hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on this subject of
trafficking. At both hearings, we had victims testify to such
experiences. At one hearing, we had three women who had been
trafficked--all had been tricked into traveling to another country
believing a good job was waiting on the other side, and once they got
there, they were forced into prostitution. This is what they were
subjected to. One young woman said that once she was moved into the
United States, she was subjected to 30 clients a day, six days a week.
If she refused, she was beaten without mercy. It is a dark, dark
business.
In January of this year I was in Nepal. I met with a number of girls
who had returned from India, where they were forced to work in the
brothels in Bombay. These were young girls, frequently from villages,
not particularly knowledgeable in the ways of the world. They were
young and very innocent when the trafficker had taken them away. The
trafficker had told one girl's parents, ``I can get her a job in a rug
factory in Bombay.'' The family was poor, they needed income, and they
believed him. So they agreed, and gave their daughter away to the
trader who forced her into prostitution against her will. And she had
no choice.
I met girls who had been trafficked at age 11, 12, and 13. The girls
I saw in Nepal, in Katmandu, had returned from this devastating life.
Some had escaped by running away, though many cannot since they are in
chains or are locked away. Others were thrown out by the brothel
because they had contracted AIDS or TB. When they returned at the age
of 16, 17, or 18, two-thirds of them had AIDS and were waiting to die,
having no proper medicine.
As I stood there with the woman who runs this place of restoration
for these young women, she pointed around the room whispering: She is
dying, she is dying, she is dying. These were girls of 17 years old, 16
years old, or younger. They were people who had had their youth stolen
from them, were deceived or forced into this practice, and then,
finally, received a death sentence of AIDS. I saw that. I talked with
these survivors of trafficking. Once you see that, you know you have to
try to help to stop this. This is wrong, and this terrible practice is
increasing. It is happening to 700,000 women and children, girls, each
year worldwide.
Paul Wellstone and I worked very hard together. We have a bill that
has gone through the Senate by unanimous consent which is the most
comprehensive bill to combat this practice of sex trafficking. Among
other provisions, this bill substantially increases the penalty for
trafficking, while protecting those victims who have been forced into
this awful practice. Presently, the victims of trafficking are treated
almost as badly as their enslaver, but this bill changes that. Instead,
this bill promotes the cooperation of the victims to testify against
those who have forced them into trafficking. This will help to bust
open the trafficking rings, which we are going very little of these
day. It also promotes awareness programs so that people can protect
their children and themselves from being tricked into forced
prostitution.
I support the increasing globalization of the trade community, but we
also have to recognize the problems associated with globalization.
Trafficking may be among the worst of those problems. The United States
can be a leader in starting to combat this practice, thus giving back
to young girls all over the world their childhood instead of a death
sentence.
Associated with this trafficking bill is a bill that Senator Biden
has worked very aggressively on, the Violence Against Women Act. This
is a reauthorization of that bill. These two bills are being paired,
along with other measures. Senator Biden has spoken passionately and
frequently on the need to deal with domestic violence in the United
States, a very dark and pervasive tragedy in America.
It recently passed in the House of Representatives as a stand alone
bill, with only 3 dissenting votes. It is up for reauthorization. VAWA
will help those women who are suffering from some form of domestic
violence. It is a good piece of legislation and these two bills belong
together.
Also associated with this bill is an Internet Alcohol provision, as
well as a provision dealing with terrorism, put forward by Senator
Mack. It is noncontroversial. Also, in includes a bill entitled, Amy's
Law, sponsored by Congressman Salmon in the House, and by Senator
Santorum here in the Senate. It ultimately promotes tougher prison
sentences for people who have been convicted of sex crimes such as
rape.
In summary, the two lead bills in this package separately address sex
trafficking and violence against women and children. I plead with my
colleagues to vote for this package. It will be up tomorrow morning.
This package challenges brutal practices suffered by some of the most
defenseless and battered in our society and worldwide. It will assist
people in some of the most violent and crushing situations, both here
and abroad. It will help so many.
I plead with my colleagues in these last hours when people can put up
roadblocks to bills. I plead with my colleagues to say that they will
not block this bill which will help so many people who are brutalized,
including by sex trafficking. I plead with my colleagues, let's move
this package on through. This will clear through the House by a large
vote. It is something we can do for the women and children in this
country as well as worldwide. It is a sensible package. It has been
worked out by both sides of the political spectrum, through both
parties. So, please, let's do this.
This is something we can all be very proud of passing as we go home.
We can proudly say that we tried to do something, as we read increasing
stories of forced sex trafficking worldwide. We can say we didn't look
away by passing this bill.
Everybody is not going to like everything in these bills. But these
two lead issues are so critical and important, and time is so short for
us to get these through. Let's not wait until next session as
increasingly more and more girls are being tricked into this practice
of forced sex trafficking.
The United States can step up awareness and advocacy, and as we do,
governments around the world will do the same. The U.S. has to speak
first, however, and this is the bill to do the speaking. Let's do it
now.
As we vote on this tomorrow morning, I ask my colleagues to vote yes
on these very important pieces of legislation to help children, to help
women. These are vital pieces of legislation of which we can all be
proud.
Mr. President, I understand there may be some more items, so I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
[[Page 21004]]
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO TITLE X OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF
1992
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2641, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2641) to make technical corrections to title X
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Without objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2641) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay
before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives to
accompany S. 2311.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2311) entitled
``An Act to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act
programs under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act,
to improve access to health care and the quality of care
under such programs, and to provide for the development of
increased capacity to provide health care and related support
services to individuals and families with HIV disease, and
for other purposes'', do pass with amendments.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the
amendments of the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure that the
Senate is moving to pass the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000, a measure that will reauthorize a
national program providing primary health care services to people
living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to commend Senators Hatch
and Kennedy for the leadership they have provided since the
inauguration of the legislation establishing the Ryan White programs
over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator Frist whose medical
expertise played a critical role in key provisions of the bill and
continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts on the range of
health issues that come before the Senate. I want to recognize Senator
Dodd for his unwavering support for this legislation and people living
with HIV and AIDS. Finally, I want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's
recognition of the growing burden that AIDS and HIV have placed on
rural communities throughout the country and the need to address those
gaps in services.
It is also important that we recognize the dedicated efforts of our
colleagues in the House of Representatives. Chairman Bliley supported
this bill through its passage and provided critical guidance through
the negotiations. Representatives Bilirakis, Coburn, and Waxman have
demonstrated time and time again their commitment to people living with
AIDS and each has worked diligently to find a compromise to ensure the
continued services for people with HIV/AIDS. Representatives Brown and
Dingell have also played important roles in shepherding this bill
through the legislative process.
Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad
bipartisan support. During the last reauthorization of the Ryan White
CARE Act in 1996, the measure garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final
passage. As evidence that strong bipartisan support continues, I am
happy to report that this reauthorization bill was passed unanimously
by this Chamber in June of this year. The bipartisan support for this
important legislation underlines the critical need for the assistance
this Act provides across the Nation.
With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the
Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support
services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II
have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by
this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in
providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White
program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting
this epidemic and have allowed States and communities around the
country to successfully address the needs of people affected by HIV
disease.
In recent months a number General Accounting Office studies have
shown that the CARE Act is providing services and support to people
with HIV who are most in need and most deserving of our help. The GAO
found that CARE Act funds are reaching the infected groups that have
typically been underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women,
and ethnic minorities. These groups form a majority of CARE Act clients
and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions than their
representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found that CARE Act
funds support a wide array of primary care and support services,
including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for people
with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and deaths.
Previous efforts to improve this legislation have led to incredible
reductions in the number of HIV infected babies being born each year
and, equally important, to increased outreach, counseling, voluntary
testing, and treatment services being provided to women with HIV
infection. Between 1993 and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases
declined 74 percent in the U.S. In this bill, I have continued to
support efforts to reach women in need of care for their HIV disease
and have included provisions to ensure that women, infants and children
receive resources in accordance with the prevalence of the infection
among them.
The AIDS Drug Assistance Program has been another critical success.
This program has provided people with HIV and AIDS access to newly
developed, highly effective therapeutics. Because of these drugs,
people are maintaining their health and living longer. The AIDS death
rate and the number of new AIDS cases have been dramatically reduced.
From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54 percent while new AIDS
cases have been reduced by 27 percent. In this reauthorization bill we
have improved access for underserved and poor communities and increased
support for services that help maximize the impact of these therapies.
Despite our great success, the Ryan White program remains as vital to
the public health of this Nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. While
the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and deaths is leveling off, HIV
infection rates continue to rise in many areas; becoming increasingly
prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas; and also among women,
youth, and minority communities. Local and state healthcare systems
face an increasing burden of disease, despite our success in treating
and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS. Rural and underserved
urban areas are often unable to address the complex medical and support
services needs of people with HIV infection. As the AIDS epidemic
continues to expand into these areas across the country, this
legislation will allow us to adapt our care systems to meet the most
urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by the epidemic.
The bill being considered today was developed on a bipartisan basis,
working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and
elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought
input to ensure that we addressed the most important problems facing
communities of people with HIV infection. Finally we have worked
closely with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to produce
this agreement. This morning, our colleagues in the House of
Representatives unanimously passed this
[[Page 21005]]
legislation that we have before us. The agreements we have reached with
our House colleagues have been fully explained in an Statement of
Explanation and I would like unanimous consent that this document be
printed as part of the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
This bill will double the minimum base funding available to states
through the CARE Act to assist them in developing systems of care for
people struggling with HIV and AIDS. The bill also includes a new
supplemental state grant to target assistance to small and mid-sized
metropolitan areas to help them address the increasing number of people
with HIV/AIDS living outside of urban areas that receive assistance
under Title I of the Act. Rural and underserved areas receive a
preference for planning, early intervention, and capacity development
grants under title III. In order to assist states in expanding access
to appropriate HIV/AIDS therapeutics to low-income people with HIV/
AIDS, a supplemental grant has been added to the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program.
The bill remains primarily a system of grants to State and local
jurisdictions, thereby ensuring that grantees can respond to local
needs. States, EMAs, and the affected communities will still decide how
to best prioritize and address the healthcare needs of their HIV-
positive citizens. This bill reinforces the ability of States and EMAs
to identify and meet local needs.
Finally, in recognition of the changing nature of the epidemic, I
have asked the Institute of Medicine to complete a study of the
financing and delivery of primary care and support services for low
income, uninsured, and under-insured individuals with HIV disease,
within 21 months after the enactment of this Act. Changes in HIV
surveillance and case reporting, and the effects of these changes on
program funding, will be included in this study. The recommendations
from this study will help Congress and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to ensure the most effective and efficient use of
Federal funds for HIV and AIDS care and support.
I am proud that this bill has progressed through the Congress and
that we will see this bill become law this year. The people struggling
to overcome the challenges of HIV and AIDS must continue to benefit
from high quality medical care and access to lifesaving drugs. We have
made incredible progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and I want to
ensure that every person in America in need of assistance benefits from
our tremendous advances.
Many groups and individuals have contributed significantly to
crafting this bill, but I want to acknowledge those at the Health
Resources and Services Administration. All of the groups united under
the umbrella of the National Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA)
deserve recognition. Representing a diverse community of people with
AIDS, CARE Act service providers, and administrative agencies, NORA
clearly and effectively communicated to Congress the needs and
priorities of their constituents.
I also want to thank several staff members who have worked long and
hard to craft this bill and to address the concerns and needs of the
affected communities. Stephanie Robinson and Idalia Sanchez, for
Senator Kennedy, were key to reaching agreement on this bill and have
provided invaluable assistance and support throughout the development
of this legislation. Dave Larson and Mary Sumpter Johnson, of Senator
Frist's office, for their support for the needs of rural and
underserved communities throughout the nation. Similarly, Jeannie
Ireland with Senator Dodd's office, Helen Rhee, working for Senator
DeWine, Libby Rolfe, for Mr. Sessions, and Raissa Geary and Mary Jordan
in Senator Enzi's office, provided valuable input. Without the efforts
of these staff members, we would not have such a strong, well-balanced,
and targeted reauthorization bill before us today. I want to also
express my gratitude and thanks to Bill Baird, Legislative Counsel, who
worked tirelessly to craft legislative language. Finally, I want to
acknowledge the contributions of Sean Donohue and William Oscar Fleming
of my staff who guidance of this effort from the beginning has resulted
in a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support and which most
importantly meets the pressing needs of people with HIV and AIDS.
Exhibit 1
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000--Managers' Statement of
Explanation
The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 reauthorize
Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to ensure that
individuals living with HIV and AIDS receive health care and
related support services. The legislation contains
authorization for appropriations and programmatic changes to
ensure the CARE Act programs respond to evolving demographic
trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic and advances in treatment and
care.
In March, 1990, Congress enacted the Ryan White CARE Act,
honoring Ryan White, a young man who taught the Nation to
respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic with hope and action rather
than fear. By the spring of 1990, over 128,000 people had
been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and 78,000 had
died of the disease. The CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996,
as the epidemic spread to more than 600,000 Americans
diagnosed with AIDS and amidst the nationwide recognition
that CARE Act programs were indispensable to the care and
treatment of Americans with HIV/AIDS.
The CARE Act Amendments of 2000 marks the second
reauthorization of the CARE Act. In the last twenty years,
the HIV/AIDS epidemic has claimed over 420,000 American men,
women, and children. Today, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention estimates that there are currently between
800,000 and 900,000 persons living with HIV in the United
States, with 40,000 new infections annually.
While there is still no cure, the CARE Act has been
instrumental in responding to the public health, social and
economic burdens of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. However, the
steady expansion and changed demographics of the epidemic, as
well as the improved survival time for people living with
AIDS, are placing increasing stress on State and local health
care systems, community based organizations and families
providing care. Most importantly, the epidemic is expanding
beyond major cities to smaller cities and rural regions, and
disproportionately affecting women, communities of color,
children and youth.
The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 preserves the
best and proven features of existing CARE Act programs. But
the CARE Act Amendments of 2000 also makes important and
substantial reforms to respond to the significant changes in
the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the last 5 years.
The Organization of Services Under the CARE Act Amendments
of 2000 is as follows:
Title I. Emergency Relief for Areas with Substantial Need
for Services: Provides emergency relief grants to 51 eligible
metropolitan areas (EMAs) disproportionately affected by the
HIV epidemic to provide primary care and HIV-related support
services to people with HIV and AIDS. Half of the Title I
funding is distributed by formula; the remaining half is
distributed competitively, based on the demonstration of
severity of need and other criteria.
Planning Council membership has been revised to include HIV
prevention providers, homeless and housing service providers,
and representatives of prisoners. A third of Planning Council
members must be individuals with HIV/AIDS receiving care who
are not officers, employees or consultants to Title I
grantees.
Title II. CARE Grant Program: Provides formula grants to
States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S.
Territories to improve the quality of health care and support
services for individuals with HIV disease and their families.
The funds are used: to provide medical support services, to
continue health insurance payments, to provide home care
services, and, through the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
(ADAP), to provide medications necessary for the care of
these individuals. Supplemental formula grants are awarded to
States with ``emerging communities'' which are ineligible for
grants under Title I.
Subtitle B provides discretionary grants to States for the
reduction of perinatal transmission of HIV, and for HIV
counseling, testing, and outreach to pregnant women. Subtitle
C provides discretionary grants to States for partner
notification, counseling and referral services.
Title III. Early Intervention Services: Funds nonprofit
entitles providing primary care and outpatient early
intervention services, including case management, counseling,
testing, referrals, and clinical and diagnostic services to
individuals diagnosed with HIV. The unfunded program of State
formula grants in current law is repealed.
Title IV. Other Programs and Activities: Provides grants
for comprehensive services to children, youth, and women
living with HIV and their families. Such services include
primary, specialty and psychosocial care, as
[[Page 21006]]
well as HIV outreach and prevention activities. Grantees must
demonstrate linkages to, and provide clients with access and
education on, HIV/AIDS clinical research.
Title IV newly authorizes the AIDS Education and Training
Centers (AETC), a network of 14 regional centers conducting
clinical HIV education and training of health providers, to
provide prenatal and gynecological care. The HIV/AIDS Dental
Reimbursement program, covering uncompensated oral health
care for patients with HIV/AIDS, is expanded to provide
community-based care in underserved areas.
Under Subtitle B, general provisions authorize CDC data
collection of CARE Act planning and evaluation, enhanced
interagency coordination of HIV services and prevention,
development of a plan for the case management of prisoners
with HIV, and administrative provisions related to audits,
and a plan for simplification of CARE Act grant
disbursements.
Title V. General Provisions: Authorizes Institute of
Medicine (IOM) studies and expansion of Federal support for
the development of rapid HIV tests. Makes necessary and
technical corrections in Title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act.
A summary of selected provisions is as follows:
Use of HIV Case Data in Formula Grants: In order to target
funding more accurately to reflect the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the
Managers have revised and updated the Title I and Title II
formulas to make use of data on cases of HIV infection as
well as of AIDS. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, HIV and AIDS case
data is intended to be used in the Title I and Title II
formulas.
However, no later than July 1, 2004, the Secretary shall
determine whether HIV case data, as reported to and confirmed
by the Director of CDC, is sufficiently accurate and reliable
from all eligible areas and States for such use in the
formula. The Secretary shall also consider the findings of
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) study undertaken under
section 501(b).
If the Secretary makes an adverse determination regarding
HIV case data, the Managers intend that only AIDS case data
will be used in FY2005 formula allocations. The Secretary
shall also provide grants and technical assistance to States
and eligible areas to ensure that accurate and reliable HIV
case data is available no later than FY2007.
Planning and priority setting: The Managers have
strengthened the capacity of EMAs and States to plan,
prioritize, and allocate funds, based on the size and
demographic characteristics of the populations with HIV
disease in the eligible area. Planning, priority setting, and
funding allocation processes must take into account the
demographics of the local HIV/AIDS epidemic, existing
disparities in access HIV-related health care, and resulting
adverse health outcomes. It is the intent of the Managers
that CARE Act dollars more closely follow the shifting trends
in the local epidemic and address disparities in health care
access and health outcomes as well as the need for capacity
development within the local and State HIV health care
infrastructures.
The Managers intend both EMAs and States to develop
strategies to bring into and retain in care those individuals
who are aware of their HIV status but are not receiving
services. As part of this process, the Managers place the
highest priority on EMAs and States focusing on eliminating
disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities. The
Managers recognize, however, that the relative availability
or lack of HIV prevalence data will be reflected in the
scope, goals, timetable and allocation of funds for
implementation of the strategy.
The Managers also expect the Secretary to collaborate with
Titles I and II grant recipients and providers to develop
epidemiologic measures and tools for use in identifying
persons with HIV infection who know their HIV status but are
not in care. The Managers recognize the difficulty the EMAs
and States may experience in identifying persons with HIV
infection who are not in care and who may be unknown to any
health or social support system. The efforts on the part of
EMAs and States to accomplish these important tasks, however,
should not be delayed until this process is complete.
Instead, the Managers expect Titles I and II grant recipients
to establish and implement strategies responsive to these
urgent needs before the development of nationally uniform
measures, to the extent that is practicable and to which
necessary prevalence data is reasonably available.
The Managers have also authorized outreach activities in
Titles I and II intended to identify individuals with HIV
disease know their HIV status but are not receiving services.
The intent is to ensure that EMAs and States understand that
outreach activities which are consistent with early
intervention services and necessary to implement the
aforementioned strategies, are appropriate uses of Titles I
and II funds. It is not the Managers' intent that such
activities supplant or otherwise duplicate activities such as
case finding, surveillance and social marketing campaigns
currently funded and administered by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). Instead, this authorization
reflects the urgency of increasing the coordination between
HIV prevention and HIV care and treatment services in all
CARE Act programs.
Hold harmless provisions: The hold-harmless provisions are
intended to minimize loss and stabilize systems of care in
EMAs and States, while assuring that funds are allocated in
Titles I and II to reflect the current distribution and
epidemiology of the epidemic.
The Managers have revised the Title I hold harmless to
limit a potential loss in an EMA's formula allocation to a
small percentage of the amount allocated to the eligible area
in the previous (or base) year. An EMA may lose no more than
15 percent of its base formula allocation over five years,
beginning with 2 percent in the first year and increasing in
subsequent years. If the Secretary determines that data on
HIV prevalence are accurate and reliable for use in
determining Title I formula grants for Fiscal Year 2005, all
EMAs may lose no more than 2 percent of their Fiscal Year
2004 formula allocation in that year.
Should an EMA experience a decline in its Title I formula
allocation followed by an intervening year in which there is
no decline, its losses in any subsequent, nonconsecutive year
of decline would once again be limited to 2 percent (i.e.,
the intervening year ``resets the clock'').
The Managers intend to ensure that essential primary care
and support services are not compromised by short-term
fluctuations in AIDS case counts. Because no new EMA is
expected by HRSA's Bureau of HIV/AIDS to require the hold
harmless in the first three or four years of this
reauthorization period, the Managers expect this policy will
shield all eligible areas, save those currently requiring the
hold harmless, from any meaningful loss in Title I formula
funding.
Under the Title II holds harmless, a State or territory may
lose no more than 1 percent from the previous fiscal year
amounts, or 5 percent over the 5-year reauthorization period.
This protection extends to base Title II funding (which
excludes funds for AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP)), as
well as to overall Title II funding.
Women, child, infants, and youth set-aside: The Managers
are aware of the rising incidence of HIV among youth and
women, particularly women of color, and recognize the
challenges in assuring them access to primary care and
support services for HIV and AIDS. The Managers intend to
increase the availability of primary care and health-related
supportive services under Title I and Title II for each of
the four groups described in the set-aside. Youth are added
as a new category within this set-aside. The Managers intend
the term ``youth'' to include persons between the ages of 13
and 24, and ``children'' to include those under the age of
13, including infants.
The Managers clarify that the set-asides for women,
infants, children, and youth with HIV disease be allocated
proportionally, based on the percentage of the local HIV-
infected population that each group represents. The Managers
intend that the States and EMAs continue to make every effort
to reach and serve women, infants, children, and youth living
with HIV/AIDS by allocating sufficient resources under Titles
I and II to serve each of these populations. The Managers
also recognize that these priority populations often comprise
a greater proportion of HIV cases rather than AIDS cases in a
local area. This distinction should be taken into account
where necessary prevalence data is reasonably available.
The Managers are aware that these populations may also have
access to HIV care through other parts of Title XXVI,
Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
and other Federal and State programs. Therefore, the
requirement to proportionally allocate funds provided under
Title II to each of these populations may be waived for
States which reasonably demonstrate that these populations
are receiving adequate care.
Capacity development: Titles I, II and III of this
legislation provide a new focus on strengthening the capacity
of minority communities and underserved areas where HIV/AIDS
is having a disproportionate impact. Currently, many
underserved urban and rural areas are not able to compete
successfully for planning grants and early intervention
service grants due to the lack of infrastructure and
experience with the Ryan White CARE Act programs. This gap in
services available is increasingly important, as the HIV and
AIDS epidemic extends into rural communities. In addition to
authorizing capacity development under Titles I and II, the
Managers establish a preference for rural areas under Title
III that will allow program administrators to target capacity
development grants, planning grants, and the delivery of
primary care services to rural communities with a growing
need for HIV services. However, urban areas are not excluded
from consideration for future grants nor is funding reduced
to current grants in urban areas.
Quality management: The Managers recognize the importance
of having CARE Act grantees ensure that quality services are
provided to people with HIV and that quality
[[Page 21007]]
management activities are conducted on an ongoing basis.
Quality management programs are intended to serve grantees in
evaluating and improving the quality of primary care and
health-related supportive services provided under this act.
The quality management program should accomplish a threeford
purpose: (1) assist direct service medical providers funded
through the CARE Act in assuring that funded services adhere
to established HIV clinical practices and Public Health
Service (PHS) guidelines to the extent possible; (2) ensure
that strategies for improvements to quality medical care
include vital health-related supportive services in achieving
appropriate access to and adherence with HIV medical care;
and (3) ensure that available demographic, clinical, and
health care utilization information is used to monitor the
spectrum of HIV-related illnesses and trends in the local
epidemic.
The Managers expect the Secretary to provide States with
guidance and technical assistance for establishing quality
management programs, including disseminating such models as
have been developed by States and are already being utilized
by Title II programs and in clinical practice environments.
Furthermore, the Managers intend that the Secretary provide
clarification and guidance regarding the distinction between
use of CARE Act funds for such program expenditures that are
covered as either planning and evaluation and funds for
program support costs. It is not the Managers' intent to
divert current program resources or to reassign current
program support costs or clinical quality programs to new
cost areas, if they are an integral part of a State's current
quality management efforts.
Program support costs are described as any expenditure
related to the provision of delivering or receiving health
services supported by CARE Act funds. As applied to the
clinical quality programs, these costs include, but are not
limited to, activities such as chart review, peer-to-peer
review activities, data collection to measure health
indicators or outcomes, or other types of activities related
to the development or implementation of a clinical quality
improvement program. Planning and evaluation costs are
related to the collection and analysis of system and process
indicators for purposes of determining the impact and
effectiveness of funded health-related support services in
providing access to and support of individuals and
communities within the health delivery system.
Early intervention services: The Managers authorize early
intervention services as eligible services under Titles I and
II under certain circumstances. The Managers intend to allow
grantees to provide certain early intervention services, such
as HIV counseling, testing, and referral services, to
individuals at high risk for HIV infection, in accordance
with State or EMA planning activities. The Managers recognize
the range of organizations that may be eligible to provide
early intervention services, including other grantees under
titles I, II and III such as community based organizations
(CBOs) that act as points of entry into the health care
system for traditionally underserved and minority
populations.
The Managers believe that referral relationships maintained
by providers of early intervention services are essential to
increasing the numbers of people with HIV/AIDS who are
identified and to bringing them into care earlier in the
progression of their disease.
Health-care related support services: The Managers wish to
stress the importance of CARE Act funds in meeting the health
care needs of persons and families with HIV disease. The Act
requires support services provided through CARE Act funds to
be health care related. States and EMAs should ensure that
support services meet the objective of increasing access to
health care and ongoing adherence with primary care needs.
The Managers reaffirm the critical relationship between
support service provision and positive health outcomes.
Title I planning council duties and membership: The
Managers have amended numerous aspects of CARE Act programs
to enhance the coordination between HIV prevention and HIV/
AIDS care and treatment services. In this case, Planning
Council membership of the providers of HIV prevention
services will help assure this coordination. To improve
representation of underserved communities, providers of
services to homeless populations and representatives of
formerly incarcerated individuals with HIV disease are
included in planning council membership. It is the intent of
the Managers that the needs of all communities affected by
HIV/AIDS and all providers working within the service areas
be represented. The Managers also intend the Planning
Councils more adequately reflect the gender and racial
demographics of the HIV/AIDS population within their
respective EMAs.
The Managers also intend that patients and consumers of
Title I services constitute a substantial proportion of
Planning Council memberships. The prohibited of officers,
employees and consultants is not intended to impede the
participation of qualified, motivated volunteers with Title I
grantees from serving on Planning Councils where they do not
maintain significant financial relationships with such
grantees. In contrast to such significant financial
relationships, volunteers may be reimbursed reasonable
incidental costs, including for training and transportation,
which help to facilitate their important contribution to the
Planning Councils.
To ensure that new Planning Council members are adequately
prepared for full participation in meetings, the Managers
direct the Secretary to ensure that proper training and
guidance is provided to members of the Councils. The Managers
also expect Planning Councils to provide assistance, such as
transportation and childcare, to facilitate the participation
of consumers, particularly those from affected subpopulations
and historically underserved communities.
Consistent with the ``sunshine'' policies of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all meetings of the Planning
Councils shall be open to the public and be held after
adequate notice to the public. Detailed minutes, records,
reports, agenda, and other relevant documents should also be
available to the public. The Managers intend for such
documents to be available for inspection and copying at a
single location, including posting on the Internet.
Title I supplemental: In order to target funding to areas
in greatest need of assistance, severity of need is given a
greater weight of 33 percent in the award of Title I
supplemental grants. The Managers intend that Title I
supplemental awards are not intended to be allocated on the
basis of formula grant allocations. Instead, such
supplemental awards are to be directed principally to those
eligible areas with `severe need,'' or the greatest or
expanding public health challenges in confronting the
epidemic. The Managers have included additional factors to be
considered in the assessment of severe need, including the
current prevalence of HIV/AIDS, and the degree of increasing
and unmet needs for services. Additionally, the Managers
believe that syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C should be
regarded as important co-morbidities to HIV/AIDS.
It is the Managers' strong view that HRSA's Bureau of HIV/
AIDS should employ standard, quantitative measures to the
maximum extent possible in lieu of narrative self-reporting
when awarding supplemental awards. The Managers therefore
renew the Bureau's obligation to develop in a timely manner a
mechanism for determining severe need upon the basis of
national, quantitative incidence data. In this regard, the
Managers recognize that adequate and reliable data on HIV
prevalence may not be uniformly available in all eligible
areas on the date of enactment. It is noted, however, that
``HIV disease'' under the CARE Act encompasses both persons
living with AIDS as well as persons diagnosed as HIV positive
who have not developed AIDS.
Title II base minimum funding: The minimum Title II base
award is increased in order to increase the funding available
to States for the capacity development of health system
programs and infrastructure. The Federated States of
Micronesia and the Republic of Palau are included as entities
eligible to receive Title II funds, in recognition of the
need to establish a minimum level of funding to assist in
building HIV infrastructure.
Title II public participation: The Managers urge States to
strengthen public participation in the Ryan White Title II
planning process. While the Managers do not intend that
States be mandated to consult with all entities participating
in the Title I planning process, reference to such entities
is intended to provide guidance to the States that such
entities are important constituencies which the States should
endeavor to include in their planning processes. Moreover,
States may demonstrate compliance with the new requirement of
an enhanced process of public participation by providing
evidence that existing mechanisms for consumer and community
input provide for the participation of such entities. The
intent is to allow States to utilize the optimal public
advisory planning process, such as special planning bodies or
standing advisory groups on HIV/AIDS, for their particular
population and circumstances.
The Managers are also aware of the difficulties that some
States with limited resources may encounter in convening
public hearings over large geographic or rural areas and
encourage the Secretary to work with these States to develop
appropriate processes for public input, and to consider such
limitations when enforcing these requirements.
Title II HIV care consortia: The Manager intend that the
States continue to work with local consortia to ensure that
they identify potential disparities in access to HIV care
services at the local level, with a special emphasis on those
experiencing disparities in access to care, historically
underserved populations, and HIV infected persons not in
care. However, the Managers do not intend that States and/or
consortia be mandated to consult with all entities
participating in the Title I planning process. Rather,
reference to such entities is intended to provide guidance to
the States that such entities are important constituencies
which the States should endeavor to include in their planning
processes.
Title II ``emerging communities'' supplement: There
continues to be a growing need to address the geographic
expansion of this epidemic, and this Act continues the
efforts
[[Page 21008]]
made during the last reauthorization to direct resources and
services to areas that are particularly underserved,
including rural areas and metropolitan areas with significant
AIDS cases that are not eligible for Title I funding. A
supplemental formula grant program is created within Title II
to meet HIV care and support needs in non-EMA areas. There
are a large number of areas within States that do not meet
the definition of a Title I EMA but that, nevertheless,
experience significant numbers of people living with AIDS.
This provision stipulates that these ``emerging
communities,'' defined as cities with between 500 and 1,999
reported AIDS cases in the most recent 5-year period, be
allocated 50 percent of new appropriations to address the
growing need in these areas. Funding for this provision is
triggered when the allocations to carry out Part B, excluding
amounts allocated under section 2618(a)(2)(I), are
$20,000,000 in excess of funds available for this part in
fiscal year 2000, excluding amounts allocated under section
2618(a)(2)(I). States can apply for these supplemental awards
by describing the severity of need and the manner in which
funds are to be used.
The Managers intend to acknowledge the challenges faced by
many areas with a significant burden of HIV and AIDS and a
lack of health care infrastructure or resources to provide
HIV care services. This supplemental program allows the
Secretary to make grants to States to address HIV service
needs in these underserved areas. The Managers understand the
necessity to continue to support existing and expanding
critical Title II base services.
AIDS Drug Assistance Program supplemental grant and
expanded services: Under this Act, the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program (ADAP) has been strengthened to assist States in a
number of areas. The Secretary is authorized to reserve 3
percent of ADAP appropriations for discretionary supplemental
ADAP grants which shall be awarded in accordance with
severity of need criteria established by the Secretary. Such
criteria shall account for existing eligibility standards,
formulary composition and the number of patients with incomes
at or below 200 percent of poverty. The Managers also
encourage the Secretary to consider such factors as the
State's ability to remove restrictions on eligibility based
on current medical conditions or income restrictions and to
provide HIV therapeutics consistent with PHS guidelines.
States are also required to match the Federal supplement at
a rate of 1:4. The Managers expect the State to continue to
maintain current levels of effort in its ADAP funding. The
Managers intend that the 25 percent State match required to
receive funds under this section be implemented in a flexible
manner that recognizes the variations between Federal, State,
and programmatic fiscal years.
In addition, up to 5 percent of ADAP funds will be allowed
to support services that directly encourage, support, and
enhance adherence with treatment regimens, including medical
monitoring, as well as purchase health insurance plans where
those plans provided fuller and more cost-effective coverage
of AIDS therapies and other needed health care coverage.
However, up to 10 percent of ADAP funds may be expended for
such purposes if the State demonstrates that such services
are essential and do not diminish access to therapeutics.
Finally, the Managers recognize that existing Federal policy
provides adequate guidelines to states for carrying out
provisions under this section.
Partner notification, perinatal transmission, and
counseling services: Discretionary grants are authorized
under this Act for partner notification, counseling and
referral services. The Managers have also expanded the
existing grant program to States for the reduction of
perinatal transmission of HIV, and for HIV counseling,
testing, and outreach to pregnant woman. Funding for
perinatal HIV transmission reduction activities is expanded,
with additional grants available to States with newborn
testing laws or States with significant reductions in
perinatal HIV transmission. In addition, this Act further
specifies information to be conveyed to individuals receiving
HIV positive test results in order to reduce risk of HIV
transmission through sex or needle-sharing practices.
Coordination of coverage and services: This Act also
strengthens the requirements made on the States and EMAs in a
number of areas aimed at improving the coordination of
coverage and services. Grantees must access the availability
of other funding sources, such as Medicaid and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and improve
efforts to ensure that CARE Act funds are coordinated with
other available payers.
Titles II and IV administrative expenses: The
administrative cap for the directly funded Title III programs
is increased. The administrative cap for Title III grants is
raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent to correspond with the
10 percent cap on individual contractors in Title I. The
Secretary is directed to review administrative and program
support expenses for Title IV, in consultation with grantees.
In order to assure that children, youth, women, and families
have access to quality HIV-related health and support
services and research opportunities, the Secretary is
directed to work with Title IV grantees to review expenses
related to administrative, program support, and direct
service-related activities.
Title IV access to research: This Act removes the
requirement that Title IV grantees enroll a ``significant
number'' of patients in research projects. Title IV provides
an important link between women, children, and families
affected by HIV/AIDS and HIV-related clinical research
programs. The ``significant number'' requirement is removed
here to eliminate the incentive for providers to
inappropriately encourage or pressure patients to enroll in
research programs.
To maintain appropriate access to research opportunities,
providers are required to develop better documentation of the
linkages between care and research. The Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), is also directed to examine the distribution
and availability of HIV-related clinical programs for
purposes of enhancing and expanding access to clinical
trials, including trials funded by NIH, CDC and private
sponsors. The Managers encourage the Secretary to assure that
NIH-sponsored HIV-related trials are responsive to the need
to coordinate the health services received by participants
with the achievement of research objectives. Nor do the
Managers intend this requirement to require the
redistribution of funds for such research projects.
Part F Dental Reimbursement Program: The Managers have
established new grants for community-based health care to
support collaborative efforts between dental education
programs and community-based providers directed at providing
oral health care to patients with HIV disease in currently
unserved areas and communities without dental education
programs. Although the Dental Program has been tremendously
successful, there is still a large HIV/AIDS population that
has not benefitted because there is not a dental education
institution participating in their area. These patients are
also in need of dental services that could be provided at
community sites if more community-based providers would
partner with a dental school or residency program. In these
partnerships, dental students or residents could provide
treatment for HIV/AIDs patients in underserved communities
under the direction of a community-based dentist who would
serve as adjunct faculty. By encouraging dental educational
institutions to partner with community-based providers, the
Managers intend to address the unmet need in these areas by
ensuring that dental treatment for the HIV/AIDS population is
available in all areas of the country, not just where dental
schools are located.
Technical assistance and guidance: The Managers reaffirm
the Secretary's responsibility in providing needed guidance
and tools to grantees in assisting them in carrying out new
requirements under this Act. The Secretary is required to
work with States and EMAs to establish epidemiologic measures
and tools for use in identifying the number of individuals
with HIV infection, especially those who are not in care. The
legislation requests an IOM study to assist the Secretary in
providing this advice to grantees.
The Managers understand that the Secretary has convened a
Public Health Service Working Group on HIV Treatment
Information Dissemination, which has produced recommendations
and a strategy for the dissemination of HIV treatment
information to health care providers and patients.
Recognizing the importance of such a strategy, the Managers
intend that the Secretary issue and begin implementation of
the strategy to improve the quality of care received by
people living with HIV/AIDS.
Data Collection through CDC: The Managers believe that an
additional authorization for HIV surveillance activities
under the CDC will serve to advance the purposes of the CARE
Act. To better identify and bring individuals with HIV/AIDS
into care, States and cities may use such funding to enhance
their HIV/AIDS reporting systems and expand case finding,
surveillance, social marketing campaigns, and other
prevention service programs. Notwithstanding its strong
interest in improving the coordination between HIV prevention
and HIV care and treatment services, the Managers intend that
this enhanced funding for CDC and its grantees ensure that
CARE Act programs and funds not duplicate or be diverted to
activities currently funded and administered by the CDC.
Coordination: This Act requires the Secretary to submit a
plan to Congress concerning the coordination of Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and Health
Care Financing Administration (HCFA), to enhance the
continuity of care and prevention services for individuals
with HIV disease or those at risk of such disease. The
Managers believe that much greater effort is required to
ensure that the provision of HIV prevention and care services
becomes as seamless as possible, and that coordination be
pursued at the Federal level, in the States and local
communities to eliminate any administrative barriers to the
efficient provision of high quality services to individuals
with HIV disease.
[[Page 21009]]
A second plan for submission to Congress focuses on the
medical case management and provision of support services to
persons with HIV released from Federal or State prisons.
Administrative simplification: The Managers intend for the
Secretary of HHS to explore opportunities to reduce the
administrative requirements of Ryan CARE Act grantees through
simplifying and streamlining the administrative processes
required of grantees and providers under Titles I and II. In
consultation with grantees and service providers of both
parts, the Secretary is directed to (1) develop a plan for
coordinating the disbursement of appropriations for grants
under Title I with the disbursement of appropriations for
grants under Title II, (2) explore the impact of biennial
application for Titles I and II on the efficiency of
administration and the administrative burden imposed on
grantees and providers under Titles I and II, and (3) develop
a plan for simplifying the application process for grants
under Titles I and II. It is the intent of the Managers to
improve the ability to grantees to comply with administrative
requirements while decreasing the amount of staff time and
resources spent on administrative requirements.
Program and service studies: The Managers request that the
Secretary, through the IOM, examine changing trends in the
HIV/AIDS epidemic and the financing and delivery of primary
care and support services for low-income, uninsured
individuals with HIV disease. The Secretary is directed to
make recommendation regarding the most effective use of
scarce Federal resources. The purpose of the study is to
examine key factors associated with the effective and
efficient financing and delivery of HIV services (including
the quality of services, health outcomes, and cost-
effectiveness). The Managers expect that the study would
include examination of CARE Act financing of services in
relation to existing public sector financing and private
health coverage; general demographics and comorbidities of
individuals with HIV disease; regional variations in the
financing and costs of HIV service delivery; the availability
and utility of health outcomes measures and data for
measuring quality of Ryan White funded service; and available
epidemiologic tools and data sets necessary for local and
national resource planning and allocation decisions,
including an assessment of implementation of HIV infection
reporting, as it impacts these factors.
The Managers also require an IOM study focuses on
determining the number of newborns with HIV, where the HIV
status of the mother is unknown; perinatal HIV transmission
reduction efforts in States; and barriers to routine HIV
testing of pregnant women and newborns when the mothers' HIV
status is unknown. The study is intended to provide States
with recommendations on improving perintal prevention
services and reducing the number of pediatric HIV/AIDS cases
resulting from perinatal transmission.
Development of Rapid HIV Test: The Managers encourage the
Secretary to expedite the availability of rapid HIV tests
which are safe, effective, reliable and affordable. The
Managers intend that the National Institutes of Health expand
research which may lead to such tests. The Managers also
intend that the Director of CDC should take primary
responsibility, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, for a report to Congress on the public health need
and recommendations for the expedited review of rapid HIV
tests. The Managers believe that the Food and Drug
Administration should account for the particular applications
and urgent need for rapid HIV tests, as articulated by public
health experts and the CDC, when determining the specific
requirements to which such tests will be held prior to
marketing.
Department of Veterans Affairs: The Managers note that the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest single
direct provider of HIV care and services in the country. Over
18,000 veterans received HIV care at VA facilities in 1999.
Veterans with HIV infection are eligible to participate in
Ryan White Title I and Title II programs when they meet
eligibility requirements set by EMAs and States, whose plans
for the delivery of services must account for the
availability of VA services. VA facilities are eligible
providers of HIV health and support services where
appropriate. The Managers expect that HRSA's Bureau of HIV/
AIDS shall encourage Ryan White grantees to develop
collaborations between providers and VA facilities to
optimize coordination and access to care to all persons with
HIV/AIDS.
International HIV/AIDS Initiatives: The Managers note that
the CARE Act provides a model of service delivery and Federal
partnership with States, cities and community-based
organizations which should prove valuable in global efforts
to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Managers strongly
encourage the Secretary, the Bureau of HIV/AIDS at HRSA, and
the CDC to provide technical assistance available to other
countries which has already proven invaluable in helping to
limit the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS. It is the Managers'
hope that the hard-earned knowledge and experience gained in
this country can benefit people with HIV/AIDS overseas.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to support the CARE Act
Amendments of 2000. I commend the many Senators who worked hard and
well on the issue of HIV and AIDS. Senator Jeffords and Senator Hatch
have championed this issue since 1990 when the CARE Act was first
proposed, and Senator Frist has been an impressive leader in recent
years. Their leadership has and the leadership of many others has
raised our collective conscience about the HIV/AIDS crisis. Our goal in
this legislation is to ensure that citizens with HIV disease continue
to receive the benefits of advances in therapies and a system of
support that has achieved remarkable success in recent years.
For 20 years, America has struggled with the devastation caused by
HIV/AIDS. It is a virus that knows no color, religion, political
affiliation, or income status. AIDS continues to kill brothers and
sisters, children and parents, friends and loved ones--all in the prime
of their lives. This epidemic knows no geographic boundaries and has no
mercy on those it strikes. HIV/AIDS has become one of the greatest
public health challenges of our times. The CARE Act has directed needed
resources to accelerate research, develop effective therapies, and
support the 900,000 persons and families living with HIV/AIDS in
America, and it clearly deserves to be extended and expanded.
AIDS has claimed over 420,000 lives so far in the United States and
it continues to claim the most vulnerable among us, especially women,
youth, and minorities. We have good reason to be encouraged by medical
advances over the past ten years, but we still face an epidemic that
kills over 47,000 people each year. Like other epidemics before it,
AIDS is now hitting hardest in areas where knowledge about the disease
is scarce and poverty is high. The epidemic has dealt a particularly
severe blow on communities of color, which account for 73 percent of
all new infections. Women account for 30 percent of new infections.
Over half of new infections occur in persons under 25.
An estimated 34 percent of AIDS cases in the U.S. occur in rural
areas, and this percentage is growing. As the crisis continues year
after year, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to claim that
AIDS is someone else's problem. We all share in a very real way in
being touched by the epidemic.
Fortunately, we have been able to slow the progression of this
devastating disease. Many people living with HIV and AIDS are alive
today and leading longer and healthier lives. AIDS deaths declined by
20 percent between 1997 and 1998, thanks to advances in care and
effective new treatments. The smallest increase in new AIDS cases--11
percent--took place in 1999, compared with an 18 percent increase in
new cases just a year before. We are helping people earlier in their
disease progression and keeping them healthier longer.
Nevertheless, an estimated 30 percent of persons living with AIDS do
not have insurance coverage to pay for costly treatments. As a result,
heavy demands are placed on community-based organizations and state and
local governments. For these Americans, the CARE Act Amendments of 2000
will continue to provide the only means to obtain the care and
treatment they need.
In Massachusetts, there has been a 77 percent decline in AIDS and
HIV-related deaths since 1995. But the number of cases increased in
women by 11 percent from 1997 to 1998. Fifty-five percent of persons
living with AIDS in the state are persons of color. Massachusetts is
fortunate to have a state budget that provides funding for primary
care, prevention, and surveillance efforts. But no state is
economically sufficient enough to provide the significant financial
resources needed to enable all persons living with HIV disease to
obtain the medical and supportive services they need without the Ryan
White CARE Act.
The CARE Act will continue to bring hope to the over 600,000
individuals it serves each year in dealing with this devastating
disease. This reauthorization builds on past accomplishments, while
recognizing the challenge of ensuring access drug treatment for all who
need it, reducing health disparities
[[Page 21010]]
in vulnerable populations, and improve the distribution and quality of
services.
Funds totaling $3.4 billion over the next five years will target the
hardest hit 51 metropolitan areas in the country under Title I of the
Act. Local planning and priority-setting under Title I assures that
each of the eligible metropolitan areas responds to local HIV/AIDS
needs. Safeguards are put in place to ensure that Title I areas are
protected from drastic shifts in funding that can destabilize their HIV
care infrastructure by limiting these losses to a maximum of 15 percent
over its FY 2000 levels without compounded the effects of the loss from
year to year. We also have assured EMAs the opportunity to reset the
clock each time they find they do not need hold harmless protection in
order to allow them the needed time and resources to plan prioritize,
and redirect resources in response to major shifts that may occur in
funding and in the local epidemic.
Under Title II, $4.4 billion over the next five years will provide
emergency relief to assist states in developing their HIV health care
infrastructure. These funds will also provide life-sustaining drugs to
over 61,000 persons each month. In addition, these funds will provide
assistance for emerging communities that are increasingly affected by
HIV/AIDS, but do not currently qualify for additional assistance, while
assuring that base Title II funding losses do not occur in any fiscal
year for any state or territory.
Title III programs will receive $730 million during the five year
period to assist over 200 local health centers and other primary health
care providers in communities with a significant and disproportionate
need for HIV care. Many of these communities are located in the hardest
hit areas, serving low income communities. An additional $30 million in
funds under Title III will provide planning and capacity development
grants for hard-to-reach urban and rural communities.
In Title IV, $2700 million over the next five years will be used to
meet the specific needs of women, infants, youth, and families. An
additional $42 million will assure that oral health care is available
to persons with HIV/AIDS who are uninsured. One hundred and forty-one
million dollars in funding over the five-year period will assure that
we continue our investment in improving the skills of the healthcare
workforce.
In total, the CARE Act will authorize over $8.5 billion in funding to
fight HIVS/AIDS over the next five years.
I commend the dedication of the AIDS community and the Administration
in working with Congress over the past year to bring forward the best
possible legislation. I also commend Sean Donohue and William Fleming
of Senator Jeffords' staff, Dave Larsen of Senator Frist's staff, and
Stephanie Robinson and Idalia Sanchez of my staff for their effective
work on this landmark legislation.
The Senate's action today reaffirms our long-standing commitment to
provide greater help to those with HIV/AIDS and to families touched by
this devastating disease. America has the resources to win the battle
against AIDS. We must face this disease with the same courage
demonstrated by Ryan White, the young man with hemophilia who
contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, and for whom the original
act was named. Ryan White touched the world's heart through his valiant
effort to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination faced by
persons living with AIDS. This legislation carries on his brave work
and I urge the Senate to approve it.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to acknowledge the final
Senate passage of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 today,
which follows the actions of House of Representatives earlier this
morning. This important bill forms a unique partnership between
federal, local, and state governments; non-profit community
organizations, health care and supportive service providers. For the
last decade, this Act has successfully provided much needed assistance
in health care costs and support services for low-income, uninsured and
underinsured individuals with HIV/AIDS.
Through programs such as the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, ADAP,
which provides access to pharmaceuticals, the CARE Act has helped
extend and even save lives. Last year alone, nearly 100,000 people
living with HIV and AIDS received access to drug therapy because of the
CARE Act. Half the people served by the CARE Act have family incomes of
less than $10,000 annually, which is less than the $12,000 annual
average cost of new drug ``cocktails'' for treatment. The CARE Act is
critical in ensuring that the number of people living with AIDS
continues to increase, as effective new drug therapies are keeping HIV-
infected persons healthy longer and dramatically reducing the death
rate. Investments in enabling patients with HIV to live healthier and
more productive lives have helped to reduce overall health costs. For
example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the
nation has seen a 30 percent decline in HIV related hospitalizations,
producing nearly one million fewer HIV related hospital days and a
savings of more than $1 billion.
During the 104th Congress, I had the pleasure of working with Senator
Kassebaum on the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 to ensure that
this needed law was extended. Senator Jeffords, who has done a terrific
job in crafting this bill, has already outlined some specifics of this
legislation, however, I would like to conclude by discussing a specific
provision which I am grateful Senator Jeffords included in this
reauthorization.
This bill contains a provision, under Title II of this Act,
addressing the fact that the face of this disease is changing as AIDS
moves into communities which have not been impacted as great as several
Title I grantees. One important aspect of this provision is the
creation of supplemental grants for emerging metropolitan communities,
which do not qualify for Title I funding but have reported between 500
and 2,000 AIDS cases in the last five years. For cities that have
between 1,000 and 2,000 AIDS cases this provision would provide cities,
including Memphis and Nashville, at least $5 million in new funding to
divide each year, or 25 percent of new monies under Title II, whichever
is greater. For cities with 500 to 999 AIDS cases in the last five
years, at least $5 million in new funding each year will be divided, or
25 percent of new monies under Title II, whichever is greater. This
provision will be implemented as soon as the appropriation level for
Title II, excluding the ADAP program, is increased by $20 million above
the FY2000 funding level. Once implemented, this program would remain
in place every year after the initial trigger level is met with at
least $10 million coming from the Title II funding to support this
needed effort.
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his
leadership on this issue, and Sean Donohue and William Fleming of his
staff for all their expertise in drafting this bill. I would also like
to thank Senator Kennedy and Stephanie Robinson of his staff for their
work and dedication to this issue. And finally I would like to think
Dave Larson and Mary Sumpter Johnson of my health staff for their work
on passage of this bill.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on
Friday, October 6. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday,
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the time for the leaders be reserved for their use
later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning
business with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
[[Page 21011]]
PROGRAM
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business
until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may begin
consideration of the Transportation appropriations conference report or
the sex trafficking victims conference report. It is hoped that the
Senate can begin consideration of either of these conference reports
prior to noon tomorrow. Therefore, votes could occur by midmorning.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I ask my friend a question?
Mr. MACK. Certainly.
Mr. REID. Is there a ``definite maybe'' that we will have a vote? Is
that about it?
Mr. MACK. I think that is probably as close to a ``definite maybe''
as you can get in the Senate at this time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:51 p.m., recessed until Friday, October
6, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate October 5, 2000:
INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION
ANITA PEREZ FERGUSON, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A
TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2006, VICE MARIA OTERO, TERM
EXPIRED.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
JOHN M. REICH, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FOR A
TERM OF SIX YEARS, VICE ANDREW C. HOVE, JR., TERM EXPIRED.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
October 5, 2000
[[Page 21012]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, October 5, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Simpson).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
October 5, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Michael K. Simpson to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Reverend Norman B. Steen, The Christian Reformed Church of
Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Lord of the Nations, You've
got the whole world in Your strong and loving hands, this grand Capitol
building, our beloved Nation, and all people everywhere.
As this session of the House is drawing to a close, I ask You, Lord,
for the blessing of Your wisdom to fall on these Congressmen and
Congresswomen as they seek the common good in their deliberations and
debate on this day.
Lord, give them understanding, patience and goodwill as they struggle
to accomplish their legislative goals, and with this big push now to
wrap things up before the campaign season moves into high gear, give
our leaders health, strength and endurance to be able to work
effectively under all of these pressures.
And above all, Lord, may Your love of justice and mercy and peace be
reflected in the work of these dedicated public servants on this day
for the blessing of our Nation, for the blessing of the world.
Yours, Lord God, is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Rivers) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. RIVERS led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment bills and a
concurrent resolution of the House of the following titles:
H.R. 1162. An act to designate the bridge on United States
Route 231 that crosses the Ohio River between Maceo,
Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the ``William H. Natcher
Bridge''.
H.R. 1605. An act to designate the Federal building and
United States courthouse located at 402 North Walnut Street
in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ``J. Smith Henley Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''.
H.R. 4318. An act to establish the Red River National
Wildlife Refuge.
H.R. 4642. An act to make certain personnel flexibilities
available with respect to the General Accounting Office, and
for other purposes.
H.R. 4806. An act to designate the Federal building located
at 1710 Alabama Avenue in Jasper, Alabama, as the ``Carl
Elliott Federal Building''.
H.R. 5284. An act to designate the United States courthouse
located at 101 East Main Street in Norfolk, Virginia, as the
``Owen B. Pickett United States Courthouse''.
H. Con. Res. 399. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
25th anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed with amendments
in which the concurrence of the House is requested, bills of the House
of the following titles:
H.R. 4002. An act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to revise and improve provisions relating to famine
prevention and freedom from hunger.
H.R. 4386. An act to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide medical assistance for certain women screened
and found to have breast or cervical cancer under a federally
funded screening program, to amend the Public Health Service
Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect
to surveillance and information concerning the relationship
between cervical cancer and the human papillomavirus (HPV)
and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 2412. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
authorize appropriations for the National Transportation
Safety Board for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and
for other purposes.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 103-296, the
Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, and in consultation with
the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Finance Committee,
appoints David Podoff, of Maryland, as a member of the Social Security
Advisory Board, vice Lori L. Hansen.
____________________
THE REVEREND NORMAN B. STEEN
(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome the Reverend
Norman Steen, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Washington,
D.C. as a guest chaplain for the House of Representatives.
The Washington, D.C. Christian Reformed Church has a proud history of
more than 50 years in the District of Columbia. The church was founded
during World War II by members of the Christian Reformed Church who
came to Washington from Michigan, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, and
California and from throughout the United States in order to serve our
Nation.
Since that time, the church has rooted itself in Northeast Washington
and has seen many changes in this city, all the while serving its
members and the community around it.
Reverend Steen has been the pastor of the church since April of 1999.
Prior to moving with his wife, Barb, he was a minister at a church in
my hometown, the 14th Street Christian Reformed Church of Holland,
Michigan. During his distinguished 25-year career as a minister, Norm
has also served churches in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and Parkersburg,
Iowa.
I hope the entire House will join me in welcoming Reverend Norm Steen
as our guest chaplain today.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain fifteen 1-minute
speeches on each side.
____________________
CONGRATULATING IAN AMBER
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
[[Page 21013]]
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a
remarkable young man and true champion in my congressional district,
Ian Amber. Ian is a straight A honor student at Palmetto Senior High
School where he excels in various academic organizations. But unlike
most teenagers, Ian had to overcome a great obstacle not normally faced
by students.
At age 10, Ian was diagnosed with leukemia and underwent 3 years of
intense chemotherapy treatment. Through perseverance, he beat cancer;
and today, Ian spends his time helping children with life-threatening
diseases.
He formed Kids That Care Pediatric and Cancer Fund, the only kid-run
organization affiliated with a major hospital in South Florida, an
organization in which he raises funds for sick children.
He also created Trading Places, a sensitive-training program for
oncology nurses.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help me in recognizing Ian's
selfless achievements, and in commending him for being a shining
example to us all. He represents Miami Palmetto well. He represents all
of us well.
____________________
THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Broadway has announced a new play called ``The Vagina
Monologues.'' I quote, the promo states that ``Vagina Monologues uses
humor and drama to explore such things as sexual fantasies, orgasms,
pelvic examinations and rape.'' Now if that is not enough to entice
your condominium, this vaginal virtuoso is being billed as theater at
its finest.
Unbelievable. What is next? Rectal Diaries? Men are dropping like
flies in America from prostate cancer and Broadway is promoting vaginal
titillation.
Beam me up. I advise all New York men to sleep on their stomachs, and
I yield back all the STDs on the East Coast.
____________________
ANY MORE STORIES?
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First it is inventing
the Internet, then it is drugs for his mother-in-law and his dog. Now
it appears the Vice President's imagination has really run wild again.
When Governor Bush mentioned traveling to a disaster area with the head
of FEMA, Mr. Gore added that he traveled with him too. Untrue. Then
claimed to be a strong supporter of the lockbox for Social Security and
Medicare. Surprise, surprise, the Democrat filibuster holding up this
legislation is waiting for his first sign of support. What about that
poor Florida girl forced to stand in her class of 36 because there is
no room for her desk? Guess what? Not true again.
What is that phrase about pants on fire? Any more stories?
____________________
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
(Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, the House has done its job, we passed the
Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 415-3. Nevertheless, the
authorization ran out on September 30, 2000.
This critical bill is supported by police officers, judges,
prosecutors, governors, State attorneys general, social workers, men
and women and children's advocates around the Nation. It deserves
immediate attention from the other body.
The Violence Against Women Act was originally passed in 1994 and
authorized over a billion dollars for law enforcement grants, judicial
training, shelters, a national hotline, child abuse and prevention
programs. Thousands of victims from every State, race, and
socioeconomic level have relied on these services for protection from
violence.
VAWA has saved lives and helped rebuild even more, and it has served
to break the cycle of violence in so many families, by preventing
children from perpetuating the violence they witness.
With the authorization already expired, I respectfully urge the other
body to pass this important legislation.
____________________
SQUANDERED OPPORTUNITIES
(Mr. Pitts asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Governor George W. Bush has rightly pointed
out that this boom economy is an opportunity we should not squander. It
is an opportunity to get our fiscal house in order to shore up programs
like Social Security and Medicare for the next generation.
Unfortunately, the opposition does not seem to see it that way. This
is the fourth year in a row that the Republican Congress will pay down
the public debt. That will bring us to half a trillion dollars in paid-
back debt, and we will do it while preserving the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds 100 percent intact.
Mr. Speaker, 22 days ago we sent a letter to the President asking him
to join us in this effort, but he has refused to respond.
The only thing we have heard on the matter is what the President said
to the newspapers: ``It depends on what our spending commitments are.''
In other words, he would rather add billions of dollars in new
spending than pay down the debt, and that is what Governor Bush means
when he talks about squandered opportunities.
____________________
APPROVE COMMONSENSE GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION
(Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and soon
the 106th Congress may adjourn without passing common sense gun safety
legislation. Today, we join people throughout the Nation concerned
about young people and gun violence.
Earlier this week, I joined the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the minority leader, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) in calling on the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) to
use his influence to complete work on the stalled Juvenile Justice
Conference.
With the help of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), we
can jumpstart the conference to approve child safety locks, to close
the gun show loophole and to ban high-capacity ammunition clips. I am
pleased that Senator John McCain has endorsed closing the gun show
loophole.
Governor Pataki has already brought common sense gun laws to my home
State of New York. We need to bring similar legislation to all 50
States. Is there grassroots support for this legislation? You bet.
The Million Mom March demonstrated that people across the Nation want
to make their communities safe from gun violence. Just this week,
college students around the Nation participated in First Monday 2000. I
am pleased that students from Long Island's Hofstra University
participated in this grassroots educational issue.
To date, the gun lobby has prevented the Congress from approving
national gun safety legislation. We do not have to repeat the past. I
ask the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) to consider this.
____________________
DEBT REDUCTION STILL BEING HELD HOSTAGE
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today is day 23 of the debt reduction held
hostage by the Clinton-Gore administration. It has been 23 days since
Congress proposed to lock away 100 percent of the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses and dedicate at least 90 percent
[[Page 21014]]
of the total budget surplus for debt reduction, but still no answer
from the Clinton-Gore administration.
There will be an estimated $268 billion surplus this fiscal year
alone. Our question is simple: Should it be used to pay off our public
debt, or should it be spent on ongoing Federal programs? Republicans
are for using the surplus to pay off public debt.
Where do President Clinton and Vice President Gore stand?
Mr. Speaker, I urge the President and the Vice President to put debt
reduction ahead of spending and agree to our 90-10 debt reduction
proposal.
____________________
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, the women in my district and women all
across this country need to have the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
reauthorized.
The act was first passed in 1994 and has been a lifeline to women who
are victims of violence. The current act would go even further by
improving existing provisions and adding new ones, such as dating
violence, the provision of transitional housing, the creation of
supervised visitation and exchange programs for children, and expanding
services to reach the elderly and previously underserved populations.
The new reauthorization was passed by this body on September 26, but
it remains a top priority, because the other body has yet to pass it.
Mr. Speaker, the Women's Coalition of St. Croix, the Women's Resource
Center in St. Thomas, and the Safety Zone in St. John are depending on
us, the women and the families they care for, especially their children
who also become victims and have a high risk of themselves becoming
perpetrators, are depending on us.
I join the other distinguished women of the House and all of my 415
colleagues who voted for its passage in calling on the Senate to do the
same and give us a Violence Against Women Act before we adjourn.
____________________
ANOTHER INVITATION FOR DEBT ELIMINATION
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as you heard my colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), say, it has been 23 days since this
Congress asked the President to join us in dedicating 90 percent of
next year's surpluses to paying off the debt; and once again, they
still have had no response to that request.
The Clinton-Gore administration made it very clear they have a
priority on reducing the debt for Third World nations, in distant
countries away from our shores. Yet they remain silent on this issue of
debt elimination for our own country, for our own American working men
and women.
Under this Republican-led Congress, we have already paid down $350
billion in debt since 1998, and our plan is to further reduce the debt
by an additional $240 billion in the year 2001 and completely eliminate
the debt by 2012, while at the same time preserving and protecting
Social Security and Medicare.
{time} 1015
Eliminating the public debt is good for the economy and lowers
interest rates for minor consumers on everything from home mortgages to
credit cards, saving American families over $5,000 a year.
Once again, I call upon the President to join me and my colleagues on
this responsible middle ground to eliminate the public debt and ensure
a stable future for Americans through generations.
____________________
URGING CONGRESS TO REAUTHORIZE THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of the 106th Congress,
there are a few bills that Congress must pass before we go home. To me,
one of those ``must pass'' bills is the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act. The House passed VAWA, but the other body has not
yet acted on the bill. There is no more time to waste. This law must be
reauthorized this year.
The program has done so much. Over the past 6 years, VAWA has helped
millions of women, children, and families who have been victims of
domestic abuse and sexual assault. This bill is not controversial. The
leaders in the other body have a choice: they can continue to assist
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, or they can turn their
backs on them.
To turn their backs when they know that VAWA is working would be
unconscionable. VAWA must reach the President's desk before Congress
adjourns.
____________________
AMERICA NEEDS INTEGRITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
(Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, guess who made this
claim: I have been a part of the discussions on the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve since the day it was first established.
That boast was made a few days ago by Al Gore, who was not even
elected to Congress until 2 years after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
was established. He took credit for it, but he was not even in Congress
when it happened.
Two days ago in the Presidential debates, Gore claimed that he was at
a Florida high school when a student had to stand in class because the
classroom was so overcrowded.
The principal of that school laughed when he heard the claim and
said, ``We have never allowed a student to stand in the back of a
classroom or to stand in a classroom.'' He also added that the
classroom in question, a science lab, has about $150,000 this year
alone in new equipment.
Why does he have to keep making these things up? What drives him to
take credit for so many things that he clearly had nothing to do with?
Mr. Gore has a problem with the truth. We need leadership that knows
the difference between self-serving fantasy and reality. Our country is
hungry for integrity.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Members are reminded not to
make personal references to the Vice President.
____________________
ASKING MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THE AMBER ALERT PROGRAM
(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.
Wilson) introduced a resolution that recognizes the importance of a
community initiative, a successful and effective way to combat child
abduction called the Amber Alert Plan.
The Amber Alert is named after Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old girl who
was tragically abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas, in 1996. The
tragedy of Amber's case was felt throughout north Texas, and it led to
a search for new and innovative community responses to help law
enforcement officials find missing children.
The Amber Alert is a partnership between broadcasters and law
enforcement agencies. When law enforcement determines a child is
missing, they activate the Amber Alert, by notifying area-participating
radio stations. The stations agree to interrupt their programming and
broadcast an emergency report, much like an emergency broadcast system.
Their report gives details, like the description of a child or any
[[Page 21015]]
cars involved. TV stations would broadcast Amber Alert crawlers across
the front of their screen, which would resemble severe weather
warnings.
I unveiled the Amber Alert in my district. Please join me and the
gentlewoman from New Mexico in our efforts to recover missing children
and curb abductions as a cosponsor of the bill. The health and safety
of our children is in Members' hands.
____________________
THE DEMOCRAT EDUCATION AGENDA
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minority
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), delivered an
important address outlining the education agenda our party will pursue
next year under a Democratic Congress. This agenda reflects our
commitments to take bold action to make public schools strong and
effective and to add, not replace, the efforts being made at the local
level.
I applaud the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), for his efforts that began more than a year ago in a series
of meetings at the Madison Building over dinners and good
conversations.
Here is what we as Democrats propose on education: establish a major
new partnership with States to lower class size and assure that every
child has a qualified teacher; offer new investments while holding
schools accountable for the results; make quality preschool available
to every child; and provide direct grants and tax breaks to upgrade and
modernize school facilities.
We have set down our marker. I look forward to working with the then
Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in a Democratic
House to move it forward.
____________________
PASS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT BEFORE THE END OF SESSION
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the women of America want the other body to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation,
which the House has reauthorized, has saved lives and rescued countless
women from the vicious cycle of family violence.
From 1993, when the act was enacted, to 1997, the rate of intimate
partner violence fell and the number of female victims of intimate
violence dropped. American women have VAWA, the Violence Against Women
Act, to thank for these gains.
But there is so much more that needs to be done. In 1998, three out
of four victims of intimate-partner homicide were women. The number of
women killed by an intimate partner increased 8 percent between 1997
and 1998. Women need VAWA so they can protect themselves and their
children from domestic violence.
The Violence Against Women Act saves lives. I urge our colleagues in
the other body, pass VAWA before the end of this session.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should avoid urging action by the
other body.
____________________
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT MUST BE REAUTHORIZED NOW
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, October is Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. It is just unthinkable that we should leave Washington and end
this session without reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Last week, by a powerful 415 to 3, this body overwhelmingly affirmed
our responsibility to addressing and protecting the needs of all
victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Every 15
seconds someone in our country is battered. Every day, four women die
in this country as a result of domestic violence.
Every person, woman, man, or child, should feel safe at home and in
their neighborhoods. We must ensure that all victims, including
immigrant women, are able to report and flee from domestic violence
without threats of persecution or deportation.
We have the opportunity in these remaining days to pass VAWA. We
should do it now.
____________________
TIME FOR CONGRESS TO PASS VAWA
(Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I will follow the Speaker's instructions in
terms of not admonishing any other entity of the United States
Congress. I would simply rise today to say that we need to have the
Violence Against Women Act passed by the Congress and sent to the
President for his signature.
Last Wednesday this House unanimously passed VAWA by a vote of 415 to
3. We must urge anyone else who can do that to do that.
VAWA expired on September 30. On September 30, the light went out on
justice across this country on behalf of all of the women and children
who are victims of violence or who are potential victims, including
immigrant women.
Without this critical funding, programs serving women and their
children will cease to exist. This is not a political game. It is the
lives and well-being of women and children across this country that are
at stake, that are vulnerable.
I would urge further consideration of VAWA by the United States
Congress.
____________________
ON THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF MEDICARE, CONGRESS SHOULD REPAIR GAPS IN
COVERAGE
(Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this year we celebrate the 35th anniversary
of Medicare. The program has benefited over 93 million Americans since
it was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Johnson.
Yet, our health care system has changed dramatically since then, with
medical technology in many ways leading the way, and Medicare has not
kept pace with that. I am concerned about the widening gap between the
Medicare program and the cutting edge of medical technology.
I am concerned because it means that more than 90,000 Medicare-aged
people in my district cannot gain access to advanced treatment and
technologies they need. As Congress looks at adjustments to the
program, we must act now to repair the gaps in Medicare for the next 35
years of medical innovation.
Medicare's procedure for adding new technologies to the program
involve coverage, coding, and payment decisions. Unfortunately,
problems and delays have occurred at each of these stages. The result
is that now it can take more than 4\1/2\ years or more to make the
latest breakthrough treatments available to beneficiaries.
I believe that Medicare patients have waited long enough for a
program that gives them access to the advanced medical technologies
they need. That is why I am pleased to lend full support of H.R. 4395,
the Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act, a bipartisan bill which
hopefully we will pass this session, and which will lead to 21st
century medicine for Medicare beneficiaries.
____________________
[[Page 21016]]
SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 26th
anniversary of the Community Development Block Grant Program. This
program put local development decisions in the hands of those who know
best, those who live and work in our community.
This long-term commitment to responsible flexibility has paid off.
The average housing program leverage is $2.31 for every Federal dollar
spent.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has chosen to commemorate 26
years of job creation and increased affordable housing and water
improvements by stripping the block grant program of $300 million in
the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill.
In Lorais, Ohio, a community in my district struggling with the loss
of industry and experiencing rents as much as 50 percent of income,
these cuts translate into a loss of jobs, jobs that would have been
created next year through construction projects, small business
developments, and retraining programs.
This program is simple, it is effective, it is efficient. Communities
in northeast Ohio and across the country are depending on it. Proposed
2001 funding levels will, unfortunately, hang them out to dry.
I urge my colleagues to continue our commitment to improving people's
quality of life. Let us support the President's request and increase
funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program.
____________________
RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 611 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 611
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (S. 2311) to revise and
extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under title XXVI of
the Public Health Service Act, to improve access to health
care and the quality of care under such programs, and to
provide for the development of increased capacity to provide
health care and related support services to individuals and
families with HIV disease, and for other purposes. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional
Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII
shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and straightforward closed rule for a
very important piece of legislation. The rule waives all points of
order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record shall
be considered as adopted.
{time} 1030
This is largely a noncontroversial bill. As no members of the
minority testified differently last night at the Committee on Rules,
this rule should receive unanimous support, and I urge support.
This reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act recognizes the
changing demographics of the AIDS epidemic in our country in a way that
truly honors the memory of the courageous young boy for which the bill
was originally named. Today, there are between 800,000 and 900,000
persons living with HIV in the United States of America with some
40,000 new infections annually. This conference report seeks to shift
resources to the most needy areas while preserving the best features of
the current programs.
The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) should be commended for
his leadership and attention to this critical public health issue which
is of concern to every Member of this body. I am hopeful that the
progress made on this authorization will spur funding for another
essential program for individuals afflicted with the HIV virus.
As my colleagues remember and well know, this House led the way and
adopted the Ricky Ray Authorization Act in the last Congress. It
authorized $750 million for compassion assistance and recognition to
hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS through no fault of their own because
of contaminated blood products in the 1980s.
Now, the first installment was provided last year, and this year the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on
Appropriations should be commended for exceeding the President's
request in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor-HHS
appropriation bill for the next installment.
As negotiations continue and we near the end of this Congress, I am
hopeful that the White House will become fully engaged on the Ricky Ray
funding problem and work with leadership and Congress to provide full
funding for these victims as soon as humanly possible. The need is
great and the time is now.
I am confident that, if the White House shows true leadership and
demonstrates that this problem is really a top priority for them, we
will be able to move further toward full funding this year. Obviously
we cannot undo the tragic events of the 1980s, but we can work to
provide assistance to these individuals before it is any later.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should engender little debate. It is a fair
rule for a good bill. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. It will allow for the
consideration of S. 2311, which is called the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000. As the gentleman from Florida has described, this
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Commerce. Under this closed rule, no amendments can be offered on
the House floor.
In 1990, Congress passed the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
Emergency Act. It was known as the Ryan White CARE Act. This law
created programs to help Americans with AIDS and HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS, and to slow the spread of HIV.
These programs expired October 1. The bill we are considering will
reauthorize and strengthen the Ryan White CARE Act programs by
expanding access, improving quality, and providing additional services.
Some of the changes will help target health care services to the people
who need it the most but who can least afford it.
Women, children, infants and youth with HIV will especially benefit
from this bill as will low-income individuals and families. AIDS
possesses one of the greatest health challenges of our generation, and
there is no way to avoid its tragic grip. However, an active role by
the Federal government can, in my opinion, ease the tragedy by reducing
the number of new HIV cases and by supporting victims and their
families.
The Ryan White CARE Act has worked. The Federal funds spent under
this law have saved lives and reduced suffering. These are dollars that
could not have been better spent. For example, between 1994 and 1999,
pediatric AIDS cases declined by nearly 80 percent largely because of
these programs funded by the Federal Government under this Act.
[[Page 21017]]
I would like to point out to my colleague that this act offers a
framework that we should apply to tackling other tragic diseases, such
as childhood cancer. I hope that Congress will learn from the success
of this act.
This legislation extending the Ryan White CARE Act represents our
best response to dealing with AIDS and its consequences. The bill we
are considering is a compromise between the previously passed House and
Senate versions. The Senate version passed by unanimous consent. The
House version passed by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. I
am proud to be a cosponsor of this House version.
Because there is general agreement between the House and Senate,
there is no need for a formal conference committee.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I advise that we have no speakers lined up,
and I would be prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall) has no speakers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 611, I call up
the Senate bill (S. 2311) to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act
programs under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve
access to health care and the quality of care under such programs, and
to provide for the development of increased capacity to provide health
care and related support services to individuals and families with HIV
disease, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
611, the Senate bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of S. 2311 is as follows:
S. 2311
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 ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)
Sec. 101. Duties of planning council, funding priorities, quality
assessment.
Sec. 102. Quality management.
Sec. 103. Funded entities required to have health care relationships.
Sec. 104. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 105. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 106. Replacement of specified fiscal years regarding the sunset on
expedited distribution requirement.
Sec. 107. Hold harmless provision.
Sec. 108. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.
Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)
Sec. 121. State requirements concerning identification of need and
allocation of resources.
Sec. 122. Quality management.
Sec. 123. Funded entities required to have health care referral
relationships.
Sec. 124. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 125. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 126. Authorization of appropriations for HIV-related services for
women and children.
Sec. 127. Repeal of requirement for completed Institute of Medicine
report.
Sec. 130. Supplement grants for certain States.
Sec. 131. Use of treatment funds.
Sec. 132. Increase in minimum allotment.
Sec. 133. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.
Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)
Sec. 141. Amendment of heading; repeal of formula grant program.
Sec. 142. Planning and development grants.
Sec. 143. Authorization of appropriations for categorical grants.
Sec. 144. Administrative expenses ceiling; quality management program.
Sec. 145. Preference for certain areas.
Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)
Sec. 151. Research involving women, infants, children, and youth.
Sec. 152. Limitation on administrative expenses.
Sec. 153. Evaluations and reports.
Sec. 154. Authorization of appropriations for grants under parts A and
B.
Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)
Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)
SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES,
QUALITY ASSESSMENT.
Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including providers of housing and
homeless services''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``shall--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``shall have the responsibilities
specified in subsection (d).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Duties of Planning Council.--The planning council
established under subsection (b) shall have the following
duties:
``(1) Priorities for allocation of funds.--The council
shall establish priorities for the allocation of funds within
the eligible area, including how best to meet each such
priority and additional factors that a grantee should
consider in allocating funds under a grant, based on the
following factors:
``(A) The size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, including, subject
to subsection (e), the needs of individuals living with HIV
infection who are not receiving HIV-related health services.
``(B) The documented needs of the population with HIV
disease with particular attention being given to disparities
in health services among affected subgroups within the
eligible area.
``(C) The demonstrated or probable cost and outcome
effectiveness of proposed strategies and interventions, to
the extent that data are reasonably available.
``(D) Priorities of the communities with HIV disease for
whom the services are intended.
``(E) The availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease.
``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the
availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
income communities.
``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State
or local plans regarding the provision of such services to
individuals with HIV disease.
``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The
council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative
mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the eligible area.
``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall
participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated
statement of need as initiated by the State public health
agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The
council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
related services within the eligible area.
``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish
methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities
which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups,
and convening ad-hoc panels.
``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the Ryan
[[Page 21018]]
White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected
communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and
entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing
the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not
receiving HIV-related health services; and
``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning
councils with respect to the process for establishing
priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Exception.--Grantees under subsection (d)(1)(A) shall
not be required to establish priorities for individuals not
in care until epidemiologic measures are developed under
paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.
(a) Funds Available for Quality Management.--Section 2604
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-14) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Quality Management.--
``(1) Requirement.--The chief elected official of an
eligible area that receives a grant under this part shall
provide for the establishment of a quality management program
to assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infection and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services.
``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant
awarded under this part, the chief elected official of an
eligible area may use, for activities associated with its
quality management program, not more than the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
``(B) $3,000,000.''.
(b) Quality Management Required for Eligibility for
Grants.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) that the chief elected official of the eligible area
will satisfy all requirements under section 2604(c);''.
SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.
(a) Use of Amounts.--Section 2604(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(d)(1)) (as so redesignated by section 102(a)) is amended
by inserting ``and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program under title XXI of such Act'' after ``Social Security
Act''.
(b) Applications.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by
section 102(b), the following:
``(4) that funded entities within the eligible area that
receive funds under a grant under section 2601(a) shall
maintain appropriate relationships with entities in the area
served that constitute key points of access to the health
care system for individuals with HIV disease (including
emergency rooms, substance abuse treatment programs,
detoxification centers, adult and juvenile detention
facilities, sexually transmitted disease clinics, HIV
counseling and testing sites, and homeless shelters) and
other entities under section 2652(a) for the purpose of
facilitating early intervention for individuals newly
diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals knowledgeable of
their status but not in care;''.
SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.
(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``HIV-related--'' and inserting ``HIV-related services, as
follows:'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``outpatient'' and all that follows through
``substance abuse treatment and'' and inserting the
following: ``Outpatient health services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory health services, including substance abuse
treatment,''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) inpatient case
management'' and inserting ``(C) Inpatient case management
services.--Inpatient case management''; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Outpatient support services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory support services (including case management), to
the extent that such services facilitate, enhance, support,
or sustain the delivery, continuity, or benefits of health
services for individuals and families with HIV disease.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)), as amended by
section 102(b), is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end thereof;
(2) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking the
period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) that the eligible area has procedures in place to
ensure that services provided with funds received under this
part meet the criteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).''.
SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)), as amended by section 104(a), is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Early intervention services.--Early intervention
services as described in section 2651(b)(2), with follow-
through referral, provided for the purpose of facilitating
the access of individuals receiving the services to HIV-
related health services, but only if the entity providing
such services--
``(i)(I) is receiving funds under subparagraph (A) or (C);
or
``(II) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in paragraph (2)(C), that maintains a
relationship with an entity described in subclause (I) and
that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV disease;
and
``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that no other Federal, State, or local funds
are available for the early intervention services the entity
will provide with funds received under this paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''.
SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE
SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.
Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.
SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.
Section 2603(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(4)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount
of a grant made to an eligible area under paragraph (2) for
such a fiscal year is not less than an amount equal to 98
percent of the amount the eligible area received for the
fiscal year preceding the year for which the determination is
being made.
``(B) Application of provision.--Subparagraph (A) shall
only apply with respect to those eligible areas receiving a
grant under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2000 in an amount
that has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph (4) of
this subsection (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000).''.
SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.
Section 2604(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``established priorities''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.
Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)
SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF
NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
(a) General Use of Grants.--Section 2612 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A State''; and
(2) in the matter following paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(2) and section 2613'';
(b) Application.--Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) the size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, except that by not
later than October 1, 2002, the State shall take into account
the needs of individuals not in care, based on epidemiologic
measures developed by the Secretary in consultation with the
State, affected communities, experts, and other appropriate
individuals (such State shall not be required to establish
priorities for individuals not in care until such
epidemiologic measures are developed);'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources;
``(vi) the capacity development needs resulting in gaps in
the provision of HIV services in historically underserved
low-income and rural low-income communities; and
``(vii) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism in
rapidly allocating funds to the areas of greatest need within
the State;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
[[Page 21019]]
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) an assurance that capacity development needs
resulting from gaps in the provision of services in
underserved low-income and rural low-income communities will
be addressed; and
``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and subsequent
fiscal years, assurances that, in the planning and allocation
of resources, the State, through systems of HIV-related
health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of section 2612(a), will make appropriate provision for the
HIV-related health and support service needs of individuals
who have been diagnosed with HIV disease but who are not
currently receiving such services, based on the epidemiologic
measures developed under paragraph (1)(C)(i);''.
SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.
(a) State Requirement for Quality Management.--Section
2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the State will provide for--
``(i) the establishment of a quality management program to
assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infections and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services; and
``(ii) a periodic review (such as through an independent
peer review) to assess the quality and appropriateness of
HIV-related health and support services provided by entities
that receive funds from the State under this part;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), the following:
``(E) an assurance that the State, through systems of HIV-
related health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) of section 2612(a), has considered strategies for
working with providers to make optimal use of financial
assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX of
the Social Security Act, the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act, and other
Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to
maximize access to quality HIV-related health and support
services;
(4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end; and
(5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''.
(b) Availability of Funds for Quality Management.--
(1) Availability of grant funds for planning and
evaluation.--Section 2618(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the period ``, including not more
than $3,000,000 for all activities associated with its
quality management program''.
(2) Exception to combined ceiling on planning and
administration funds for states with small grants.--Paragraph
(6) of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(6)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(6) Exception for quality management.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (5), a State whose grant under this part for a
fiscal year does not exceed $1,500,000 may use not to exceed
20 percent of the amount of the grant for the purposes
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) if--
``(A) that portion of such amount in excess of 15 percent
of the grant is used for its quality management program; and
``(B) the State submits and the Secretary approves a plan
(in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary may prescribe) for use of funds for its quality
management program.''.
SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.
Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)), as amended
by section 122(a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(H) that funded entities maintain appropriate
relationships with entities in the area served that
constitute key points of access to the health care system for
individuals with HIV disease (including emergency rooms,
substance abuse treatment programs, detoxification centers,
adult and juvenile detention facilities, sexually transmitted
disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, and
homeless shelters), and other entities under section 2652(a),
for the purpose of facilitating early intervention for
individuals newly diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals
knowledgeable of their status but not in care.''.
SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.
(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-146)
is amended by inserting ``before paragraph (2) as so
redesignated'' after ``inserting''.
(b) Services.--Section 2612(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22(a)(1)), as so designated by section 121(a), is amended by
striking ``for individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting
``, subject to the conditions and limitations that apply
under such section''.
(c) Conforming Amendment to State Application
Requirement.--Section 2617(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(2)),
as amended by section 121(b), is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(F) an assurance that the State has procedures in place
to ensure that services provided with funds received under
this section meet the criteria specified in section
2604(b)(1)(B); and''.
SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.
Section 2612(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-22(a)), as amended by
section 121, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Early intervention services.--The State, through
systems of HIV-related health services provided under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 2612(a), may provide
early intervention services, as described in section
2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral, provided for the purpose
of facilitating the access of individuals receiving the
services to HIV-related health services, but only if the
entity providing such services--
``(A)(i) is receiving funds under section 2612(a)(1); or
``(ii) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in section 2617(b)(4), that maintains
a referral relationship with an entity described in clause
(i) and that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV
disease; and
``(B) demonstrates to the State's satisfaction that no
other Federal, State, or local funds are available for the
early intervention services the entity will provide with
funds received under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED
SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE REPORT.
Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.
SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENT GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.
Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award supplemental
grants to States determined to be eligible under subsection
(b) to enable such States to provide comprehensive services
of the type described in section 2612(a) to supplement the
services otherwise provided by the State under a grant under
this subpart in areas within the State that are not eligible
to receive grants under part A.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a
supplemental grant under subsection (a) a State shall--
``(1) be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart;
and
``(2) demonstrate to the Secretary that there is severe
need (as defined for purposes of section 2603(b)(2)(A) for
supplemental financial assistance in areas in the State that
are not served through grants under part A.
``(c) Application.--A State that desires a grant under this
section shall, as part of the State application submitted
under section 2617, submit a detailed description of the
manner in which the State will use amounts received under the
grant and of the severity of need. Such description shall
include--
``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental
funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of
such funds;
``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local
resources, both financial and in-kind;
``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
related activities at a level that is equal to not less than
the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year
period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is
applying to receive a grant under this part;
``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to
utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner
that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated
in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS
including appropriate allocations for services for infants,
children, women, and families with HIV disease;
``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning
process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and
individuals with HIV disease; and
``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed
services are consistent with local needs assessments and the
statewide coordinated statement of need.
``(d) Amount Reserved for Emerging Communities.--
``(1) In general.--For awarding grants under this section
for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve the greater
of 50 percent of the amount to be utilized under subsection
(e) for such fiscal year or $5,000,000, to be provided to
States that contain emerging communities for use in such
communities.
[[Page 21020]]
``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `emerging
community' means a metropolitan area--
``(A) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
``(B) for which there has been reported to the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative
total of between 1000 and 1999 cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar
years for which such data are available.
``(e) Appropriations.--With respect to each fiscal year
beginning with fiscal year 2001, the Secretary, to carry out
this section, shall utilize 50 percent of the amount
appropriated under section 2677 to carry out part B for such
fiscal year that is in excess of the amount appropriated to
carry out such part in fiscal year preceding the fiscal year
involved.
SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.
(a) State Duties.--Section 2616(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``shall--'' and inserting ``shall use funds made available
under this section to--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively and realigning
the margins of such subparagraphs appropriately;
(3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking
the period and ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and
compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical
monitoring.'';
(6) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--No State shall use funds under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the limitations on access to HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as defined in subsection (e)(2) are
eliminated.
``(B) Amount of funding.--No State shall use in excess of
10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section
in any fiscal year to carry out activities under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that
such additional services are essential and in no way diminish
access to therapeutics.''.
(b) Supplement Grants.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
26(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Supplemental Grants for the Provision of
Treatments.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
paragraph (5), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants
to States determined to be eligible under paragraph (2) to
enable such States to provide access to therapeutics to treat
HIV disease as provided by the State under subsection
(c)(1)(B) for individuals at or below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty line.
``(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for
the awarding of grants under paragraph (1) to States that
demonstrate a severe need. In determining the criteria for
demonstrating State severity of need (as defined for purposes
of section 2603(b)(2)(A)), the Secretary shall consider
whether limitation to access exist such that--
``(A) the State programs under this section are unable to
provide HIV/AIDS therapeutic regimens to all eligible
individuals living at or below 200 percent of the Federal
poverty line; and
``(B) the State programs under this section are unable to
provide to all eligible individuals appropriate HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as recommended in the most recent
Federal treatment guidelines.
``(3) State requirement.--The Secretary may not make a
grant to a State under this subsection unless the State
agrees that--
``(A) the State will make available (directly or through
donations from public or private entities) non-Federal
contributions toward the activities to be carried out under
the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal
funds provided in the grant; and
``(B) the State will not impose eligibility requirements
for services or scope of benefits limitations under
subsection (a) that are more restrictive than such
requirements in effect as of January 1, 2000.
``(4) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under a
grant under this subsection shall only be used by the State
to provide AIDS/HIV-related medications. The State shall
coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise
provided under this section in order to maximize drug
coverage.
``(5) Funding.--
``(A) Reservation of amount.--The Secretary may reserve not
to exceed 4 percent, but not less than 2 percent, of any
amount referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H) that is
appropriated for a fiscal year, to carry out this subsection.
``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a
grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount
the State received under this part in the previous fiscal
year, as a result of grants provided under this
subsection.''.
(c) Supplement and not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Supplement not Supplant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under this section
shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding
available to provide treatments of the type that may be
provided under this section.''.
SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 2618(b)(1)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
28(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000''; and
(2) in subclause (II), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 2618(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-28(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands'' and inserting ``, the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau''.
SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.
Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-21(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``State shall use''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.
Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)
SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT
PROGRAM.
(a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title
XXVI is amended to read as follows:
``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.
(b) Repeal.--Part C of title XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by repealing subpart I; and
(2) by redesignating subparts II and III as subparts I and
II.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Information regarding receipt of services.--Section
2661(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-61(a)) is amended by striking
``unless--'' and all that follows through ``(2) in the case
of'' and inserting ``unless, in the case of''.
(2) Additional agreements.--Section 2664 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
64) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``2642(b) or'';
(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``2642(b) or''; and
(C) by striking subsection (h).
SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) Allowing Planning and Development Grant To Expand
Ability To Provide Primary Care Services.--Section 2654(c)
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide planning and
development grants to public and nonprofit private entities
for the purpose of--
``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early
intervention services; or
``(B) assisting such entities to expand the capacity,
preparedness, and expertise to deliver primary care services
to individuals with HIV disease in underserved low-income
communities on the condition that the funds are not used to
purchase or improve land or to purchase, construct, or
permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any
building or other facility.''; and
(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)''
each place that such appears and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''.
(b) Amount; Duration.--Section 2654(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
54(c)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
``(B) Capacity development.--
``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under
paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3
years.''.
(c) Increase in limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-54(c)(5)), as so redesignated by subsection (b), is
amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``5
percent''.
SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL
GRANTS.
Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking
``1996'' and all that follows through ``2000'' and inserting
``2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
Section 2664(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-64(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:
``(3) the applicant will not expend more than 10 percent of
the grant for costs of administrative activities with respect
to the grant;'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
[[Page 21021]]
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the applicant will provide for the establishment of a
quality management program to assess the extent to which
medical services funded under this title that are provided to
patients are consistent with the most recent Public Health
Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV disease and
related opportunistic infections and that improvements in the
access to and quality of medical services are addressed.''.
SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.
Section 2651 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-51) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--Beginning in fiscal
year 2001, in awarding new grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give preference to applicants that will use
amounts received under the grant to serve areas that are
otherwise not eligible to receive assistance under part A.''.
Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)
SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.
(a) Elimination of Requirement To Enroll Significant
Numbers of Women and Children.--Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (C) and
(D); and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(b) Information and Education.--Section 2671(d) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The applicant will provide individuals with
information and education on opportunities to participate in
HIV/AIDS-related clinical research.''.
(c) Quality Management; Administrative Expenses Ceiling.--
Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the subsection heading and designation and
inserting the following:
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) Application.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Quality management program.--A grantee under this
section shall implement a quality management program.''.
(d) Coordination.--Section 2671(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary acting through the Director of NIH, shall examine
the distribution and availability of ongoing and appropriate
HIV/AIDS-related research projects to existing sites under
this section for purposes of enhancing and expanding
voluntary access to HIV-related research, especially within
communities that are not reasonably served by such
projects.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2671(j) (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71(j)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years
1996 through 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through
2005''.
SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j), as
subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h), the following:
``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Ryan White Care Act
Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with
grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the
administrative, program support, and direct service-related
activities that are carried out under this part to ensure
that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related
health and support services and research opportunities under
this part, and to support the provision of such services.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph
(1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this
part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of
the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.
SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.
Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through
2005''.
SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER
PARTS A AND B.
Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part A for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part B for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)
SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Schools; Centers.--Section 2692(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
(b) Dental Schools.--Section 2692(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine for the conduct of a study concerning the
appropriate epidemiological measures and their relationship
to the financing and delivery of primary care and health-
related support services for low-income, uninsured, and
under-insured individuals with HIV disease.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) Completion.--The study under subsection (a) shall be
completed not later than 21 months after the date on which
the contract referred to in such subsection is entered into.
(2) Issues to be considered.--The study conducted under
subsection (a) shall consider--
(A) the availability and utility of health outcomes
measures and data for HIV primary care and support services
and the extent to which those measures and data could be used
to measure the quality of such funded services;
(B) the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery
(including the quality of services, health outcomes, and
resource use) within the context of a changing health care
and therapeutic environment as well as the changing
epidemiology of the epidemic;
(C) existing and needed epidemiological data and other
analytic tools for resource planning and allocation
decisions, specifically for estimating severity of need of a
community and the relationship to the allocations process;
and
(D) other factors determined to be relevant to assessing an
individual's or community's ability to gain and sustain
access to quality HIV services.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which
the study is completed under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report describing the
manner in which the conclusions and recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine can be addressed and implemented.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 611, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional
Record and numbered 1 is considered adopted.
The text of S. 2311, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 611, is
as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
TITLE I--EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR AREAS WITH SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR SERVICES
Subtitle A--HIV Health Services Planning Councils
Sec. 101. Membership of councils.
Sec. 102. Duties of councils.
Sec. 103. Open meetings; other additional provisions.
Subtitle B--Type and Distribution of Grants
Sec. 111. Formula grants.
Sec. 112. Supplemental grants.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
Sec. 121. Use of amounts.
Sec. 122. Application.
TITLE II--CARE GRANT PROGRAM
Subtitle A--General Grant Provisions
Sec. 201. Priority for women, infants, and children.
Sec. 202. Use of grants.
Sec. 203. Grants to establish HIV care consortia.
Sec. 204. Provision of treatments.
Sec. 205. State application.
Sec. 206. Distribution of funds.
Sec. 207. Supplemental grants for certain States.
Subtitle B--Provisions Concerning Pregnancy and Perinatal Transmission
of HIV
Sec. 211. Repeals.
Sec. 212. Grants.
Sec. 213. Study by Institute of Medicine.
Subtitle C--Certain Partner Notification Programs
Sec. 221. Grants for compliant partner notification programs.
TITLE III--EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES
Subtitle A--Formula Grants for States
Sec. 301. Repeal of program.
Subtitle B--Categorical Grants
Sec. 311. Preferences in making grants.
Sec. 312. Planning and development grants.
Sec. 313. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page 21022]]
Subtitle C--General Provisions
Sec. 321. Provision of certain counseling services.
Sec. 322. Additional required agreements.
TITLE IV--OTHER PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Subtitle A--Certain Programs for Research, Demonstrations, or Training
Sec. 401. Grants for coordinated services and access to research for
women, infants, children, and youth.
Sec. 402. AIDS education and training centers.
Subtitle B--General Provisions in Title XXVI
Sec. 411. Evaluations and reports.
Sec. 412. Data collection through Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Sec. 413. Coordination.
Sec. 414. Plan regarding release of prisoners with HIV disease.
Sec. 415. Audits.
Sec. 416. Administrative simplification.
Sec. 417. Authorization of appropriations for parts A and B.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Studies by Institute of Medicine.
Sec. 502. Development of rapid HIV test.
Sec. 503. Technical corrections.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 601. Effective date.
TITLE I--EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR AREAS WITH SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR SERVICES
Subtitle A--HIV Health Services Planning Councils
SEC. 101. MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCILS.
(a) In General.--Section 2602(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``demographics of the
epidemic in the eligible area involved,'' and inserting
``demographics of the population of individuals with HIV
disease in the eligible area involved,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including providers of housing and
homeless services'';
(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or AIDS'';
(C) in subparagraph (K), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in subparagraph (L), by striking the period and
inserting the following: ``, including but not limited to
providers of HIV prevention services; and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(M) representatives of individuals who formerly were
Federal, State, or local prisoners, were released from the
custody of the penal system during the preceding 3 years, and
had HIV disease as of the date on which the individuals were
so released.''.
(b) Conflicts of Interests.--Section 2602(b)(5) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12(b)(5)) is
amended by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(C) Composition of council.--The following applies
regarding the membership of a planning council under
paragraph (1):
``(i) Not less than 33 percent of the council shall be
individuals who are receiving HIV-related services pursuant
to a grant under section 2601(a), are not officers,
employees, or consultants to any entity that receives amounts
from such a grant, and do not represent any such entity, and
reflect the demographics of the population of individuals
with HIV disease as determined under paragraph (4)(A). For
purposes of the preceding sentence, an individual shall be
considered to be receiving such services if the individual is
a parent of, or a caregiver for, a minor child who is
receiving such services.
``(ii) With respect to membership on the planning council,
clause (i) may not be construed as having any effect on
entities that receive funds from grants under any of parts B
through F but do not receive funds from grants under section
2601(a), on officers or employees of such entities, or on
individuals who represent such entities.''.
SEC. 102. DUTIES OF COUNCILS.
(a) In General.--Section 2602(b)(4) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (E) as
subparagraphs (C) through (G), respectively;
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so
redesignated) the following subparagraphs:
``(A) determine the size and demographics of the population
of individuals with HIV disease;
``(B) determine the needs of such population, with
particular attention to--
``(i) individuals with HIV disease who know their HIV
status and are not receiving HIV-related services; and
``(ii) disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities;'';
(3) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking
clauses (i) through (iv) and inserting the following:
``(i) size and demographics of the population of
individuals with HIV disease (as determined under
subparagraph (A)) and the needs of such population (as
determined under subparagraph (B));
``(ii) demonstrated (or probable) cost effectiveness and
outcome effectiveness of proposed strategies and
interventions, to the extent that data are reasonably
available;
``(iii) priorities of the communities with HIV disease for
whom the services are intended;
``(iv) coordination in the provision of services to such
individuals with programs for HIV prevention and for the
prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including
programs that provide comprehensive treatment for such abuse;
``(v) availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease; and
``(vi) capacity development needs resulting from
disparities in the availability of HIV-related services in
historically underserved communities;'';
(4) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by amending
the subparagraph to read as follows:
``(D) develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604 that--
``(i) includes a strategy for identifying individuals who
know their HIV status and are not receiving such services and
for informing the individuals of and enabling the individuals
to utilize the services, giving particular attention to
eliminating disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities, and
including discrete goals, a timetable, and an appropriate
allocation of funds;
``(ii) includes a strategy to coordinate the provision of
such services with programs for HIV prevention (including
outreach and early intervention) and for the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse (including programs that provide
comprehensive treatment services for such abuse); and
``(iii) is compatible with any State or local plan for the
provision of services to individuals with HIV disease;'';
(5) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(6) in subparagraph (G) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``public meetings,'' and inserting ``public
meetings (in accordance with paragraph (7)),''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(H) coordinate with Federal grantees that provide HIV-
related services within the eligible area.''.
(b) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
Section 2602 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-12) is amended by adding at the end the following
subsection:
``(d) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
Promptly after the date of the submission of the report
required in section 501(b) of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000 (relating to the relationship between
epidemiological measures and health care for certain
individuals with HIV disease), the Secretary, in consultation
with planning councils and entities that receive amounts from
grants under section 2601(a) or 2611, shall develop
epidemiologic measures--
``(1) for establishing the number of individuals living
with HIV disease who are not receiving HIV-related health
services; and
``(2) for carrying out the duties under subsection (b)(4)
and section 2617(b).''.
(c) Training.--Section 2602 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12), as amended by subsection (b) of
this section, is amended by adding at the end the following
subsection:
``(e) Training Guidance and Materials.--The Secretary shall
provide to each chief elected official receiving a grant
under 2601(a) guidelines and materials for training members
of the planning council under paragraph (1) regarding the
duties of the council.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2603(c) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12(b)) is amended by
striking ``section 2602(b)(3)(A)'' and inserting ``section
2602(b)(4)(C)''.
SEC. 103. OPEN MEETINGS; OTHER ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.
Section 2602(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-12(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(7) Public deliberations.--With respect to a planning
council under paragraph (1), the following applies:
``(A) The council may not be chaired solely by an employee
of the grantee under section 2601(a).
``(B) In accordance with criteria established by the
Secretary:
``(i) The meetings of the council shall be open to the
public and shall be held only after adequate notice to the
public.
``(ii) The records, reports, transcripts, minutes, agenda,
or other documents which were made available to or prepared
for or by the council shall be available for public
inspection and copying at a single location.
[[Page 21023]]
``(iii) Detailed minutes of each meeting of the council
shall be kept. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified
to by the chair of the council.
``(iv) This subparagraph does not apply to any disclosure
of information of a personal nature that would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, including
any disclosure of medical information or personnel
matters.''.
Subtitle B--Type and Distribution of Grants
SEC. 111. FORMULA GRANTS.
(a) Expedited Distribution.--Section 2603(a)(2) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``for each of the
fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting ``for a fiscal
year''.
(b) Amount of Grant; Estimate of Living Cases.--
(1) In general.--Section 2603(a)(3)) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, except that (subject to
subparagraph (D)), for grants made pursuant to this paragraph
for fiscal year 2005 and subsequent fiscal years, the cases
counted for each 12-month period beginning on or after July
1, 2004, shall be cases of HIV disease (as reported to and
confirmed by such Director) rather than cases of acquired
immune deficiency syndrome''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), in the matter after and below
clause (ii)(X)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``, and shall be reported to the congressional
committees of jurisdiction''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following sentence: ``Updates
shall as applicable take into account the counting of cases
of HIV disease pursuant to clause (i).''.
(2) Determination of secretary regarding data on hiv
cases.--Section 2603(a)(3)) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following
subparagraph:
``(D) Determination of secretary regarding data on hiv
cases.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2004, the
Secretary shall determine whether there is data on cases of
HIV disease from all eligible areas (reported to and
confirmed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention) sufficiently accurate and reliable for use
for purposes of subparagraph (C)(i). In making such a
determination, the Secretary shall take into consideration
the findings of the study under section 501(b) of the Ryan
White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 (relating to the
relationship between epidemiological measures and health care
for certain individuals with HIV disease).
``(ii) Effect of adverse determination.--If under clause
(i) the Secretary determines that data on cases of HIV
disease is not sufficiently accurate and reliable for use for
purposes of subparagraph (C)(i), then notwithstanding such
subparagraph, for any fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2007
the references in such subparagraph to cases of HIV disease
do not have any legal effect.
``(iii) Grants and technical assistance regarding counting
of hiv cases.--Of the amounts appropriated under section 318B
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve amounts to
make grants and provide technical assistance to States and
eligible areas with respect to obtaining data on cases of HIV
disease to ensure that data on such cases is available from
all States and eligible areas as soon as is practicable but
not later than the beginning of fiscal year 2007.''.
(c) Increases in Grant.--Section 2603(a)(4)) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(4)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Increases in grant.--
``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year in a protection
period for an eligible area, the Secretary shall increase the
amount of the grant made pursuant to paragraph (2) for the
area to ensure that--
``(i) for the first fiscal year in the protection period,
the grant is not less than 98 percent of the amount of the
grant made for the eligible area pursuant to such paragraph
for the base year for the protection period;
``(ii) for any second fiscal year in such period, the grant
is not less than 95 percent of the amount of such base year
grant;
``(iii) for any third fiscal year in such period, the grant
is not less than 92 percent of the amount of the base year
grant;
``(iv) for any fourth fiscal year in such period, the grant
is not less than 89 percent of the amount of the base year
grant; and
``(v) for any fifth or subsequent fiscal year in such
period, if, pursuant to paragraph (3)(D)(ii)), the references
in paragraph (3)(C)(i) to HIV disease do not have any legal
effect, the grant is not less than 85 percent of the amount
of the base year grant.
``(B) Special Rule.--If for fiscal year 2005, pursuant to
paragraph (3)(D)(ii), data on cases of HIV disease are used
for purposes of paragraph (3)(C)(i), the Secretary shall
increase the amount of a grant made pursuant to paragraph (2)
for an eligible area to ensure that the grant is not less
than 98 percent of the amount of the grant made for the area
in fiscal year 2004.
``(C) Base year; protection period.--With respect to grants
made pursuant to paragraph (2) for an eligible area:
``(i) The base year for a protection period is the fiscal
year preceding the trigger grant-reduction year.
``(ii) The first trigger grant-reduction year is the first
fiscal year (after fiscal year 2000) for which the grant for
the area is less than the grant for the area for the
preceding fiscal year.
``(iii) A protection period begins with the trigger grant-
reduction year and continues until the beginning of the first
fiscal year for which the amount of the grant determined
pursuant to paragraph (2) for the area equals or exceeds the
amount of the grant determined under subparagraph (A).
``(iv) Any subsequent trigger grant-reduction year is the
first fiscal year, after the end of the preceding protection
period, for which the amount of the grant is less than the
amount of the grant for the preceding fiscal year.''.
SEC. 112. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2603(b)(2) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the heading for the paragraph, by striking
``Definition'' and inserting ``Amount of grant'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as
subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively;
(3) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated) the following subparagraph:
``(A) In general.--The amount of each grant made for
purposes of this subsection shall be determined by the
Secretary based on a weighting of factors under paragraph
(1), with severe need under subparagraph (B) of such
paragraph counting one-third.'';
(4) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (iii), by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following clauses:
``(iv) the current prevalence of HIV disease;
``(v) an increasing need for HIV-related services,
including relative rates of increase in the number of cases
of HIV disease; and
``(vi) unmet need for such services, as determined under
section 2602(b)(4).'';
(5) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``subparagraph (B)'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``2 years after the
date of enactment of this paragraph'' and inserting ``18
months after the date of the enactment of the Ryan White CARE
Act Amendments of 2000''; and
(C) by inserting after the second sentence the following
sentence: ``Such a mechanism shall be modified to reflect the
findings of the study under section 501(b) of the Ryan White
CARE Act Amendments of 2000 (relating to the relationship
between epidemiological measures and health care for certain
individuals with HIV disease).''; and
(6) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C)''.
(b) Requirements for Application.--Section 2603(b)(1)(E) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(b)(1)(E))
is amended by inserting ``youth,'' after ``children,''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 2603(b) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
(3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), in subparagraph
(B), by striking ``grants'' and inserting ``grant''.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
SEC. 121. USE OF AMOUNTS.
(a) Primary Purposes.--Section 2604(b)(1) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``HIV-related--'' and inserting ``HIV-related services, as
follows:'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``outpatient'' and all that follows through
``substance abuse treatment and'' and inserting the
following: ``Outpatient and ambulatory health services,
including substance abuse treatment,''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) inpatient case
management'' and inserting ``(C) Inpatient case management'';
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following
subparagraph:
``(B) Outpatient and ambulatory support services (including
case management), to the extent that such services
facilitate, enhance, support, or sustain the delivery,
continuity, or benefits of health services for individuals
and families with HIV disease.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Outreach activities that are intended to identify
individuals with HIV disease who know their HIV status and
are not receiving HIV-related services, and that are--
[[Page 21024]]
``(i) necessary to implement the strategy under section
2602(b)(4)(D), including activities facilitating the access
of such individuals to HIV-related primary care services at
entities described in paragraph (3)(A);
``(ii) conducted in a manner consistent with the
requirements under sections 2605(a)(3) and 2651(b)(2); and
``(iii) supplement, and do not supplant, such activities
that are carried out with amounts appropriated under section
317.''.
(b) Early Intervention Services.--Section 2604(b) (42
U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)) of the Public Health Service Act is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Early intervention services.--
``(A) In general.--The purposes for which a grant under
section 2601 may be used include providing to individuals
with HIV disease early intervention services described in
section 2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral provided for the
purpose of facilitating the access of individuals receiving
the services to HIV-related health services. The entities
through which such services may be provided under the grant
include public health departments, emergency rooms, substance
abuse and mental health treatment programs, detoxification
centers, detention facilities, clinics regarding sexually
transmitted diseases, homeless shelters, HIV disease
counseling and testing sites, health care points of entry
specified by eligible areas, federally qualified health
centers, and entities described in section 2652(a) that
constitute a point of access to services by maintaining
referral relationships.
``(B) Conditions.--With respect to an entity that proposes
to provide early intervention services under subparagraph
(A), such subparagraph applies only if the entity
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief elected
official for the eligible area involved that--
``(i) Federal, State, or local funds are otherwise
inadequate for the early intervention services the entity
proposes to provide; and
``(ii) the entity will expend funds pursuant to such
subparagraph to supplement and not supplant other funds
available to the entity for the provision of early
intervention services for the fiscal year involved.''.
(c) Priority for Women, Infants, and Children.--Section
2604(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)) of the Public Health Service
Act is amended in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by
subsection (b)(1) of this section) by amending the paragraph
to read as follows:
``(4) Priority for women, infants and children.--
``(A) In general.--For the purpose of providing health and
support services to infants, children, youth, and women with
HIV disease, including treatment measures to prevent the
perinatal transmission of HIV, the chief elected official of
an eligible area, in accordance with the established
priorities of the planning council, shall for each of such
populations in the eligible area use, from the grants made
for the area under section 2601(a) for a fiscal year, not
less than the percentage constituted by the ratio of the
population involved (infants, children, youth, or women in
such area) with acquired immune deficiency syndrome to the
general population in such area of individuals with such
syndrome.
``(B) Waiver.--With respect the population involved, the
Secretary may provide to the chief elected official of an
eligible area a waiver of the requirement of subparagraph (A)
if such official demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the population is receiving HIV-related health
services through the State medicaid program under title XIX
of the Social Security Act, the State children's health
insurance program under title XXI of such Act, or other
Federal or State programs.''.
(d) Quality Management.--Section 2604 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Quality Management.--
``(1) Requirement.--The chief elected official of an
eligible area that receives a grant under this part shall
provide for the establishment of a quality management program
to assess the extent to which HIV health services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infection, and as
applicable, to develop strategies for ensuring that such
services are consistent with the guidelines for improvement
in the access to and quality of HIV health services.
``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant
awarded under this part for a fiscal year, the chief elected
official of an eligible area may (in addition to amounts to
which subsection (f)(1) applies) use for activities
associated with the quality management program required in
paragraph (1) not more than the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
``(B) $3,000,000.''.
SEC. 122. APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--Section 2605(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following
paragraphs:
``(3) that entities within the eligible area that receive
funds under a grant under this part will maintain appropriate
relationships with entities in the eligible area served that
constitute key points of access to the health care system for
individuals with HIV disease (including emergency rooms,
substance abuse treatment programs, detoxification centers,
adult and juvenile detention facilities, sexually transmitted
disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, mental
health programs, and homeless shelters), and other entities
under section 2604(b)(3) and 2652(a), for the purpose of
facilitating early intervention for individuals newly
diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals knowledgeable of
their HIV status but not in care;
``(4) that the chief elected official of the eligible area
will satisfy all requirements under section 2604(c);''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)'';
(2) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1)
of this section), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking the
period and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(9) that the eligible area has procedures in place to
ensure that services provided with funds received under this
part meet the criteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).''.
TITLE II--CARE GRANT PROGRAM
Subtitle A--General Grant Provisions
SEC. 201. PRIORITY FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN.
Section 2611(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-21(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Priority for Women, Infants and Children.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of providing health and
support services to infants, children, youth, and women with
HIV disease, including treatment measures to prevent the
perinatal transmission of HIV, a State shall for each of such
populations use, of the funds allocated under this part to
the State for a fiscal year, not less than the percentage
constituted by the ratio of the population involved (infants,
children, youth, or women in the State) with acquired immune
deficiency syndrome to the general population in the State of
individuals with such syndrome.
``(2) Waiver.--With respect the population involved, the
Secretary may provide to a State a waiver of the requirement
of paragraph (1) if the State demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the population is
receiving HIV-related health services through the State
medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act,
the State children's health insurance program under title XXI
of such Act, or other Federal or State programs.''.
SEC. 202. USE OF GRANTS.
Section 2612 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-22) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A State may use'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A State may use''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following subsections:
``(b) Support Services; Outreach.--The purposes for which a
grant under this part may be used include delivering or
enhancing the following:
``(1) Outpatient and ambulatory support services under
section 2611(a) (including case management) to the extent
that such services facilitate, enhance, support, or sustain
the delivery, continuity, or benefits of health services for
individuals and families with HIV disease.
``(2) Outreach activities that are intended to identify
individuals with HIV disease who know their HIV status and
are not receiving HIV-related services, and that are--
``(A) necessary to implement the strategy under section
2617(b)(4)(B), including activities facilitating the access
of such individuals to HIV-related primary care services at
entities described in subsection (c)(1);
``(B) conducted in a manner consistent with the requirement
under section 2617(b)(6)(G) and 2651(b)(2); and
``(C) supplement, and do not supplant, such activities that
are carried out with amounts appropriated under section 317.
``(c) Early Intervention Services.--
``(1) In general.--The purposes for which a grant under
this part may be used include providing to individuals with
HIV disease
[[Page 21025]]
early intervention services described in section 2651(b)(2),
with follow-up referral provided for the purpose of
facilitating the access of individuals receiving the services
to HIV-related health services. The entities through which
such services may be provided under the grant include public
health departments, emergency rooms, substance abuse and
mental health treatment programs, detoxification centers,
detention facilities, clinics regarding sexually transmitted
diseases, homeless shelters, HIV disease counseling and
testing sites, health care points of entry specified by
States or eligible areas, federally qualified health centers,
and entities described in section 2652(a) that constitute a
point of access to services by maintaining referral
relationships.
``(2) Conditions.--With respect to an entity that proposes
to provide early intervention services under paragraph (1),
such paragraph applies only if the entity demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the State involved that--
``(A) Federal, State, or local funds are otherwise
inadequate for the early intervention services the entity
proposes to provide; and
``(B) the entity will expend funds pursuant to such
paragraph to supplement and not supplant other funds
available to the entity for the provision of early
intervention services for the fiscal year involved.
``(d) Quality Management.--
``(1) Requirement.--Each State that receives a grant under
this part shall provide for the establishment of a quality
management program to assess the extent to which HIV health
services provided to patients under the grant are consistent
with the most recent Public Health Service guidelines for the
treatment of HIV disease and related opportunistic infection,
and as applicable, to develop strategies for ensuring that
such services are consistent with the guidelines for
improvement in the access to and quality of HIV health
services.
``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant
awarded under this part for a fiscal year, the State may (in
addition to amounts to which section 2618(b)(5) applies) use
for activities associated with the quality management program
required in paragraph (1) not more than the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
``(B) $3,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. GRANTS TO ESTABLISH HIV CARE CONSORTIA.
Section 2613 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-23) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, particularly those experiencing
disparities in access and services and those who reside in
historically underserved communities''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``by such
consortium'' the following: ``is consistent with the
comprehensive plan under 2617(b)(4) and'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(F) demonstrates that adequate planning occurred to
address disparities in access and services and historically
underserved communities.''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following
subparagraph:
``(D) the types of entities described in section
2602(b)(2).''.
SEC. 204. PROVISION OF TREATMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2616(c) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and
compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical
monitoring.
``Of the amount reserved by a State for a fiscal year for use
under this section, the State may not use more than 5 percent
to carry out services under paragraph (6), except that the
percentage applicable with respect to such paragraph is 10
percent if the State demonstrates to the Secretary that such
additional services are essential and in no way diminish
access to the therapeutics described in subsection (a).''.
(b) Health Insurance and Plans.--Section 2616 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26) is amended by adding
at the end the following subsection:
``(e) Use of Health Insurance and Plans.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), a State
may expend a grant under this part to provide the
therapeutics described in such subsection by paying on behalf
of individuals with HIV disease the costs of purchasing or
maintaining health insurance or plans whose coverage includes
a full range of such therapeutics and appropriate primary
care services.
``(2) Limitation.--The authority established in paragraph
(1) applies only to the extent that, for the fiscal year
involved, the costs of the health insurance or plans to be
purchased or maintained under such paragraph do not exceed
the costs of otherwise providing therapeutics described in
subsection (a).''.
SEC. 205. STATE APPLICATION.
(a) Determination of Size and Needs of Population;
Comprehensive Plan.--Section 2617(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as
paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following
paragraphs:
``(2) a determination of the size and demographics of the
population of individuals with HIV disease in the State;
``(3) a determination of the needs of such population, with
particular attention to--
``(A) individuals with HIV disease who know their HIV
status and are not receiving HIV-related services; and
``(B) disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities;'';
and
(3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``comprehensive plan for the organization''
and inserting ``comprehensive plan that describes the
organization'';
(B) by striking ``, including--'' and inserting ``, and
that--'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as
subparagraphs (D) through (F), respectively;
(D) by inserting before subparagraph (C) the following
subparagraphs:
``(A) establishes priorities for the allocation of funds
within the State based on--
``(i) size and demographics of the population of
individuals with HIV disease (as determined under paragraph
(2)) and the needs of such population (as determined under
paragraph (3));
``(ii) availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease;
``(iii) capacity development needs resulting from
disparities in the availability of HIV-related services in
historically underserved communities and rural communities;
and
``(iv) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism of
the State for rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the State;
``(B) includes a strategy for identifying individuals who
know their HIV status and are not receiving such services and
for informing the individuals of and enabling the individuals
to utilize the services, giving particular attention to
eliminating disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities, and
including discrete goals, a timetable, and an appropriate
allocation of funds;
``(C) includes a strategy to coordinate the provision of
such services with programs for HIV prevention (including
outreach and early intervention) and for the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse (including programs that provide
comprehensive treatment services for such abuse);'';
(E) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph), by inserting ``describes'' before
``the services and activities'';
(F) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``provides'' before ``a description''; and
(G) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``provides'' before ``a description''.
(b) Public Participation.--Section 2617(b) of the Public
Health Service Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this
section, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``HIV'' and inserting
``HIV disease''; and
(2) in paragraph (6), by amending subparagraph (A) to read
as follows:
``(A) the public health agency that is administering the
grant for the State engages in a public advisory planning
process, including public hearings, that includes the
participants under paragraph (5), and the types of entities
described in section 2602(b)(2), in developing the
comprehensive plan under paragraph (4) and commenting on the
implementation of such plan;''.
(c) Health Care Relationships.--Section 2617(b) of the
Public Health Service Act, as amended by subsection (a) of
this section, is amended in paragraph (6)--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(G) entities within areas in which activities under the
grant are carried out will maintain appropriate relationships
with entities in the area served that constitute key points
of access to the health care system for individuals with HIV
disease (including emergency rooms, substance abuse treatment
programs, detoxification centers, adult and juvenile
detention facilities, sexually
[[Page 21026]]
transmitted disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing
sites, mental health programs, and homeless shelters), and
other entities under section 2612(c) and 2652(a), for the
purpose of facilitating early intervention for individuals
newly diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals
knowledgeable of their HIV status but not in care.''.
SEC. 206. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
(a) Minimum Allotment.--Section 2618 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as
subsections (a) through (d), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated), in paragraph
(1)(A)(i)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000''; and
(B) in subclause (II), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''.
(b) Amount of Grant; Estimate of Living Cases.--Section
2618(a) of the Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by
subsection (a)(1) of this section) is amended in paragraph
(2)--
(1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, except that (subject to
subparagraph (E)), for grants made pursuant to this paragraph
or section 2620 for fiscal year 2005 and subsequent fiscal
years, the cases counted for each 12-month period beginning
on or after July 1, 2004, shall be cases of HIV disease (as
reported to and confirmed by such Director) rather than cases
of acquired immune deficiency syndrome'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (H) as
subparagraphs (F) through (I), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following
subparagraph:
``(E) Determination of secretary regarding data on hiv
cases.--If under 2603(a)(3)(D)(i) the Secretary determines
that data on cases of HIV disease are not sufficiently
accurate and reliable, then notwithstanding subparagraph (D)
of this paragraph, for any fiscal year prior to fiscal year
2007 the references in such subparagraph to cases of HIV
disease do not have any legal effect.''.
(c) Increases in Formula Amount.--Section 2618(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1) of this section) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``and then, as applicable, increased
under paragraph (2)(H)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``subparagraph
(H)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (H) and (I)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (H) (as redesignated by subsection
(b)(2) of this section), by amending the subparagraph to read
as follows:
``(H) Limitation.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
amount of a grant awarded to a State or territory under
section 2611 or subparagraph (I)(i) for a fiscal year is not
less than--
``(I) with respect to fiscal year 2001, 99 percent;
``(II) with respect to fiscal year 2002, 98 percent;
``(III) with respect to fiscal year 2003, 97 percent;
``(IV) with respect to fiscal year 2004, 96 percent; and
``(V) with respect to fiscal year 2005, 95 percent,
of the amount such State or territory received for fiscal
year 2000 under section 2611 or subparagraph (I)(i),
respectively (notwithstanding such subparagraph). In
administering this subparagraph, the Secretary shall, with
respect to States or territories that will under such section
receive grants in amounts that exceed the amounts that such
States received under such section or subparagraph for fiscal
year 2000, proportionally reduce such amounts to ensure
compliance with this subparagraph. In making such reductions,
the Secretary shall ensure that no such State receives less
than that State received for fiscal year 2000.
``(ii) Ratable reduction.--If the amount appropriated under
section 2677 for a fiscal year and available for grants under
section 2611 or subparagraph (I)(i) is less than the amount
appropriated and available for fiscal year 2000 under section
2611 or subparagraph (I)(i), respectively, the limitation
contained in clause (i) for the grants involved shall be
reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage of the
reduction in such amounts appropriated and available.''.
(d) Territories.--Section 2618(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this
section) is amended in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``the
greater of $50,000 or'' after ``shall be''.
(e) Separate Treatment Drug Grants.--Section 2618(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1) of this section and amended by subsection (b)(2) of
this section) is amended in paragraph (2)(I)--
(1) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively;
(2) by striking ``(I) Appropriations'' and all that follows
through ``With respect to'' and inserting the following:
``(I) Appropriations for treatment drug program.--
``(i) Formula grants.--With respect to'';
(3) in subclause (I) of clause (i) (as designated by
paragraphs (1) and (2)), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, less the percentage reserved under clause
(ii)(V)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following clause:
``(ii) Supplemental treatment drug grants.--
``(I) In general.--From amounts made available under
subclause (V), the Secretary shall make supplemental grants
to States described in subclause (II) to enable such States
to increase access to therapeutics described in section
2616(a), as provided by the State under section 2616(c)(2).
``(II) Eligible states.--For purposes of subclause (I), a
State described in this subclause is a State that, in
accordance with criteria established by the Secretary,
demonstrates a severe need for a grant under such subclause.
In developing such criteria, the Secretary shall consider
eligibility standards, formulary composition, and the number
of eligible individuals at or below 200 percent of the
official poverty line to whom the State is unable to provide
therapeutics described in section 2616(a).
``(III) State requirements.--The Secretary may not make a
grant to a State under this clause unless the State agrees
that--
``(aa) the State will make available (directly or through
donations from public or private entities) non-Federal
contributions toward the activities to carried out under the
grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal funds
provided in the grant; and
``(bb) the State will not impose eligibility requirements
for services or scope of benefits limitations under section
2616(a) that are more restrictive than such requirements in
effect as of January 1, 2000.
``(IV) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under
a grant under this clause shall only be used by the State to
provide HIV/AIDS-related medications. The State shall
coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise
provided under section 2616(a) in order to maximize drug
coverage.
``(V) Funding.--For the purpose of making grants under this
clause, the Secretary shall each fiscal year reserve 3
percent of the amount referred to in clause (i) with respect
to section 2616, subject to subclause (VI).
``(VI) Limitation.--In reserving amounts under subclause
(V) and making grants under this clause for a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall ensure for each State that the total of
the grant under section 2611 for the State for the fiscal
year and the grant under clause (i) for the State for the
fiscal year is not less than such total for the State for the
preceding fiscal year.''.
(f) Technical Amendment.--Section 2618(a) of the Public
Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of
this section) is amended in paragraph (3)(B) by striking
``and the Republic of the Marshall Islands'' and inserting
``the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States
of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, and only for
purposes of paragraph (1) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico''.
SEC. 207. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.
Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking section 2621; and
(2) by inserting after section 2619 the following section:
``SEC. 2620. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award supplemental
grants to States determined to be eligible under subsection
(b) to enable such States to provide comprehensive services
of the type described in section 2612(a) to supplement the
services otherwise provided by the State under a grant under
this subpart in emerging communities within the State that
are not eligible to receive grants under part A.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a
supplemental grant under subsection (a), a State shall--
``(1) be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart;
``(2) demonstrate the existence in the State of an emerging
community as defined in subsection (d)(1); and
``(3) submit the information described in subsection (c).
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--A State that desires a grant
under this section shall, as part of the State application
submitted under section 2617, submit a detailed description
of the manner in which the State will use amounts received
under the grant and of the severity of need. Such description
shall include--
``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental
funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of
such funds in the emerging community;
``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local
resources, both financial and in-kind;
``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
related activities at a level that is equal to not less than
the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year
period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is
applying to receive a grant under this part;
[[Page 21027]]
``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to
utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner
that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated
in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS
including appropriate allocations for services for infants,
children, women, and families with HIV disease;
``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning
process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and
individuals with HIV disease; and
``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed
services are consistent with local needs assessments and the
statewide coordinated statement of need.
``(d) Definition of Emerging Community.--In this section,
the term `emerging community' means a metropolitan area--
``(1) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
``(2) for which there has been reported to the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative
total of between 500 and 1999 cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar
years for which such data are available (except that, for
fiscal year 2005 and subsequent fiscal years, cases of HIV
disease shall be counted rather than cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome if cases of HIV disease are being counted
for purposes of section 2618(a)(2)(D)(i)).
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), with respect
to each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2001, the
Secretary, to carry out this section, shall utilize--
``(A) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(a)(2)(I), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;
to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 1000, but less than 2000, cases of AIDS as
reported to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for the five year period
preceding the year for which the grant is being awarded; and
``(B) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(a)(2)(I), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;
to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 500, but less than 1000, cases of AIDS reported
to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for the five year period preceding the
year for which the grant is being awarded.
``(2) Trigger of funding.--This section shall be effective
only for fiscal years beginning in the first fiscal year in
which the amount appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B,
excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(a)(2)(I), exceeds by at least $20,000,000 the amount
appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B in fiscal year
2000, excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(a)(2)(I).
``(3) Minimum amount in future years.--Beginning with the
first fiscal year in which amounts provided for emerging
communities under paragraph (1)(A) equals $5,000,000 and
under paragraph (1)(B) equals $5,000,000, the Secretary shall
ensure that amounts made available under this section for the
types of emerging communities described in each such
paragraph in subsequent fiscal years is at least $5,000,000.
``(4) Distribution.--Grants under this section for emerging
communities shall be formula grants. There shall be two
categories of such formula grants, as follows:
``(A) One category of such grants shall be for emerging
communities for which the cumulative total of cases for
purposes of subsection (d)(2) is 999 or fewer cases. The
grant made to such an emerging community for a fiscal year
shall be the product of--
``(i) an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount available
pursuant to this subsection for the fiscal year involved; and
``(ii) a percentage equal to the ratio constituted by the
number of cases for such emerging community for the fiscal
year over the aggregate number of such cases for such year
for all emerging communities to which this subparagraph
applies.
``(B) The other category of formula grants shall be for
emerging communities for which the cumulative total of cases
for purposes of subsection (d)(2) is 1000 or more cases. The
grant made to such an emerging community for a fiscal year
shall be the product of--
``(i) an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount available
pursuant to this subsection for the fiscal year involved; and
``(ii) a percentage equal to the ratio constituted by the
number of cases for such community for the fiscal year over
the aggregate number of such cases for the fiscal year for
all emerging communities to which this subparagraph
applies.''.
Subtitle B--Provisions Concerning Pregnancy and Perinatal Transmission
of HIV
SEC. 211. REPEALS.
Subpart II of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2626, by striking each of subsections (d)
through (f);
(2) by striking sections 2627 and 2628; and
(3) by redesignating section 2629 as section 2627.
SEC. 212. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2625(c) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the following
subparagraph:
``(F) Making available to pregnant women with HIV disease,
and to the infants of women with such disease, treatment
services for such disease in accordance with applicable
recommendations of the Secretary.'';
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Funding.--
``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001
through 2005. Amounts made available under section 2677 for
carrying out this part are not available for carrying out
this section unless otherwise authorized.
``(B) Allocations for certain states.--
``(i) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated under
subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year in excess of $10,000,000--
``(I) the Secretary shall reserve the applicable percentage
under clause (iv) for making grants under paragraph (1) both
to States described in clause (ii) and States described in
clause (iii); and
``(II) the Secretary shall reserve the remaining amounts
for other States, taking into consideration the factors
described in subparagraph (C)(iii), except that this
subclause does not apply to any State that for the fiscal
year involved is receiving amounts pursuant to subclause (I).
``(ii) Required testing of newborns.--For purposes of
clause (i)(I), the States described in this clause are States
that under law (including under regulations or the discretion
of State officials) have--
``(I) a requirement that all newborn infants born in the
State be tested for HIV disease and that the biological
mother of each such infant, and the legal guardian of the
infant (if other than the biological mother), be informed of
the results of the testing; or
``(II) a requirement that newborn infants born in the State
be tested for HIV disease in circumstances in which the
attending obstetrician for the birth does not know the HIV
status of the mother of the infant, and that the biological
mother of each such infant, and the legal guardian of the
infant (if other than the biological mother), be informed of
the results of the testing.
``(iii) Most significant reduction in cases of perinatal
transmission.--For purposes of clause (i)(I), the States
described in this clause are the following (exclusive of
States described in clause (ii)), as applicable:
``(I) For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the two States that,
relative to other States, have the most significant reduction
in the rate of new cases of the perinatal transmission of HIV
(as indicated by the number of such cases reported to the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for the most recent periods for which the data are
available).
``(II) For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the three States
that have the most significant such reduction.
``(III) For fiscal year 2005, the four States that have the
most significant such reduction.
``(iv) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of clause (i),
the applicable amount for a fiscal year is as follows:
``(I) For fiscal year 2001, 33 percent.
``(II) For fiscal year 2002, 50 percent.
``(III) For fiscal year 2003, 67 percent.
``(IV) For fiscal year 2004, 75 percent.
``(V) For fiscal year 2005, 75 percent.
``(C) Certain provisions.--With respect to grants under
paragraph (1) that are made with amounts reserved under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph:
``(i) Such a grant may not be made in an amount exceeding
$4,000,000.
``(ii) If pursuant to clause (i) or pursuant to an
insufficient number of qualifying applications for such
grants (or both), the full amount reserved under subparagraph
(B) for a fiscal year is not obligated, the requirement under
such subparagraph to reserve amounts ceases to apply.
``(iii) In the case of a State that meets the conditions to
receive amounts reserved under subparagraph (B)(i)(II), the
Secretary shall in making grants consider the following
factors:
``(I) The extent of the reduction in the rate of new cases
of the perinatal transmission of HIV.
``(II) The extent of the reduction in the rate of new cases
of perinatal cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
``(III) The overall incidence of cases of infection with
HIV among women of childbearing age.
``(IV) The overall incidence of cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome among women of childbearing age.
[[Page 21028]]
``(V) The higher acceptance rate of HIV testing of pregnant
women.
``(VI) The extent to which women and children with HIV
disease are receiving HIV-related health services.
``(VII) The extent to which HIV-exposed children are
receiving health services appropriate to such exposure.'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(4) Maintenance of effort.--A condition for the receipt
of a grant under paragraph (1) is that the State involved
agree that the grant will be used to supplement and not
supplant other funds available to the State to carry out the
purposes of the grant.''.
(b) Special Funding Rule for Fiscal Year 2001.--
(1) In general.--If for fiscal year 2001 the amount
appropriated under paragraph (2)(A) of section 2625(c) of the
Public Health Service Act is less than $14,000,000--
(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, for
the purpose of making grants under paragraph (1) of such
section, reserve from the amount specified in paragraph (2)
of this subsection an amount equal to the difference between
$14,000,000 and the amount appropriated under paragraph
(2)(A) of such section for such fiscal year (notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act or the amendments made by
this Act);
(B) the amount so reserved shall, for purposes of paragraph
(2)(B)(i) of such section, be considered to have been
appropriated under paragraph (2)(A) of such section; and
(C) the percentage specified in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I) of
such section is deemed to be 50 percent.
(2) Allocation from increases in funding for part b.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), the amount specified in this
paragraph is the amount by which the amount appropriated
under section 2677 of the Public Health Service Act for
fiscal year 2001 and available for grants under section 2611
of such Act is an increase over the amount so appropriated
and available for fiscal year 2000.
SEC. 213. STUDY BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.
Subpart II of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended by section 211(3), is amended by
adding at the end the following section:
``SEC. 2628. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING INCIDENCE OF
PERINATAL TRANSMISSION.
``(a) Study by Institute of Medicine.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall request the
Institute of Medicine to enter into an agreement with the
Secretary under which such Institute conducts a study to
provide the following:
``(A) For the most recent fiscal year for which the
information is available, a determination of the number of
newborn infants with HIV born in the United States with
respect to whom the attending obstetrician for the birth did
not know the HIV status of the mother.
``(B) A determination for each State of any barriers,
including legal barriers, that prevent or discourage an
obstetrician from making it a routine practice to offer
pregnant women an HIV test and a routine practice to test
newborn infants for HIV disease in circumstances in which the
obstetrician does not know the HIV status of the mother of
the infant.
``(C) Recommendations for each State for reducing the
incidence of cases of the perinatal transmission of HIV,
including recommendations on removing the barriers identified
under subparagraph (B).
If such Institute declines to conduct the study, the
Secretary shall enter into an agreement with another
appropriate public or nonprofit private entity to conduct the
study.
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that, not later
than 18 months after the effective date of this section, the
study required in paragraph (1) is completed and a report
describing the findings made in the study is submitted to the
appropriate committees of the Congress, the Secretary, and
the chief public health official of each of the States.
``(b) Progress Toward Recommendations.--In fiscal year
2004, the Secretary shall collect information from the States
describing the actions taken by the States toward meeting the
recommendations specified for the States under subsection
(a)(1)(C).
``(c) Submission of Reports to Congress.--The Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress
reports describing the information collected under subsection
(b).''.
Subtitle C--Certain Partner Notification Programs
SEC. 221. GRANTS FOR COMPLIANT PARTNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS.
Part B of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300ff-21 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following subpart:
``Subpart III--Certain Partner Notification Programs
``SEC. 2631. GRANTS FOR PARTNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of States whose laws or
regulations are in accordance with subsection (b), the
Secretary, subject to subsection (c)(2), may make grants to
the States for carrying out programs to provide partner
counseling and referral services.
``(b) Description of Compliant State Programs.--For
purposes of subsection (a), the laws or regulations of a
State are in accordance with this subsection if under such
laws or regulations (including programs carried out pursuant
to the discretion of State officials) the following policies
are in effect:
``(1) The State requires that the public health officer of
the State carry out a program of partner notification to
inform partners of individuals with HIV disease that the
partners may have been exposed to the disease.
``(2)(A) In the case of a health entity that provides for
the performance on an individual of a test for HIV disease,
or that treats the individual for the disease, the State
requires, subject to subparagraph (B), that the entity
confidentially report the positive test results to the State
public health officer in a manner recommended and approved by
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, together with such additional information as may
be necessary for carrying out such program.
``(B) The State may provide that the requirement of
subparagraph (A) does not apply to the testing of an
individual for HIV disease if the individual underwent the
testing through a program designed to perform the test and
provide the results to the individual without the individual
disclosing his or her identity to the program. This
subparagraph may not be construed as affecting the
requirement of subparagraph (A) with respect to a health
entity that treats an individual for HIV disease.
``(3) The program under paragraph (1) is carried out in
accordance with the following:
``(A) Partners are provided with an appropriate opportunity
to learn that the partners have been exposed to HIV disease,
subject to subparagraph (B).
``(B) The State does not inform partners of the identity of
the infected individuals involved.
``(C) Counseling and testing for HIV disease are made
available to the partners and to infected individuals, and
such counseling includes information on modes of transmission
for the disease, including information on prenatal and
perinatal transmission and preventing transmission.
``(D) Counseling of infected individuals and their partners
includes the provision of information regarding therapeutic
measures for preventing and treating the deterioration of the
immune system and conditions arising from the disease, and
the provision of other prevention-related information.
``(E) Referrals for appropriate services are provided to
partners and infected individuals, including referrals for
support services and legal aid.
``(F) Notifications under subparagraph (A) are provided in
person, unless doing so is an unreasonable burden on the
State.
``(G) There is no criminal or civil penalty on, or civil
liability for, an infected individual if the individual
chooses not to identify the partners of the individual, or
the individual does not otherwise cooperate with such
program.
``(H) The failure of the State to notify partners is not a
basis for the civil liability of any health entity who under
the program reported to the State the identity of the
infected individual involved.
``(I) The State provides that the provisions of the program
may not be construed as prohibiting the State from providing
a notification under subparagraph (A) without the consent of
the infected individual involved.
``(4) The State annually reports to the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the number of
individuals from whom the names of partners have been sought
under the program under paragraph (1), the number of such
individuals who provided the names of partners, and the
number of partners so named who were notified under the
program.
``(5) The State cooperates with such Director in carrying
out a national program of partner notification, including the
sharing of information between the public health officers of
the States.
``(c) Reporting System for Cases of HIV Disease; Preference
in Making Grants.--In making grants under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall give preference to States whose reporting
systems for cases of HIV disease produce data on such cases
that is sufficiently accurate and reliable for use for
purposes of section 2618(a)(2)(D)(i).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2005.''.
TITLE III--EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES
Subtitle A--Formula Grants for States
SEC. 301. REPEAL OF PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subpart I of part C of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et seq.) is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Part C of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et seq.), as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparts II and III as subparts I and
II, respectively;
(2) in section 2661(a), by striking ``unless--'' and all
that follows through ``(2) in the case of'' and inserting
``unless, in the case of''; and
[[Page 21029]]
(3) in section 2664--
(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``2642(b) or'';
(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``2642(b) or''; and
(C) by striking subsection (h).
Subtitle B--Categorical Grants
SEC. 311. PREFERENCES IN MAKING GRANTS.
Section 2653 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-53) is amended by adding at the end the following
subsection:
``(d) Certain Areas.--Of the applicants who qualify for
preference under this section--
``(1) the Secretary shall give preference to applicants
that will expend the grant under section 2651 to provide
early intervention under such section in rural areas; and
``(2) the Secretary shall give special consideration to
areas that are underserved with respect to such services.''.
SEC. 312. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2654(c)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)(1)) is amended by striking
``planning grants'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``planning grants to public and nonprofit private
entities for purposes of--
``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early
intervention services; and
``(B) assisting the entities in expanding their capacity to
provide HIV-related health services, including early
intervention services, in low-income communities and affected
subpopulations that are underserved with respect to such
services (subject to the condition that a grant pursuant to
this subparagraph may not be expended to purchase or improve
land, or to purchase, construct, or permanently improve,
other than minor remodeling, any building or other
facility).''.
(b) Amount; Duration.--Section 2654(c) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
``(B) Capacity development.--
``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under
paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3
years.''.
(c) Increase in Limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)(5)), as
redesignated by subsection (b), is amended by striking ``1
percent'' and inserting ``5 percent''.
SEC. 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 2655 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-55) is amended by striking ``in each of'' and all that
follows and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2001
through 2005.''.
Subtitle C--General Provisions
SEC. 321. PROVISION OF CERTAIN COUNSELING SERVICES.
Section 2662(c)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300ff-62(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``counseling on--'' and inserting ``counseling--'';
(2) in each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D), by
inserting ``on'' after the subparagraph designation; and
(3) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``(C) the benefits'' and inserting ``(C)(i)
that explains the benefits''; and
(B) by inserting after clause (i) (as designated by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) the following clause:
``(ii) that emphasizes it is the duty of infected
individuals to disclose their infected status to their sexual
partners and their partners in the sharing of hypodermic
needles; that provides advice to infected individuals on the
manner in which such disclosures can be made; and that
emphasizes that it is the continuing duty of the individuals
to avoid any behaviors that will expose others to HIV.''.
SEC. 322. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED AGREEMENTS.
Section 2664(g) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-64(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``7.5 percent'' and inserting ``10
percent''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(5) the applicant will provide for the establishment of a
quality management program--
``(A) to assess the extent to which medical services funded
under this title that are provided to patients are consistent
with the most recent Public Health Service guidelines for the
treatment of HIV disease and related opportunistic
infections, and as applicable, to develop strategies for
ensuring that such services are consistent with the
guidelines; and
``(B) to ensure that improvements in the access to and
quality of HIV health services are addressed.''.
TITLE IV--OTHER PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Subtitle A--Certain Programs for Research, Demonstrations, or Training
SEC. 401. GRANTS FOR COORDINATED SERVICES AND ACCESS TO
RESEARCH FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.
(a) Elimination of Requirement To Enroll Significant
Numbers of Women and Children.--Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D)
and inserting the following:
``(C) The applicant will demonstrate linkages to research
and how access to such research is being offered to
patients.''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(b) Information and Education.--Section 2671(d) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The applicant will provide individuals with
information and education on opportunities to participate in
HIV/AIDS-related clinical research.''.
(c) Quality Management; Administrative Expenses Ceiling.--
Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the subsection heading and designation and
inserting the following:
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) Application.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Quality management program.--A grantee under this
section shall implement a quality management program to
assess the extent to which HIV health services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infection, and as
applicable, to develop strategies for ensuring that such
services are consistent with the guidelines for improvement
in the access to and quality of HIV health services.''.
(d) Coordination.--Section 2671(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary acting through the Director of NIH, shall examine
the distribution and availability of ongoing and appropriate
HIV/AIDS-related research projects to existing sites under
this section for purposes of enhancing and expanding
voluntary access to HIV-related research, especially within
communities that are not reasonably served by such projects.
Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
a report that describes the findings made by the Director and
the manner in which the conclusions based on those findings
can be addressed.''.
(e) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2671 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following
subsection:
``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Ryan White Care Act
Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with
grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the
administrative, program support, and direct service-related
activities that are carried out under this part to ensure
that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related
health and support services and research opportunities under
this part, and to support the provision of such services.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph
(1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this
part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of
the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2671 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended in
subsection (j) (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1) of this
section) by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 402. AIDS EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTERS.
(a) Schools; Centers.--
(1) In general.--Section 2692(a)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``training'' and inserting ``to train'';
(ii) by striking ``and including'' and inserting ``,
including''; and
(iii) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
and including (as applicable to the type of health
professional involved), prenatal and other gynecological care
for women with HIV disease'';
[[Page 21030]]
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to develop protocols for the medical care of women
with HIV disease, including prenatal and other gynecological
care for such women.''.
(2) Dissemination of treatment guidelines; medical
consultation activities.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall issue and begin implementation of a
strategy for the dissemination of HIV treatment information
to health care providers and patients.
(b) Dental Schools.--Section 2692(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to dental
schools and programs described in subparagraph (B) to assist
such schools and programs with respect to oral health care to
patients with HIV disease.
``(B) Eligible applicants.--For purposes of this
subsection, the dental schools and programs referred to in
this subparagraph are dental schools and programs that were
described in section 777(b)(4)(B) as such section was in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-392) and in addition dental hygiene programs that are
accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``777(b)(4)(B)'' and
inserting ``the section referred to in paragraph (1)(B)'';
and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following
paragraph:
``(5) Community-based care.--The Secretary may make grants
to dental schools and programs described in paragraph (1)(B)
that partner with community-based dentists to provide oral
health care to patients with HIV disease in unserved areas.
Such partnerships shall permit the training of dental
students and residents and the participation of community
dentists as adjunct faculty.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Schools; centers.--Section 2692(c)(1) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
(2) Dental schools.--Section 2692(c)(2) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(c)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Dental schools.--
``(A) In general.--For the purpose of grants under
paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b), there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
``(B) Community-based care.--For the purpose of grants
under subsection (b)(5), there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
Subtitle B--General Provisions in Title XXVI
SEC. 411. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.
Section 2674(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-74(c)) is amended by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and
inserting ``2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 412. DATA COLLECTION THROUGH CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
AND PREVENTION.
Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
318A the following section:
``data collection regarding programs under title xxvi
``Sec. 318B. For the purpose of collecting and providing
data for program planning and evaluation activities under
title XXVI, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary (acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention) such sums as may be necessary
for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Such
authorization of appropriations is in addition to other
authorizations of appropriations that are available for such
purpose.''.
SEC. 413. COORDINATION.
Section 2675 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-75) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, and the Health Care
Financing Administration coordinate the planning, funding,
and implementation of Federal HIV programs to enhance the
continuity of care and prevention services for individuals
with HIV disease or those at risk of such disease. The
Secretary shall consult with other Federal agencies,
including the Department of Veterans Affairs, as needed and
utilize planning information submitted to such agencies by
the States and entities eligible for support.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following
subsection:
``(b) Report.--The Secretary shall biennially prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report
concerning the coordination efforts at the Federal, State,
and local levels described in this section, including a
description of Federal barriers to HIV program integration
and a strategy for eliminating such barriers and enhancing
the continuity of care and prevention services for
individuals with HIV disease or those at risk of such
disease.''; and
(4) in each of subsections (c) and (d) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2) of this section), by inserting ``and prevention
services'' after ``continuity of care'' each place such term
appears.
SEC. 414. PLAN REGARDING RELEASE OF PRISONERS WITH HIV
DISEASE.
Section 2675 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended
by section 413(2) of this Act, is amended by adding at the
end the following subsection:
``(e) Recommendations Regarding Release of Prisoners.--
After consultation with the Attorney General and the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons, with States, with eligible areas
under part A, and with entities that receive amounts from
grants under part A or B, the Secretary, consistent with the
coordination required in subsection (a), shall develop a plan
for the medical case management of and the provision of
support services to individuals who were Federal or State
prisoners and had HIV disease as of the date on which the
individuals were released from the custody of the penal
system. The Secretary shall submit the plan to the Congress
not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000.''.
SEC. 415. AUDITS.
Part D of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 2675 the following section:
``SEC. 2675A. AUDITS.
``For fiscal year 2002 and subsequent fiscal years, the
Secretary may reduce the amounts of grants under this title
to a State or political subdivision of a State for a fiscal
year if, with respect to such grants for the second preceding
fiscal year, the State or subdivision fails to prepare audits
in accordance with the procedures of section 7502 of title
31, United States Code. The Secretary shall annually select
representative samples of such audits, prepare summaries of
the selected audits, and submit the summaries to the
Congress.''.
SEC. 416. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.
Part D of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended by section 415 of this Act, is amended by inserting
after section 2675A the following section:
``SEC. 2675B. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION REGARDING PARTS A
AND B.
``(a) Coordinated Disbursement.--After consultation with
the States, with eligible areas under part A, and with
entities that receive amounts from grants under part A or B,
the Secretary shall develop a plan for coordinating the
disbursement of appropriations for grants under part A with
the disbursement of appropriations for grants under part B in
order to assist grantees and other recipients of amounts from
such grants in complying with the requirements of such parts.
The Secretary shall submit the plan to the Congress not later
than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the Ryan
White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. Not later than 2 years
after the date on which the plan is so submitted, the
Secretary shall complete the implementation of the plan,
notwithstanding any provision of this title that is
inconsistent with the plan.
``(b) Biennial Applications.--After consultation with the
States, with eligible areas under part A, and with entities
that receive amounts from grants under part A or B, the
Secretary shall make a determination of whether the
administration of parts A and B by the Secretary, and the
efficiency of grantees under such parts in complying with the
requirements of such parts, would be improved by requiring
that applications for grants under such parts be submitted
biennially rather than annually. The Secretary shall submit
such determination to the Congress not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000.
``(c) Application Simplification.--After consultation with
the States, with eligible areas under part A, and with
entities that receive amounts from grants under part A or B,
the Secretary shall develop a plan for simplifying the
process for applications under parts A and B. The Secretary
shall submit the plan to the Congress not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of the Ryan White CARE
Act Amendments of 2000. Not later than 2 years after the date
on which the plan is so submitted, the Secretary shall
complete the implementation of the plan, notwithstanding any
provision of this title that is inconsistent with the
plan.''.
SEC. 417. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PARTS A AND B.
Section 2677 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-77) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Part A.--For the purpose of carrying out part A,
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
[[Page 21031]]
``(b) Part B.--For the purpose of carrying out part B,
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. STUDIES BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.
(a) State Surveillance Systems on Prevalence of HIV.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this
section as the ``Secretary'') shall request the Institute of
Medicine to enter into an agreement with the Secretary under
which such Institute conducts a study to provide the
following:
(1) A determination of whether the surveillance system of
each of the States regarding the human immunodeficiency virus
provides for the reporting of cases of infection with the
virus in a manner that is sufficient to provide adequate and
reliable information on the number of such cases and the
demographic characteristics of such cases, both for the State
in general and for specific geographic areas in the State.
(2) A determination of whether such information is
sufficiently accurate for purposes of formula grants under
parts A and B of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act.
(3) With respect to any State whose surveillance system
does not provide adequate and reliable information on cases
of infection with the virus, recommendations regarding the
manner in which the State can improve the system.
(b) Relationship Between Epidemiological Measures and
Health Care for Certain Individuals With HIV Disease.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall request the Institute
of Medicine to enter into an agreement with the Secretary
under which such Institute conducts a study concerning the
appropriate epidemiological measures and their relationship
to the financing and delivery of primary care and health-
related support services for low-income, uninsured, and
under-insured individuals with HIV disease.
(2) Issues to be considered.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the study under paragraph (1) considers the following:
(A) The availability and utility of health outcomes
measures and data for HIV primary care and support services
and the extent to which those measures and data could be used
to measure the quality of such funded services.
(B) The effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery
(including the quality of services, health outcomes, and
resource use) within the context of a changing health care
and therapeutic environment, as well as the changing
epidemiology of the epidemic, including determining the
actual costs, potential savings, and overall financial impact
of modifying the program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act to establish eligibility for medical assistance
under such title on the basis of infection with the human
immunodeficiency virus rather than providing such assistance
only if the infection has progressed to acquired immune
deficiency syndrome.
(C) Existing and needed epidemiological data and other
analytic tools for resource planning and allocation
decisions, specifically for estimating severity of need of a
community and the relationship to the allocations process.
(D) Other factors determined to be relevant to assessing an
individual's or community's ability to gain and sustain
access to quality HIV services.
(c) Other Entities.--If the Institute of Medicine declines
to conduct a study under this section, the Secretary shall
enter into an agreement with another appropriate public or
nonprofit private entity to conduct the study.
(d) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(1) not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the study required in subsection (a) is
completed and a report describing the findings made in the
study is submitted to the appropriate committees of the
Congress; and
(2) not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the study required in subsection (b) is
completed and a report describing the findings made in the
study is submitted to such committees.
SEC. 502. DEVELOPMENT OF RAPID HIV TEST.
(a) Expansion, Intensification, and Coordination of
Research and Other Activities.--
(1) In general.--The Director of NIH shall expand,
intensify, and coordinate research and other activities of
the National Institutes of Health with respect to the
development of reliable and affordable tests for HIV disease
that can rapidly be administered and whose results can
rapidly be obtained (in this section referred to a ``rapid
HIV test'').
(2) Report to congress.--The Director of NIH shall
periodically submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
a report describing the research and other activities
conducted or supported under paragraph (1).
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(b) Premarket Review of Rapid HIV Tests.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall
submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report
describing the progress made towards, and barriers to, the
premarket review and commercial distribution of rapid HIV
tests. The report shall--
(A) assess the public health need for and public health
benefits of rapid HIV tests, including the minimization of
false positive results through the availability of multiple
rapid HIV tests;
(B) make recommendations regarding the need for the
expedited review of rapid HIV test applications submitted to
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and, if such
recommendations are favorable, specify criteria and
procedures for such expedited review; and
(C) specify whether the barriers to the premarket review of
rapid HIV tests include the unnecessary application of
requirements--
(i) necessary to ensure the efficacy of devices for donor
screening to rapid HIV tests intended for use in other
screening situations; or
(ii) for identifying antibodies to HIV subtypes of rare
incidence in the United States to rapid HIV tests intended
for use in screening situations other than donor screening.
(c) Guidelines of Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.--Promptly after commercial distribution of a
rapid HIV test begins, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
shall establish or update guidelines that include
recommendations for States, hospitals, and other appropriate
entities regarding the ready availability of such tests for
administration to pregnant women who are in labor or in the
late stage of pregnancy and whose HIV status is not known to
the attending obstetrician.
SEC. 503. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Public Health Service Act.--Title XXVI of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2605(d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section 2608'' and
inserting ``section 2677''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``section'' before
2601(a)''; and
(2) in section 2673(a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research'' and inserting ``the Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality''.
(b) Related Act.--The first paragraph (2) of section 3(c)
of the Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law
104-146; 110 Stat. 1354) is amended in subparagraph (A)(iii)
by striking ``by inserting the following new paragraph:'' and
inserting ``by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so
redesignated) the following new paragraph''.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect
October 1, 2000, or upon the date of the enactment of this
Act, whichever occurs later.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 611, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is long overdue. Before we get into
the topic of discussions on this bill, I think it is important that the
American public know that this reauthorization is going to allow at
least $1 billion per year to be spent in Ryan White CARE Act policies
and procedures. Also, the American public should know that we are going
to spend about $10 billion a year on this epidemic, both in terms of
research, drug treatments, and all associated factors with it.
As we think about that, if we were to apply the same efforts to many
other diseases in our country, we would be achieving far more than we
are today.
This bill is long overdue. It is long overdue in a lot of ways. It is
long overdue because the government has failed through the CDC and the
FDA and the NIH to appropriately handle this epidemic.
Two decades ago, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was recognized. Our Federal
response to HIV/AIDS epidemic at that time was to ignore proven public
health policies. This bill institutes for the first time in the Ryan
White CARE Act proven public health policies that will, in fact, make a
difference in the number of people who are infected.
These include ensuring medical access to all who are infected, not a
special select few; early intervention in
[[Page 21032]]
people who are infected; reliable disease surveillance and partner
notification, including a responsibility to not infect anyone else with
this disease. We will also, for the first time, recognize all of those
living with HIV rather than focusing exclusively on those with AIDS.
There are many other noteworthy changes made by this bill. Waiting
lists to access life-saving HIV medications under the AIDS Drug
Assistance program will be eliminated. Prevention will be incorporated
as part of the comprehensive care program. Planning councils will be
more representative of the infected population. Patients who rely on
the CARE Act for their well-being will be given a greater voice in
priority setting, and accountability safeguards will ensure that
Federal AIDS funds will be spent on needed patient care. This bill will
also provide Federal assistance to States to ensure that all pregnant
women with HIV and their children are identified and provided care.
One of the most promising victories in the battle against AIDS was a
1994 finding that the administration of a drug could significantly
reduce the chance that a child born to an HIV positive mother would
become infected. Yet, despite these miracles, a significant number of
women still are not tested for HIV during their pregnancy, and hundreds
of children are needlessly infected each year with an incurable disease
that will prematurely claim their lives.
This bill will provide up to $400 million annually to any State that
makes identifying and ensuring proper care for HIV and infected women
and their HIV-exposed newborns a priority.
The two States with such baby AIDS laws, New York and Connecticut,
have experienced great success. Universal newborn HIV testing has
resulted in the identification of all HIV-exposed births and has
allowed hospital and health department staff to ensure that over 98
percent of HIV positive mothers are aware of their HIV status and have
newborns referred for early diagnosis and care of HIV infection. That
is according to Dr. Guthrie Birkhead, the director of the New York AIDS
Institute.
Dr. Birkhead noted that the rates of prenatal care have been
increasing, not decreasing as we were told would happen. There has been
no detectable change in prenatal participation trends that might be
related to the newborn testing program.
The Connecticut baby AIDS law, which requires every newborn to be
screened for HIV if the mother's status is unknown, was enacted almost
a year ago. In the first 10 months, 26 newborns who were perinatally
exposed to HIV have been identified. This is more than four times as
many as were diagnosed with HIV in the previous 3 years combined.
This substantial financial incentive amounts to a Federal endorsement
of universal HIV newborn testing as a routine medical practice. I must
regrettably note that the organization in my profession that purports
to represent physicians who care for mothers and women has yet to
endorse this. The question we ought to ask ourselves is why the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, knowing that we
can save children's lives and we can treat women, has failed to yet
endorse this.
This bill will also provide additional resources to support partner
notification programs so that everyone who has been exposed to HIV is
given the right to know that exposure. In addition, it will empower
those who are infected to protect others from infection by providing
prevention counseling as a part of a comprehensive care program. This
includes providing advice on how to disclose one's HIV status to a
potential partner and emphasizing to those living with HIV that they
have a responsibility not to give this disease to anyone else.
Finally, the bill recognizes everyone living with HIV and guarantees
access to life-saving treatment to all who are infected. Current
funding formulas are based on AIDS infection, the end stage of HIV
infection. The CDC only recently recommended that States begin tracking
the full scope of the epidemic, not just AIDS. The American public
ought to be asking why has it waited so long.
Over 12 years ago, the Presidential Commission on HIV warned the
continual focus on AIDS rather than the full spectrum of HIV disease
has left our Nation unable to deal adequately with the epidemic. Well,
this bill changes that. This observation was absolutely correct. Yet,
it was ignored by the CDC and Federal policy makers. The results have
been devastating.
While our attention was placed on AIDS, the virus silently spread
through communities of color, and more and more women became
unknowingly infected. Only now are AIDS statistics revealing the paths
that the virus took 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the casualties are
increasingly rising for women and women of color.
While women and African-Americans comprise the majority of new HIV
infections, they also receive less appropriate care according to the
General Accounting Office. This is a direct result of the CARE Act's
misplaced emphasis on AIDS data and determining funding and priority
setting. That has changed with this bill.
All of these changes, while long overdue, will do much to improve our
Nation's responsibilities to HIV and AIDS by ensuring medical access to
all of those who are infected and by providing the proper care for all.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record, as
follows:
General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, August 24, 2000.
Hon. Tom A. Coburn,
Vice Chair, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committee
on Commerce, House of Representatives.
Subject: Ryan White CARE Act: Title I Funding for San
Francisco
Dear Mr. Coburn: This letter responds to your request for
additional information regarding funding for San Francisco
under the Ryan White CARE Act. Specifically, you asked that
we compare San Francisco's fiscal year 2000 title I grant
award, which was determined using the act's hold-harmless
provision, with what the award would have been had deceased
AIDS cases been included in the calculation. You also asked
how funding for San Francisco that was based on the inclusion
of deceased AIDS cases would have compared with the amount
San Francisco would have received if the fiscal year 2000
hold-harmless level had been reduced by 25 percent.
In brief, San Francisco's fiscal year 2000 title I grant
award would have been 26 percent less had both living and
deceased AIDS cases been used to calculate the award instead
of the current hold-harmless provision. The reason for this
result is the substantial decline in newly reported AIDS
cases in San Francisco compared with other eligible
metropolitan areas (EMA). Therefore, a 25-percent reduction
in the current hold-harmless level would have provided San
Francisco with funding comparable to what it would have
received if title I grants had been calculated on the basis
of both deceased and living cases.
This analysis is based on data obtained from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and computer models we
developed to calculate how funding would change under various
formula scenarios. We performed our work in August 2000
according to generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Background
The Ryan White CARE Act of 1990 provides health care and
preventive services to people infected with the human
immunodeficiency virus. Prior to the 1996 reauthorization of
the act, the number of both living and deceased AIDS cases
was used to distribute title I funds among EMAs. Under this
practice, areas of the country with the longest experience
with the disease had the most deceased cases and therefore
received funding disproportionate to their share of living
cases in need of care. The 1996 reauthorization eliminated
this practice by counting only live AIDS cases. The effect of
the change was to shift funding away from EMAs with higher
proportions of deceased cases and toward those with newly
diagnosed cases. As geographic trends in the disease change,
the revised formula automatically realigns funding with the
current distribution of the disease.
A hold-harmless provision was also included in the 1996
reauthorization to provide for a gradual transition to new
funding levels for those EMAs that would otherwise have
experienced substantial funding decreases. This provision
allowed grant awards for affected EMAs to decline by no more
than 5 percent by fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 1996, four
EMAs benefited from the hold-harmless provision: San
Francisco, New York, Houston, and Jersey City. By fiscal year
1999, all but San Francisco had made the transition to the
new formula.
Under the current title I formula, EMAs receive grant
awards that are proportional
[[Page 21033]]
to the number of living AIDS cases. In fiscal year 2000, Los
Angeles had 6.9 percent of all AIDS cases nationally and
received 6.7 percent of title I funding. Similarly, Miami had
4.4 percent of all AIDS cases and received 4.3 percent of
title I funding. EMAs received $1,290 in title I funds per
AIDS case in fiscal year 2000. However, because of the hold-
harmless provision, San Francisco's grant award was
substantially higher: it received $2,360 per AIDS case, or 80
percent more than other EMAs. As a consequence, San Francisco
received 6.7 percent of title I formula funding even though
it had just 3.8 percent of all living AIDS cases.
RESULTS OF DIFFERENT FUNDING APPROACHES
If both deceased and living AIDS cases had been used to
calculate fiscal year 2000 title I formula grants instead of
the hold-harmless provision, San Francisco's grant would have
been about 4.9 percent of all title I formula funding, or 26
percent less than it actually was (see fig. 1). Thus, a 25-
percent reduction in the current hold-harmless level, as
provided for in H.R. 4807, would have an effect on San
Francisco's funding similar to that of calculating grant
awards on the basis of both deceased and living cases.
An important reason that San Francisco's share of living
AIDS cases is so much lower than its share of title I formula
funding is that the rate of new cases has declined to a much
greater extent in San Francisco than in almost any other area
of the country. As figure 2 shows, San Francisco's newly
reported AIDS cases dropped by over 50 percent between 1990
and 1999, while other EMAs have shown either smaller declines
(Los Angeles) or increases (Miami).
At the start of the decade, Los Angeles and San Francisco
were reporting nearly the same number of new AIDS cases
(2,130 in Los Angeles and 1,923 in San Francisco). By the end
of the decade, San Francisco was reporting half as many new
cases as Los Angeles (904 compared with 2,027). Similarly, at
the start of the decade, Miami was reporting about half as
many new AIDS cases as San Francisco (1,076 in Miami compared
with 1,923 in San Francisco). By the end of the decade, Miami
was reporting about 70 percent more new cases than San
Francisco.
We did not obtain comments from other parties because your
request pertains to the formula provisions in the law and not
to the activities of any agency or organization.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact me at (202) 512-7118 or Jerry Fastrup at (202) 512-
7211. Greg Dybalski and Michael Williams made major
contributions to this work.
Sincerely yours,
Janet Heinrich,
Associate Director, Health Financing
and Public Health Issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1045
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I first want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their outstanding work
on the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000.
I also want to acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Eshoo). Her constituents should know she worked exceptionally hard on
this bill, particularly on those provisions with particular
significance to San Francisco. The same can be said of the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi). She deserves a great deal of credit and
praise for her ongoing involvement and input on these provisions.
This bill required a tremendous amount of work and negotiation. Staff
members Paul Kim and Roland Foster put in a staggering number of hours,
and it shows in the quality of the final product. John Ford, Marc
Wheat, Karen Nelson, Eleanor Dehoney also deserves our thanks, as well
as Stacey Rampey and Scott Boule.
Over the last several years, much has been written about ``The
changing face of AIDS.'' This is not a wholly accurate
characterization. HIV/AIDS is not a moving target. It does not leave
one population when it moves to another population. Instead, HIV/AIDS
expands to absorb new populations while continuing its progression in
groups already affected by the virus.
When the AIDS epidemic surfaced in this country 19 years ago, white
gay males were the at-risk population. That has not changed. The
population still is at an elevated risk. But the epidemic has expanded
its reach dramatically in these 2 decades. The latest HIV/AIDS
statistics show that African American and Latino communities are
significantly over-represented in the number of new HIV infections.
African Americans comprise 12 percent of the population but accounted
for more than 50 percent of the estimated 40,000 new HIV infections in
1999.
The aggressive nature of this virus calls for an equally aggressive
response, and it speaks to the importance of updating and reauthorizing
the Ryan White Act. Ryan White programs get information and services to
the people who need them. They combat the illness as well as the
alienation and isolation that can be one of its most disabling effects.
If HIV/AIDS is a war, and it is set to kill more people worldwide
than World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined, then the
Ryan White programs are this Nation's front line defenses. The act was
created in memory of Ryan White, a young teenager who became a national
hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Ryan wanted to attend school. He
wanted to be treated like other young people. Those seem like modest
goals, but he had to overcome tremendous obstacles to achieve them.
Ryan was a hemophiliac and contracted HIV through a bad blood
transfusion. But he fought against ignorance, he fought against fear,
he fought against prejudice on behalf of all individuals with HIV/AIDS.
Ryan died on April 8, 1990, at the age of 18. Ten years after his
death, the law named after him carries on his legacy.
The Ryan White CARE Act has made a tremendous difference in the lives
of people living with HIV/AIDS. In my district, which includes much of
Ohio's only title I-eligible metropolitan area, so-called EMA, Ryan
White programs provide primary care and support services and the kinds
of medications that can tame HIV/AIDS into a chronic, rather than an
acute, illness. There is more to do, and the Ryan White Act will
continue to play a pivotal role.
In Ohio, while AIDS deaths have declined, the incidence of HIV/AIDS
has increased dramatically. After declining steadily, the incidence of
HIV/AIDS among young gay males is again on the rise. HIV/AIDS is
expanding into new populations while continuing to spread in those
populations originally at risk. Prevention is vital; treatment is
vital; Ryan White programs are vital.
During the 13th International AIDS Conference held in Durbin, South
Africa, scientists shared some amazing research findings. These
findings provide sorely needed hope for developing nations ravaged by
HIV/AIDS. The research indicates that the so-called AIDS cocktails,
which have revolutionized HIV/AIDS treatment in the U.S. and other
industrialized nations, can be successfully used even in countries
lacking a sophisticated health care infrastructure.
That does not mean it will be easy. There must have been times when
Ryan White himself felt overwhelmed by the intransigence, the
callousness, and the hatred that he encountered. This Nation should
fight AIDS here and abroad with that sense of commitment that he had.
Reauthorizing Ryan White is part of that commitment, and I urge its
passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for being here to lead our side on this very, very
significant bill.
I too arise in support of this amendment to S. 2311, the Ryan White
CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This final legislation is the result of
negotiations between the Senate and the House, and the resulting bill
is designed to bring the CARE Act into the 21st century.
I salute my committee colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their
excellent work on this legislation; and I urge Members to support its
passage.
My Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on the bill,
and the full Committee on Commerce approved it by voice vote after
adopting several bipartisan amendments to further refine and strengthen
this very important measure.
[[Page 21034]]
Before the August recess, the House approved legislation to
reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act with strong bipartisan support. The
act provides critical funding to address the needs of patients living
with HIV and AIDS. S. 2311 reflects the agreements reached between the
House and the Senate, and I expect this bill to be signed into law in
the near future.
The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency, or ``CARE''
Act as we call it, was enacted in 1990 and Congress approved bipartisan
legislation to reauthorize the law in 1996. The Ryan White CARE Act
provides critical funding for health and social services to the
estimated 1 million Americans living with HIV and AIDS. The bill before
us will ensure that these patients continue to receive the care and
medications they need to enhance and prolong their lives.
The bill makes an important change by relying on the number of HIV-
infected individuals as opposed to only the number of persons living
with AIDS as the basis for allocating funding under titles I and II of
the Ryan White CARE Act. By targeting resources to the front line of
the epidemic, we will be able to reduce transmission rates and ensure
the necessary infrastructure is in place to provide care to HIV-
positive individuals as soon as possible.
This change will allow the Federal Government to be proactive instead
of reactive in the fight against HIV and AIDS. It should be noted,
however, Mr. Speaker, that this shift will only occur when reliable
data on HIV prevalence is available.
The bill also includes a ``hold harmless'' provision to ensure that
no metropolitan area will suffer a drastic reduction in CARE Act funds.
The bill which originally passed the House would have hurt certain
cities such as San Francisco. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I will
submit for the Record a letter that GAO sent to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). After lengthy negotiations, it has been agreed
the hold harmless reduction will be a compromised 15 percent over the
next 5 years.
The Ryan White CARE Act must be reauthorized to improve our public
health strategies. The bill before us will ensure that the HIV/AIDS
epidemic can be tracked more accurately and that appropriate funding
and information about this disease can be directed effectively. I have
been very encouraged to hear from patient advocates in support of this
measure. For example, AIDS Action stated that it is ``very pleased with
the compromise bill that has been negotiated between the House and the
Senate. It represents a modernization of the CARE Act and will allow us
to provide quality care for people with HIV and AIDS.''
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to again recognize the hard work of
all the Members and their staffs, whose bipartisan efforts advanced
this reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who I mentioned previously,
and staff members Roland Foster and Paul Kim worked very hard to
advance this measure in the House, working with Senators Jeffords,
Frist, and Kennedy. And obviously, working with my counterpart on the
other side in the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown),
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), et cetera, we were able to
craft this compromise legislation.
It is a critical piece of legislation that can literally save lives,
and I urge all Members to join me today in supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has been one of the real leaders in
this whole process in pulling this bill together.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to compliment him on his great leadership on this
legislation; he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for
their leadership, and I associate myself with the comments that the
gentleman from Florida made in recognition of those who worked so hard
to make it a success; and, if it is allowed, to especially recognize
the work of Senator Kennedy for bringing about the compromises that
exist in this bill.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been a champion in
Congress since the onset of the AIDS epidemic, and his leadership is
very much in evidence in this bill; and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), helped us through some difficult times
here, but I think the product is one that this whole body can
wholeheartedly support. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.
Passage of this vital legislation is the most important action this
Congress can take on the issue of AIDS this year. And I would like to
thank again the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and also point out the
distinguished work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) lives in the same
metropolitan area that I do. We are in the same area for care and
treatment and prevention for people with HIV/AIDS. This is about care
today, but her leadership on the committee has been indispensable to
the success that we see here today with this legislation.
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, my district in San
Francisco has been one of the most severely impacted in the country.
When I came to the Congress 13 years ago, we had already lost over
13,000 of our friends and loved ones to the AIDS epidemic. That is
13,000, 13 years ago. We have suffered greatly, but we have learned a
lot we would like the rest of the country to benefit from as we have
responded to this challenge.
The Ryan White CARE Act was modeled on a system of community-based
care that we developed to face the crisis in the 1980s. As a result of
this work early in the epidemic, San Francisco produced data that
showed the country that comprehensive HIV/AIDS care and services not
only saved lives but also saved money and valuable health care
resources. Today, the CARE Act programs provide foundation for care and
treatment for low-income individuals with HIV and AIDS.
The recent declines we have seen in AIDS deaths are a direct result
of the therapies and services that have been made more widely available
through the CARE Act to large numbers of uninsured and underinsured
people with HIV and AIDS. Each year, the CARE Act ensures that
approximately half a million people, 500,000 people, living with HIV
and AIDS have access to the medical services, including pharmaceuticals
that are needed to sustain and prolong life. This represents
approximately two-thirds of the individuals living with HIV/AIDS in
this country.
Although great strides have been made, there is much more to be done.
The combination therapies that have brought us so much hope are still
not reaching all those in need. The changing nature of the HIV/AIDS
epidemic, along with the continuing impact of it in traditionally
affected communities, has created new challenges for the CARE Act.
People of color now represent the majority of new AIDS cases, and the
proportion of new AIDS cases among women has grown from 11 percent in
1990 to 23 percent in most recent statistics.
In addition, new HIV infections have remained constant at 40,000
cases per year. These new infections, combined with the decline in AIDS
deaths, means more individuals than ever before are living with HIV and
in need of treatment regimens that are costly, complicated and
lifelong. As a result, the demand on HIV care providers has grown.
The Ryan White CARE Act's remarkable ability to adapt to the changing
nature of the AIDS epidemic was confirmed earlier this year when a GAO
report concluded that the CARE Act is helping our public health
infrastructure adjust to these new challenges by
[[Page 21035]]
directing services to African Americans, Hispanics, and women in higher
proportions than their representation in the AIDS population.
Again, I thank our colleagues, including the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) and the Committee on Commerce for their great work. This
program is an important example of the way that effective leadership at
the Federal, State, and local levels can translate into improved health
outcomes for the people of this country. I think it also is a wonderful
example of bipartisanship, where we can all come together and give what
I hope will be unanimous support for this act. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and one of
the priorities we have there is research, prevention, and care for
people with HIV/AIDS.
{time} 1100
We want to focus heavily on prevention. We must continue our research
for a cure. We are trying to find a vaccine and, hopefully, that will
happen before not too long. But we must never forget the people out
there who are diagnosed with HIV and AIDS now.
I am pleased that the bill eventually will recognize and count those
infected with HIV but not full-blown cases of AIDS in the numbers and
in the formula. I wish that would have been sooner. But, nonetheless,
there is the recognition. I commend the legislators on the committee,
members of the committee, for making that distinction and having it be
a part of our formula down the road.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) who I see now on the floor. As I said earlier,
he has been a champion since day one on this issue. We have all been
very well-served by his leadership, that of the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) and others.
I urge my colleagues to vote aye.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the time on our side be controlled by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bilirakis).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Bilirakis) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the
floor and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, for
his role in so doing.
And also, there are other colleagues of ours who deserve particular
attention. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) worked
very hard. They were dedicated in their commitment and their hard work
has paid off for these critical programs.
The CARE Act represents the largest authorization of Federal funds
specifically designated to provide health and social services to people
infected with HIV. Declaring an AIDS emergency, Congress passed the
Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act in August of
1990. Six years later, we voted to reauthorize the CARE Act by a
unanimous vote in the House of Representatives and a 97-3 vote in the
Senate.
Over the last 9 years, the CARE Act has helped increase the
availability of primary care health and support services especially for
the uninsured and underinsured persons with HIV disease. The multi-
title structure of the CARE Act has worked effectively to dramatically
improve the quality of life for people living with HIV and their
families. It has helped to reduce cost of inpatient care and increase
access to care for underserved populations, including people of color.
The legislation we are considering today revises the grant formulas
to shift the emphasis of the programs away from treating people with
full-blown AIDS to people with the viral precursor, HIV, of AIDS. This
legislation includes a new formula beginning in 2005 for distributing
funds to States and cities based on the number of both AIDS and HIV
cases compared to the current formula, which allocates funds based
solely on AIDS cases.
Also included in this measure is $20 million to reduce HIV mother-to-
child transmission. The bill also addresses prevention of the disease
by including $30 million for tracking the disease and encouraging
people to notify their partners.
Additionally, those receiving care through Ryan White programs are
required to enroll in counseling programs.
Today, promising new drug therapies have brought new hope and new
challenges to the battle against the epidemic, but these new drugs do
not constitute a cure and an effective vaccine is still years away.
Moreover, the treatments do not work for everyone, they are difficult
to access especially for communities of color, and their long-term
efficacy remains unknown. Nonetheless, AIDS deaths have declined
dramatically in the last 3 years and more people are living longer with
HIV.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic thus remains an enormous health emergency in
the United States, and it will remain so into this century. The state
of the epidemic points to an increase rather than a decrease in the
overall need for health care, drug treatment, social services. As a
Nation, we must continue our effort to expand access to these services
for people living with HIV/AIDS, particularly in communities of color
and women.
This Ryan White CARE Act has proven to be an essential and effective
part of the Federal response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. This legislation
will ensure we continue this response.
I certainly ask this body to support this comprehensive, meaningful
and truly successful legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who played a very central role
in the negotiations on this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE
Act Amendments of 2000.
As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the coauthor of
the House reauthorization bill, H.R. 4807, I want to applaud the
Members and the staffs on both sides of the aisle for moving this
crucial legislation with such speed and bipartisan cooperation.
I want to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his
commitment to reauthorizing this Act and his leadership in fashioning
the compromises that allowed us to move the bill I think virtually
unanimously through the House and to get an agreement with the Senate.
He made this consensus legislation a reality.
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have lent their unqualified
support. And numerous Members, including the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen) have helped ensure its passage.
Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Act was enacted in the wake of a
decade of lost opportunities. I told this House in 1990 that, ``Having
missed our opportunity to provide an ounce of prevention, we must now
prepare to pay for pounds and pounds of cure.''
Today, the AIDS epidemic is everywhere. It threatens everyone. But
there is still no vaccine and there is still no cure. Nevertheless, the
Ryan White CARE Act has made an enormous difference. It provides care
to tens of
[[Page 21036]]
thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. It helps their families
cope with the burdens of AIDS and HIV infection, and it provides
urgently needed funding to community providers and hospitals to combat
the epidemic.
Today's overwhelming bipartisan support for the CARE Act demonstrates
that Congress understands how crucial it is to the health and welfare
of our country.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation preserves the best features of the CARE
Act while making reforms to better respond to a changing epidemic.
First and foremost, this legislation better addresses the needs of
individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. In 2004, we will
determine whether to use nationwide data on HIV infection in the CARE
Act. I believe this will happen, and I have been told by the State of
California that they will have such data by 2004.
We also call on States and cities to do more to reach those who are
not receiving care and to serve the needs of our historically
underserved communities. We call for ending lingering disparities in
care and for better coordination of HIV/AIDS treatment with prevention.
We have also focused CARE Act programs on the needs of vulnerable
populations. Funds will be allocated to better reflect the proportions
of women, children, infants and youth with HIV. I expect this will
increase such funding for those populations in the future.
This legislation also greatly expands our national effort to
eliminate the perinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS. These new funds will
help bring the number of babies born with HIV in our country down to
zero.
We also redirect funding to cities and States in the greatest need of
assistance. The title I and title II ``hold harmless'' provisions have
been revised to ensure a manageable transition to funding allocations
which better reflect the epidemic. At the same time, potential
disruptions in patient care are minimized. And the title I, title II,
and AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) supplemental grants will assist
cities and States with the greatest need of funds.
These are the principal reforms to the CARE Act. They will expand
access, improve quality, and enhance services for individuals with HIV
and AIDS.
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, much more could be done and much more needs
to be done. We must expand Medicaid to provide care to individuals with
HIV who have not developed AIDS. We must lead the global search for an
effective HIV vaccine and a cure for AIDS. And we must provide
resources and our hard-earned expertise to help other countries combat
the epidemic.
For today, though, I am pleased that we will fulfill the expectations
of Jeanne White, the mother of Ryan White, and of so many Americans
living with HIV and AIDS by reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments.
As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the co-author
of the House reauthorization bill, H.R. 4807, I want to applaud the
Members and the staff on both sides of the aisle for moving this
crucial legislation with such speed and bipartisan cooperation.
I want to recognize Dr. Coburn for his commitment to reauthorizing
the CARE Act. He has made this consensus legislation a reality.
Chairman Bilirakis and Mr. Brown, Chairman Bliley and Mr. Dingell have
lent their unqualified support. And numerous Members, including Ms.
Pelosi, Mr. Towns, Mr. Eshoo, Mr. Rodriguez and Dr. Christensen, have
helped ensure its passage.
Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Act was enacted in the wake of a
decade of lost opportunities. I told this House in 1990 that, ``Having
missed our opportunity to provide an ounce of prevention, we must now
prepare to pay for pounds and pounds of cure.''
Ten years ago, there were those who spoke of the AIDS epidemic as a
thing of the past. There were those who dismissed the disease as a
danger to others, and not themselves. And there were those who opposed
the Ryan White CARE Act.
Mr. Speaker, they were wrong then, and they are wrong today. The AIDS
epidemic is everywhere. It threatens everyone. It is devastating the
globe from Russia to subSaharan Africa. And there is still no vaccine.
There is still no cure.
But in the face of these challenges, the CARE Act has made a
difference. The CARE Act provides care to tens of thousands of
Americans living with HIV/AIDS. If helps their families cope with the
burdens of AIDS and HIV infection. And it provides urgently needed
funding to community providers and hospitals to combat the epidemic.
Today's overwhelming bipartisan support for the CARE Act demonstrates
that Congress understands how crucial it is to the health and welfare
of our country.
Let me highlight the important ways this legislation preserves the
best and proven features of the CARE Act, while making important and
substantial reforms to better respond to a changing epidemic. I am
particularly pleased that this consensus House and Senate legislation
reflects virtually all of the provisions and agreements reached by this
House in H.R. 4807.
Most important of all, this legislation better addresses the needs of
individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. With 40,000 new
infections every year and improved prospects for delaying the onset of
AIDS, the number of new deaths from AIDS has declined but the number of
individuals with HIV is rising inexorably. In response, this
legislation calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
determine in 2004 whether we have nationwide data on accurate and
reliable cases of HIV infection which can be used in allocating CARE
Act funds. I believe this will happen, and I have been told by the
State of California that they are confident they will have such data by
2004.
We also call on States and cities to better determine the number and
demographics of individuals with HIV. We require special efforts to
reach those who are not receiving care and serve the needs of our
historically underserved communities. We call for ending lingering
disparities in care. And we require States, cities and the Federal
government to develop new strategies to better coordinate HIV/AIDS
treatment with prevention.
The need for better coordination cuts across systems of care, Federal
agencies, States, cities, providers and community organizations. Ten
years ago, I described the CARE Act as providing ``a continuum of
prevention services--counseling and testing, diagnostics for those who
test positive, and therapeutics for those whose diagnostics indicate a
medical intervention.'' Patients receiving care under the CARE Act
today deserve seamless continuity between testing, counseling,
treatments, support and prevention services.
Just last week, the Institute of Medicine released a comprehensive
report on our nation's HIV prevention efforts. They concluded that
``prevention services for HIV-infected people should be integrated into
the standard of care at all primary care centers, sexually-transmitted
disease clinics, drug treatment facilities, and mental health
centers.'' This is precisely what we set out to accomplish in H.R.
4807, and this policy is reflected fully in this final consensus
legislation.
This legislation also strengthens the responsiveness of CARE Act
programs to the public. Title I Planning Councils will include a
greater number of independent individuals with HIV/AIDS. Planning
Council meetings and records will be exposed to greater public
``sunshine.'' All Planning Council members will receive improved
training. And States will make their planning more accessible to a
broader range of public stakeholders.
We have also focused CARE Act programs on the needs of vulnerable
populations. Just yesterday, the Office of National AIDS Policy
announced that half of the 40,000 new HIV infections every year occur
among our teens and young adults. In this legislation, funds will be
allocated to better reflect the proportions of women, children, infants
and youth with HIV. I expect this will increase such funding for these
populations in the future.
We have also strengthened the Title IV program for medical care,
social services, and access to research for low-income children, youth,
women and families. States and cities must develop novel strategies to
coordinate their HIV/AIDS services and substance abuse services. And
the Secretary of Health and Human Services must develop a plan in
consultation with the Attorney General for the treatment of prisoners
with HIV/AIDS.
This legislation greatly expands our national effort to eliminate the
perinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS. The last ten years have seen a
dramatic decline in such cases, due largely to the treatment of
pregnant mothers with zidovudine. In an important compromise, we have
increased an existing $10 million CARE Act grant program by $20
million, with a proportion of new funds set aside for States with
either mandatory newborn testing or significant declines in perinatal
transmission. I am confident these funds will be well spent on offering
counseling and testing to all pregnant
[[Page 21037]]
women, outreach to high-risk women and other innovative prevention
efforts.
Funding has also been redirected to cities and States with the
greatest need of additional assistance. The Title I and Title II ``hold
harmless'' provisions have been revised to ensure a manageable
transition to funding allocations which better reflect the current
distribution and epidemiology of the epidemic. This will be
accomplished while minimizing potential disruptions in care for
individuals with HIV/AIDS. Under Title II, States' base funds as well
as their total funding will be held harmless to a small percentage of
loss.
Under Title I, a city's potential loss in its formula allocation is
limited to a percentage of the amount allocated to the city in the base
year preceding its need for the hold harmless. In its fifth,
consecutive year of need for the hold harmless, a city would lose no
more than 15 percent of its base year allocation. Such losses would not
be compounded, as was contemplated in the original Senate bill. But if
the Secretary determines that data on HIV prevalence will be used in
Title I formula grants in 2005, no city may lose more than 2 percent of
its 2004 formula allocation in 2005.
Additionally, Title I supplemental grants and new AIDS Drug
Assistance Program (ADAP) supplemental grants will be directed to
cities and States with ``severe need'' for such funding, based on more
objective and quantitative criteria. And new Title II supplemental
formula grants will be given to ``emerging communities'' with AIDS case
counts which fall below the threshold for Title I eligibility.
These are the principal reforms to the CARE Act. They will expand
access, improve quality and enhance services for individuals with HIV/
AIDS. And I want to recognize the hard work of House staff, including
Roland Foster, Paul Kim, Karen Nelson, Marc Wheat, John Ford, Eleanor
Dehoney, Brent Delmonte, Katie Porter, Anne Esposito and House
Legislative Counsel Pete Goodloe, in making this possible.
Mr. Speaker, much more could be done and much more needs to be done.
We must expand Medicaid to provide care to individuals with HIV who
have not developed AIDS. We must lead the global search for an
effective HIV vaccine and a cure to AIDS. And we must provide resources
and our hard-earned expertise to help other countries combat the
epidemic.
For today, though, I am pleased we will fulfill the expectations of
Jeanne White, the mother of Ryan White, and of so many Americans living
with HIV and AIDS by reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE
Act Amendments as adopted by the Senate. It is a primary source of
Federal AIDS prevention and treatment funding. I commend the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the subcommittee chairman on health and
environment; the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
for their full support of this important measure.
This legislation accomplishes many of our most important HIV goals:
modifying the eligibility requirements and allocation formulas for
grants to State and local governments; giving States increased
flexibility to provide a wider range of treatments and support
services; emphasizing the provision of services for women, infants, and
children by substituting special grant set-asides; capping
administrative and evaluation expenses for the grant programs; and
requiring States to implement the Center for Disease Control guidelines
regarding HIV testing and counseling for pregnant women.
Also included in this measure is an important fund, $20 million, to
reduce HIV transmission from mothers to their babies and $30 million
for tracking the disease and encouraging people to notify their
partners, and provisions to require people receiving care through Ryan
White programs to enroll in counseling programs.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only demonstrates the
bipartisan humanitarian spirit of this Congress, but also in working
together in areas of mutual concern that we can accomplish worthy
goals.
Accordingly, I am in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Amendments
and I urge our colleagues to adopt it at the earliest possible date.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who is a registered nurse and
has been a real leader on all kinds of public health issues.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000. I commend my colleagues on the Committee on
Commerce and others for all of their hard work.
Today's medical advances allow many individuals with AIDS to lead
longer and more productive lives. However, as patients live longer, the
cost of their care and treatment has placed an ever-greater demand on
community-based organizations and State and local governments.
In the face of these challenges, the Ryan White CARE Act has made a
great difference. This CARE Act provides care to tens of thousands of
Americans living with HIV/AIDS.
Recently I spoke with the Health Educator, Jayne Brechwald, with the
Santa Barbara County Health Care Services in my district. She works on
a daily basis with members of the community who benefit greatly from
Ryan White funding. She spoke in strong support of funding for crucial
services such as Meals on Wheels, food banks, housing counseling. She
also praised programs which help those diagnosed navigate the options
available for them. These include the medical care, education, and
dental care that are so important during this terrifying time in a
person's life.
In Jayne's words, ``Ryan White funding is really about local control.
The program requires that we do a needs assessment every year so that
we have a very targeted, specific idea of how the population we serve
is changing and how the funding is being utilized.''
I believe that the Ryan White Act represents the Federal Government
at its best. This program defers to local expertise, while providing
the needed helping hand of targeted Federal funding.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud this legislation and urge its passage.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I also thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his
leadership on this issue; as well as the minority chair of the
Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) for their collaboration. Anytime the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
agree on something, it has got to be pretty close to right on.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Dorothy Mann from the Philadelphia
area, a friend of mine, who helped negotiate one of the toughest
aspects of this bill; and that has to do with the testing of newborns.
{time} 1115
AIDS is clearly the worst epidemic in modern history. It is a
tragedy, and it has struck down so many millions of people around the
world. But of all of its victims, certainly the children, the newborns,
are the most innocent and the ones who tug most heavily on our hearts.
Four million women become pregnant in this country every year and
7,000 of those 4 million women are HIV positive. Several hundred of the
babies that they bear will be born HIV positive. Of those little
children, fully half of them will die before they reach the age of 3;
and by the age of 5, 90 percent of them have perished. So obviously
anything that can be done to rescue these children from that horrible
fate needs to be done. When a woman's HIV status is known during her
pregnancy, in two-thirds of the cases the child can be prevented from
becoming HIV positive with AZT treatments that are given during
pregnancy, during labor
[[Page 21038]]
and several weeks afterwards, and Cesarian deliveries seem to very
dramatically reduce the likelihood that the child will become HIV
positive.
What we have done in this bill to try to solve the logjam between
those who do and those who do not believe in mandatory testing is we
have put $30 million in here to go to those States that either have
mandatory testing laws or do the most through a variety of programs to
reduce the incidence of HIV being passed on to newborns. In New York,
they have had a law on the books for 3 years; and they have been able
to identify every child who could potentially become exposed to HIV
through delivery. They have been able to prevent all of that. In 98
percent of the cases, the mother has been able to get treatment. It has
been wildly successful.
This bill goes a long way to making sure that that track record will
apply to every State in the Union.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and
I thank him and his partners on the other side for their hard work in
bringing this most important legislation to the floor.
This week, the surgeon general was quoted as saying the epidemic has
evolved to become increasingly an epidemic of people of color, of women
and of the young. We have got to get rid of this epidemic, not let it
evolve; and what we are doing here this morning will have a great deal
to do with getting rid of it.
The disease has moved to a devastating place, Mr. Speaker, to the
poorest communities of color. Blacks are only 12 percent of the
population. They are 50 percent of the new cases. Almost 80 percent of
the new cases among women are black and Latino women. Half of the new
cases occur in youth. We are now finding that we have to educate each
new cohort perhaps every 4 or 5 years of gay men because the newest
cohort needs to learn what those that have passed on in their 20s
perhaps had to learn. We are dealing with a preventable disease. But
when people get this disease, they need our care and they need our
love.
I am grateful to the gay and lesbian community of this country for
the way in which they brought this issue to the forefront and now have
helped us gather a bipartisan majority for the Ryan White bill. If we
continue to do what we are doing today, we will show what we all know,
that this is a disease, unlike heart disease and unlike cancer, that we
can prevent. This is a disease that we can eliminate. I thank all of
those who contributed to this moment on the House floor.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4807, to
reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act. This reauthorization is very
important to our Nation. It is particularly important to my
constituents in the North Bay across the Golden Gate Bridge from San
Francisco, and for all of the people in the entire San Francisco Bay
region. This act provides crucial services for care and treatment for
individuals with HIV and AIDS. To date, the CARE act has worked to
dramatically improve the quality of life for people living with HIV and
for their families. It has reduced the use of costly inpatient care as
well as increased the access to high-quality care for underserved
populations.
By supporting this important legislation, Mr. Speaker, we are
ensuring that the thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS can
continue to receive the care and the treatment that is absolutely
necessary for their comfort and for their survival.
Mr. Speaker, we must spare no effort to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
By reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act, we are taking a positive step
to successfully dealing with this very deadly disease. We must adopt
the reauthorization.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the Ryan White CARE Act. And I rise because this legislation has meant
so much to so many people throughout the country. The Ryan White CARE
Act has meant so much that there are many people who feel as they tell
their stories that without it they simply would not be alive.
Mr. John Davis, the newly elected cochair of the city of Chicago's
HIV services planning council, says if it was not for the Ryan White
CARE Act, he would probably be dead. Mr. Davis, a former heroin addict,
says that his road to recovery began with him seeking help at a Ryan
White-funded housing program.
Like Mr. Davis, thousands of others throughout the country have had
the same experiences. Mr. Derrick Hicks from Chicago is able to live
longer and get access to medications he may not otherwise be able to
afford. And so, as we continue to see the impact and the effects of
this program throughout the country, I simply rise to support it and
say that without it many people would not have had the quality of life.
I urge continued support.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I again ask for this House's support for the Ryan White CARE Act. It
is a tremendous testament to bipartisanship support and the negotiating
skills of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and their staffs. I ask for unanimous
support from this House for this very good legislation that will make a
big difference in dealing with this dreadful disease.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the remarks that the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) just made. I had planned to do so, also. It is just
amazing what can be done from a bipartisan standpoint if people really
are sincere and really care about solving an issue rather than being
concerned about demagoguery, if you will, or with some of the things
that take place. The fact that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) worked so well on this
and were able to get it done speaks well for both of them and for the
Congress when it works in that way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to first recognize Paul Kim for his
great help on the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) staff; Marc
Wheat, the majority counsel on our side; and Roland Foster, a staff
member of mine who has been with me for 6 years since I have been in
Congress.
This is a good bill. There is no question about it. But this bill is
not enough. Forty thousand people this year are going to become
infected with HIV. It does not have to happen. We should be asking the
CDC, we should be asking the FDA, we should be asking the NIH why they
would not use proven public health policy to stop this epidemic.
The best way to treat people with HIV today is to make sure no one
else ever encounters this disease. This is a preventable disease.
Although we have gone a long way from where we were in putting in the
public health policies that should be there, they are still not there.
The reason they are not there is not a good enough reason. We have
proven in the medical community that we can secure and hold
confidentially anybody's HIV status. We have been perfect on that
score. And to use that as a reason now not to move to the next step, I
challenge my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I
challenge the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that in the next
Congress and the Congress that follows that you will look very closely
at what public health policies could do to prevent that 40,000 people
from never getting the disease.
We know. We handled the tuberculosis epidemic in this country. We
stopped it dead with a whole lot less effort. This is something we can
accomplish. We have proven with this bill
[[Page 21039]]
that if we will work and talk together and understand each other's
motivations, problems and concerns, that through discussion and
bipartisan approach that we can solve those problems. The 40,000 people
out there this year that are going to get infected deserve for us to do
that. As I leave this body, what I would ask is the Members of this
body, look at real problems, not the political things that surround it;
and if we will do that, 40,000 people will not be infected.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his work. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been great to work with. I
appreciate the ability that we can express ourselves through true
concern and solve a problem. I would hope that every Member of this
body will support this bill.
I also would leave one message with my colleagues. There are diseases
much greater than this disease that face our country today. Diabetes
will take tons more people than HIV. Breast cancer will take tons more
people than HIV. And yet we are not anywhere close to the same dollar
commitment in those diseases as we are HIV. Because we have had a
misguided policy on treatment of HIV, we are spending dollars that
could be spent in other areas. I would beg the body to look at that.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to S.
2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. I congratulate Dr.
Coburn and Mr. Waxman for their excellent work on this legislation, and
salute my colleagues on the Commerce Committee who, through workmanlike
diligence and thoughtfulness, have dramatically improved the way the
Ryan White CARE Act will work now and into the future.
Before the August recess, the House acted on a bi-partisan basis to
authorize the Ryan White CARE Act. This very important Act provides
funding to address the needs of those living with HIV and AIDS. Because
of the importance of this legislation, I made it a priority to resolve
the differences between the House-passed bill and the bill passed in
the other body. As the newsletter AIDS Policy and Law reported, ``The
negotiators decided to use the House bill, sponsored by Representatives
Tom Coburn, and Henry Waxman, as the vehicle for renewing the statute
through fiscal year 2005. The Senate bill was scrapped, with only a few
of its provisions being folded into the Coburn-Waxman H.R. 4807.'' The
negotiating team, which included my staff and those from the offices of
Representatives Bilirakis, Waxman, Dingell, Brown, Senators Jeffords,
Frist, and Kennedy, achieved a good compromise. I have an additional
statement that explains our work in greater detail that I will enter
into the record for myself and the negotiators just mentioned. I
commend the passage of this important legislation to my colleagues.
As many of my colleagues may recall, President Reagan's HIV
Commission concluded that ``early diagnosis of HIV infection is
essential'' because HIV infection ``can be treated more effectively
when detected early.'' The medical breakthroughs which have been
developed in the twelve years since the inception of this report make
early intervention even more important than ever, and I am pleased that
this legislation recognizes that partner counseling and referral
activities are the most effective early intervention to identify those
who do not know their status in the early stages of the disease.
Very importantly, this bill begins the process of basing Ryan White
CARE Act funding on HIV cases, not AIDS cases. Such a change will
ensure that Ryan White CARE Act dollars go where the disease is growing
quickly, not to the areas with the highest historical incidences of
AIDS. It also provides incentives for States to implement
recommendations belatedly issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to move to HIV reporting systems, one of the most important
public health initiatives in America at the close of the 20th Century.
It is a national tragedy that public health officials in the States
were unable or unwilling to move to HIV reporting years ago. The
identification of HIV reporting as a serious public health concern was
identified by the first Presidential Commission on HIV, appointed by
President Ronald Reagan, which stated that ``The term `AIDS' is
obsolete. `HIV infection' more correctly defines the problem. The
medical, public health, political, and community leadership must focus
on the full course of HIV infection rather than concentrating on later
stages of the disease . . . Continual focus on AIDS rather than the
entire spectrum of HIV disease has left our nation unable to deal
adequately with the epidemic. Federal and state data collection efforts
must now be focused on early HIV reports, while still collecting data
on symptomatic disease.''
It is imperative that the Ryan White CARE Act be reauthorized to
provide the incentives to move public health in the right direction so
that the HIV/AIDS epidemic can be tracked more accurately, and
appropriate funding and information about this disease be better
directed.
As many of my colleagues will recall, when we last brought the Ryan
White bill to the floor in July, the most contentious issue was the
bill's ``hold harmless'' provision. The bill which originally passed
the House would have trimmed the substantial overpayments received by
San Francisco so that it would eventually receive no more per capita
than any other metropolitan area.
After lengthy negotiations, it has been agreed that the hold harmless
reduction will be a compromise between the original House and Senate
provisions, which will now be a reduction of 15% over the next five
years to slow the transition to equitable funding.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this important
legislation that moves us in the right direction as we enter the 21st
Century.
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000
Managers' Statement of Explanation
The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 reauthorize
Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to ensure that
individuals living with HIV and AIDS receive health care and
related support services. The legislation contains
authorization for appropriations and programmatic changes to
ensure the CARE Act programs respond to evolving demographic
trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic and advances in treatment and
care.
I. Background
In March, 1990, Congress enacted the Ryan White CARE Act,
honoring Ryan White, a young man who taught the Nation to
respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic with hope and action rather
than fear. By the spring of 1990, over 128,000 people had
been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and 78,000 had
died of the disease. The CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996,
as the epidemic spread to more than 600,000 Americans
diagnosed with AIDS and amidst the nationwide recognition
that CARE Act programs were indispensable to the care and
treatment of Americans with HIV/AIDS.
The CARE Act Amendments of 2000 marks the second
reauthorization of the CARE Act. In the last twenty years,
the HIV/AIDS epidemic has claimed over 420,000 American men,
women, and children. Today, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention estimates that there are currently between
800,000 and 900,000 persons living with HIV in the United
States, with 40,000 new infections annually.
While there is still no cure, the CARE Act has been
instrumental in responding to the public health, social and
economic burdens of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. However, the
steady expansion and changed demographics of the epidemic, as
well as the improved survival time for people living with
AIDS, are placing increasing stress on State and local health
care systems, community based organizations and families
providing care. Most importantly, the epidemic is expanding
beyond major cities to smaller cities and rural regions, and
disproportionately affecting women, communities of color,
children and youth.
The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 preserves the
best and proven features of existing CARE Act programs. But
the CARE Act Amendments of 2000 also makes important and
substantial reforms to respond to the significant changes in
the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the last 5 years.
II. Organization of Services Under the CARE Act Amendments of 2000
Title I. Emergency Relief for Areas with Substantial Need
for Services: Provides emergency relief grants to 51 eligible
metropolitan areas (EMAs) disproportionately affected by the
HIV epidemic to provide primary care and HIV-related support
services to people with HIV and AIDS. Half of the Title I
funding is distributed by formula; the remaining half is
distributed competitively, based on the demonstration of
severity of need and other criteria.
Planning Council membership has been revised to include HIV
prevention providers, homeless and housing service providers,
and representatives of prisoners. A third of Planning Council
members must be individuals with HIV/AIDS receiving care who
are not officers, employees or consultants to Title I
grantees.
Title II. CARE Grant Program: Provides formula grants to
States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S.
territories to improve the quality of health care and support
services for individuals with HIV disease and their families.
The funds are used: to provide medical support services, to
continue health insurance payments, to provide home care
[[Page 21040]]
services, and, through the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
(ADAP), to provide medications necessary for the care of
these individuals. Supplemental formula grants are awarded to
States with ``emerging communities'' which are ineligible for
grants under Title I.
Subtitle B provides discretionary grants to States for the
reduction of perinatal transmission of HIV, and for HIV
counseling, testing, and outreach to pregnant women. Subtitle
C provides discretionary grants to States for partner
notification, counseling and referral services.
Title III. Early Intervention Services: Funds nonprofit
entities providing primary care and outpatient early
intervention services, including case management, counseling,
testing, referrals, and clinical and diagnostic services to
individuals diagnosed with HIV. The unfunded program of State
formula grants in current law is repeated.
Title IV. Other Programs and Activities: Provides grants
for comprehensive services to children, youth, and women
living with HIV and their families. Such services include
primary, specialty and psychosocial care, as well as HIV
outreach and prevention activities. Grantees must demonstrate
linkages to, and provide clients with access and education
on, HIV/AIDS clinical research.
Title IV newly authorizes the AIDS Education and Training
Centers (AETC), a network of 14 regional centers conducting
clinical HIV education and training of health providers, to
provide prenatal and gynecological care. The HIV/AIDS Dental
Reimbursement program, covering uncompensated oral health
care for patients with HIV/AIDS, is expanded to provide
community-based care in underserved areas.
Under Subtitle B, general provisions authorize CDC data
collection for CARE Act planning and evaluation, enhanced
interagency coordination of HIV services and prevention,
development of a plan for the case management of prisoners
with HIV, and administrative provisions related to audits,
and a plan for simplification of CARE Act grant
disbursements.
Title V. General Provisions: Authorizes Institute of
Medicine (IOM) studies and expansion of Federal support for
the development of rapid HIV tests. Makes necessary and
technical corrections in Title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act.
III. Summary of Selected Provisions
Use of HIV Case Data in Formula Grants
In order to target funding more accurately to reflect the
HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Managers have revised and updated the
Title I and Title II formulas to make use of data on cases of
HIV infection as well as of AIDS. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005,
HIV and AIDS case data is intended to be used in the Title I
and Title II formulas.
However, no later than July 1, 2004, the Secretary shall
determine whether HIV case data, as reported to and confirmed
by the Director of CDC, is sufficiently accurate and reliable
from all eligible areas and States for such use in the
formula. The Secretary shall also consider the findings of
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) study undertaken under
section 501(b).
If the Secretary makes an adverse determination regarding
HIV case data, the Managers intend that only AIDS case data
will be used in FY2005 formula allocations. The Secretary
shall also provide grants and technical assistance to States
and eligible areas to ensure that accurate and reliable HIV
case data is available no later than FY2007.
Planning and priority setting
The Managers have strengthened the capacity of EMAs and
States to plan, prioritize, and allocate funds, based on the
size and demographic characteristics of the populations with
HIV disease in the eligible area. Planning, priority setting,
and funding allocation processes must take into account the
demographics of the local HIV/AIDS epidemic, existing
disparities in access HIV-related health care, and resulting
adverse health outcomes. It is the intent of the Managers
that CARE Act dollars more closely follow the shifting trends
in the local epidemic and address disparities in health care
access and health outcomes as well as the need for capacity
development within the local and State HIV health care
infrastructures.
The Managers intend both EMAs and States to develop
strategies to bring into and retain in care those individuals
who are aware of their HIV status but are not receiving
services. As part of this process, the Managers place the
highest priority on EMAs and States focusing on eliminating
disparities in access and services among affected
subpopulations and historically underserved communities. The
Managers recognize, however, that the relative availability
or lack of HIV prevalence data will be reflected in the
scope, goals, timetable and allocation of funds for
implementation of the strategy.
The Managers also expect the Secretary to collaborate with
Title I and II grant recipients and providers to develop
epidemiologic measures and tools for use in identifying
persons with HIV infection who know their HIV status but are
not in care. The Managers recognize the difficulty the EMAs
and States may experience in identifying persons with HIV
infection who are not in care and who may be unknown to any
health or social support system. The efforts on the part of
EMAs and States to accomplish these important tasks, however,
should not be delayed until this process is complete.
Instead, the Managers expect Title I and II grant recipients
to establish and implement strategies responsive to these
urgent needs before the development of nationally uniform
measures, to the extent that is practicable and to which
necessary prevalence data is reasonably available.
The Managers have also authorized outreach activities in
Title I and II intended to identify individuals with HIV
disease know their HIV status but are not receiving services.
The intent is to ensure that EMAs and States understand that
outreach activities which are consistent with early
intervention services and necessary to implement the
aforementioned strategies, are appropriate uses of Title I
and II funds. It is not the Managers' intent that such
activities supplant or otherwise duplicate activities such as
case finding, surveillance and social marketing campaigns
currently funded and administered by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). Instead, this authorization
reflects the urgency of increasing the coordination between
HIV prevention and HIV care and treatment services in all
CARE Act programs.
Hold harmless provisions
The hold-harmless provisions are intended to minimize loss
and stabilize systems of care in EMAs and States, while
assuring that funds are allocated in Title I and II to
reflect the current distribution and epidemiology of the
epidemic.
The Managers have revised the Title I hold harmless to
limit a potential loss in an EMA's formula allocation to a
small percentage of the amount allocated to the eligible are
in the previous (or base) year. An EMA may lose no more than
15 percent of its base formula allocation over five years,
beginning with 2 percent in the first year and increasing in
subsequent years. If the Secretary determines that data on
HIV prevalence are accurate and reliable for use in
determining Title I formula grants for Fiscal Year 2005, all
EMAs may lose no more than 2 percent of their Fiscal Year
2004 formula allocation in that year.
Should an EMA experience a decline in its Title I formula
allocation followed by an intervening year in which there is
not decline, its losses in any subsequent, nonconsecutive
year of decline would once again be limited to 2 percent
(ie., the intervening year `resets the clock').
The Managers intend to ensure that essential primary care
and support services are not compromised by short-term
fluctuations in AIDS case counts. Because no new EMA is
expected by HRSA's Bureau of HIV/AIDS to require that hold
harmless in the first three or four years of this
reauthorization period, the Managers expect this policy will
shield all eligible areas, save those currently requiring the
hold harmless, from any meaningful loss in Title I formula
funding.
Under the Title II hold harmless, a State or territory may
lose no more than 1 percent from the previous fiscal year
amounts, or 5 percent over the 5-year reauthorization period.
This protection extends to base Title II funding (which
excludes funds for AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP)), as
well as to overall Title II funding.
Women, child, infants, and youth set-aside
The Managers are aware of the rising incidence of HIV among
youth and women, particularly women of color, and recognize
the challenges in assuring them access to primary care and
support services for HIV and AIDS. The Managers intend to
increase the availability of primary care and health-related
supportive services under Title I and Title II for each of
the four groups described in the set-aside. Youth are added
as a new category within this set-aside. The Managers intend
the term ``youth'' to include persons between the ages of 13
and 24, and ``children'' to include those under the age of
13, including infants.
The Managers clarify that the set-asides for women,
infants, children, and youth with HIV disease be allocated
proportionally, based on the percentage of the local HIV-
infected population that each group represents. The Managers
intend that the States and EMAs continue to make every effort
to reach and serve women, infants, children, and youth living
with HIV/AIDS by allocating sufficient resources under Titles
I and II to serve each of these populations. The Managers
also recognize that these priority populations often comprise
a greater proportion of HIV cases rather than AIDS cases in a
local area. This distinction should be taken into account
where necessary prevalence data is reasonably available.
The Mangers are aware that these populations may also have
access to HIV care through other parts of Title XXVI,
Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
and other Federal and State programs. Therefore, the
requirements to proportionally allocate funds provided under
Title II to each of these populations may be waived for
States which reasonably demonstrate that these populations
are receiving adequate care.
[[Page 21041]]
Capacity development
Titles I, II and III of this legislation provide a new
focus on strengthening the capacity of minority communities
and underserved areas where HIV/AIDS is having a
disproportionate impact. Currently, many underserved urban
and rural areas are not able to compete successfully for
planning grants and early intervention service grants due to
the lack of infrastructure and experience with the Ryan White
Care Act programs. This gap in services available is
increasingly important, as the HIV and AIDS epidemic extends
into rural communities. In addition to authorizing capacity
development under Titles I and II, the Managers establish a
preference for rural areas under Title III that will allow
program administrators to target capacity development grants,
planning grants, and the delivery of primary care services to
rural communities with a growing need for HIV services.
However, urban areas are not excluded from consideration for
future grants nor is funding reduced to current grants in
urban areas.
Quality management
The Managers recognize the importance of having CARE Act
grantees ensure that quality services are provide to people
with HIV and that quality management activities are conducted
on an ongoing basis. Quality management programs are intended
to serve grantees in evaluating and improving the quality of
primary care and health-related supportive services provided
under this act. The quality management program should
accomplish a threefold purpose: (1) assist direct service
medical providers funded through the CARE Act in assuring
that funded services adhere to established HIV clinical
practices and Public Health Service (PHS) guidelines to the
extent possible; (2) ensure that strategies for improvements
to quality medical care include vital health-related
supportive service in achieving appropriate access and
adherence with HIV medical care; and (3) ensure that
available demographic, clinical, and health are utilization
information is used to monitor the spectrum of HIV-related
illnesses and trends in the local epidemic.
The Managers expect the Secretary to provide States with
guidance and technical assistance for establishing quality
management programs, including disseminating such models as
have been developed by States and are already being utilized
by Title II programs and in clinical practice environments.
Furthermore, the Managers intend that the Secretary provide
clarification and guidance regarding the distinction between
use of CARE Act funds for such program expenditures that are
covered as their planning and evaluation and funds for
program support costs. It is not the Managers' intent to
divert current program resources or to reassign current
program support costs or clinical quality programs to new
cost areas, if they are an integral part of a State's current
quality management efforts.
Program support costs are described as any expenditure
related to the provision of delivering or receiving health
services supported by CARE Act funds. As applied to the
clinical quality programs, these costs include, but are not
limited to, activities such as chart review, peer-to-peer
review activities, data collection to measure health
indicators or outcomes, or other types of activities related
to the development or implementation of a clinical quality
improvement program. Planning and evaluation costs are
related to the collection and analysis of system and process
indicators for purposes of determining the impact and
effectiveness of funded health-related support services in
providing access to and support of individuals and
communities within the health delivery system.
Early intervention services
The Managers authorize early intervention services as
eligible services under Titles I and II under certain
circumstances. The Managers intend to allow grantees to
provide certain early intervention services, such as HIV
counseling, testing, and referral services, to individuals at
high risk for HIV infection, in accordance with State or EMA
planning activities. The Managers recognize the range of
organizations that may be eligible to provide early
intervention services, including other grantees under Titles
I, II and III such as community based organizations (CBOs)
that act as points of entry into the health care system for
traditionally underserved and minority populations.
The Managers believe that referral relationships maintained
by providers of early intervention services are essential to
increasing the number of people with HIV/AIDS who are
identified and to bringing them into care earlier in the
progression of their disease.
Health-care related support services
The Managers wish to stress the importance of CARE Act
funds in meeting the health care needs of persons and
families with HIV disease. The Act requires support services
provided through CARE Act funds to be health care related.
States and EMAs should ensure that support services meet the
objective of increasing access to health care and ongoing
adherence with primary care needs. The Managers reaffirm the
critical relationship between support service provision and
positive health outcomes.
Title I planning council duties and membership
The Managers have amended numerous aspects of CARE Act
programs to enhance the coordination between HIV prevention
and HIV/AIDS care and treatment services. In this case,
Planning Council membership of the providers of HIV
prevention services will help assure this coordination. To
improve representation of underserved communities, providers
of services to homeless populations and representatives of
formerly incarcerated individuals with HIV disease are
included in planning council membership. It is the intent of
the Managers that the needs of all communities affected by
HIV/AIDS and all providers working with the service areas be
represented. The Managers also intend the Planning Councils
more adequately reflect the gender and racial demographics of
the HIV/AIDS population within their respective EMAs.
The Managers also intend that patients and consumers of
Title I services constitute a substantial proportion of
Planning Council memberships. The prohibition of officers,
employees and consultants is not intended to impede the
participation qualified, motivated volunteers with Title I
grantees from serving on Planning Councils where they do not
maintain significant financial relationships, volunteers may
be reimbursed reasonable incidental costs, including for
training and transportation, which help to facilitate their
important contribution to the Planning Councils.
To ensure that new Planning Council members are adequately
prepared for full participation in meetings, the Managers
direct the Secretary to ensure that proper training and
guidance is provided to members of the Councils. The Managers
also expect Planning Councils to provide assistance, such as
transportation and childcare, to facilitate the participation
of consumers, particularly those from affected subpopulations
and historically underserved communities.
Consistent with the ``sunshine'' policies of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all meetings of the Planning
Councils shall be open to the public and be held after
adequate notice to the public. Detailed minutes, records,
reports, agenda, and other relevant documents should also be
available to the public. The Managers intend for such
documents to be available for inspection and copying at a
single location, including posting on the Internet.
Title I supplemental
In order to target funding to areas in greatest need of
assistance, severity of need is given a greater weight of 33
percent in the award of Title I supplemental grants. The
Managers intend that Title I supplemental awards are not
intended to be allocated on the basis of formula grant
allocations. Instead, such supplemental awards are to be
directed principally to those eligible areas with ``severe
need,'' or the greatest or expanding public health challenges
in confronting the epidemic. The Managers have included
additional factors to be considered in the assessment of
severe need, including the current prevalence of HIV/AIDS,
and the degree of increasing and unmet needs for services.
Additionally, the Managers believe that syphilis, hepatitis B
and hepatitis C should be regarded as important co-
morbidities to HIV/AIDS.
It is the Managers' strong view that HRSA's Bureau of HIV/
AIDS should employ standard, quantitative measures to the
maximum extent possible in lieu of narrative self-reporting
when awarding supplemental awards. The Managers therefore
renew the Bureau's obligation to develop in a timely manner a
mechanism for determining severe need upon the basis of
national, quantitative incidence data. In this regard, the
Managers recognize that adequate and reliable data on HIV
prevalence may not be uniformly available in all eligible
areas on the date of enactment. It is noted, however, that
``HIV disease'' under the CARE Act encompasses both persons
living with AIDS as well as persons diagnosed as HIV positive
who have not developed AIDS.
Title II base minimum funding
The minimum Title II base award is increased in order to
increase the funding available to States for the capacity
development of health system programs and infrastructure. The
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau are
included as entities eligible to receive Title II funds, in
recognition of the need to establish a minimum level of
funding to assist in building HIV infrastructure.
Title II public participation
The Managers urge States to strengthen public participation
in the Ryan White Title II planning process. While the
Managers do not intend that States be mandated to consult
with all entities participating in the Title I planning
process, reference to such entities is intended to provide
guidance to the States that such entities are important
constituencies which the States should endeavor to include in
their planning processes. Moreover, States may demonstrate
compliance with the new requirement of an enhanced process of
public participation by providing evidence that existing
mechanisms for consumer and community input provide for the
participation of such entities. The intent is to allow States
to utilize the optimal
[[Page 21042]]
public advisory planning process, such as special planning
bodies or standing advisory groups on HIV/AIDS, for their
particular population and circumstances.
The Managers are also aware of the difficulties that some
States with limited resources may encounter in convening
public hearings over large geographic or rural areas and
encourage the Secretary to work with these States to develop
appropriate processes for public input, and to consider such
limitations when enforcing these requirements.
Title II HIV care consortia
The Managers intend that the States continue to work with
local consortia to ensure that they identify potential
disparities in access to HIV care services at the local
level, with a special emphasis on those experiencing
disparities in access to care, historically underserved
populations, and HIV infected persons not in care. However,
the Managers do not intend that States and/or consortia be
mandated to consult with all entities participating in the
Title I planning process. Rather, reference to such entities
is intended to provide guidance to the States that such
entities are important constituencies which the States should
endeavor to include in their planning processes.
Title II ``emerging communities'' supplement
There continues to be a growing need to address the
geographic expansion of this epidemic, and this Act continues
the efforts made during the last reauthorization to direct
resources and services to areas that are particularly
underserved, including rural areas and metropolitan areas
with significant AIDS cases that are not eligible for Title I
funding. A supplemental formula grant program is created
within Title II to meet HIV care and support needs in non-EMA
areas. There are a large number of areas within States that
do not meet the definition of a Title I EMA but that,
nevertheless, experience significant numbers of people living
with AIDS. This provision stipulates that these ``emerging
communities,'' defined as cities with between 500 and 1,999
reported AIDS cases in the most recent 5-year period, be
allocated 50 percent of new appropriations to address the
growing need in these areas. Funding for this provision is
triggered when the allocations to carry out Part B, excluding
amounts allocated under section 2618(a)(2)(I), are
$20,000,000 in excess of funds available for this part in
fiscal year 2000, excluding amounts allocated under section
2618(a)(2)(I). States can apply for these supplemental awards
by describing the severity of need and the manner in which
funds are to be used.
The Managers intend to acknowledge the challenges faced by
many areas with a significant burden of HIV and AIDS and a
lack of health care infrastructure or resources to provide
HIV care services. This supplemental program allows the
Secretary to make grants to States to address HIV service
needs in these underserved areas. The Managers understand the
necessity to continue to support existing and expanding
critical Title II base services.
AIDS Drug Assistance Program supplemental grant and expanded
services
Under this Act, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) has
been strengthened to assist States in a number of areas. The
Secretary is authorized to reserve 3 percent of ADAP
appropriations for discretionary supplemental ADAP grants
which shall be awarded in accordance with severity of need
criteria established by the Secretary. Such criteria shall
account for existing eligibility standards, formulary
composition and the number of patients with incomes at or
below 200 percent of poverty. The Managers also encourage the
Secretary to consider such factors as the State's ability to
remove restrictions on eligibility based on current medical
conditions or income restrictions and to provide HIV
therapeutics consistent with PHS guidelines.
States are also required to match the Federal supplemental
at a rate of 1:4. The Managers expect the State to continue
to maintain current levels of effort in its ADAP funding. The
Managers intend that the 25 percent State match required to
receive funds under this section be implemented in a flexible
manner that recognizes the variations between Federal, State,
and programmatic fiscal years.
In addition, up to 5 percent of ADAP funds will be allowed
to support services that directly encourage, support, and
enhance adherence with treatment regimens, including medical
monitoring, as well as purchase health insurance plans where
those plans provided fuller and more cost-effective coverage
of AIDS therapies and other needed health care coverage.
However, up to 10 percent of ADAP funds may be expended for
such purposes if the State demonstrates that such services
are essential and do not diminish access to therapeutics.
Finally, the Managers recognize that existing Federal policy
provides adequate guidelines to states for carrying out
provisions under this section.
Partner notification, perinatal transmission, and counseling
services
Discretionary grants are authorized under this Act for
partner notification, counseling and referral services. The
Managers have also expanded the existing grant program to
States for the reduction of perinatal transmission of HIV,
and for HIV counseling, testing, and outreach to pregnant
women. Funding for perinatal HIV transmission reduction
activities is expanded, with additional grants available to
States with newborn testing laws or States with significant
reductions in perinatal HIV transmission. In addition, this
Act further specifies information to be conveyed to
individuals receiving HIV positive test results in order to
reduce risk of HIV transmission through sex or needle-sharing
practices.
Coordination of coverage and services
This Act also strengthens the requirements made on the
States and EMAs in a number of areas aimed at improving the
coordination of coverage and services. Grantees must assess
the availability of other funding sources, such as Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and
improve efforts to ensure that CARE Act funds are coordinated
with other available payers.
Titles III and IV administrative expenses
The administrative cap for the directly funded Title III
programs is increased. The administrative cap for Title III
grants is raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent to correspond
with the 10 percent cap on individual contractors in Title I.
The Secretary is directed to review administrative and
program support expenses for Title IV, in consultation with
grantees. In order to assure that children, youth, women, and
families have access to quality HIV-related health and
support services and research opportunities, the Secretary is
directed to work with Title IV grantees to review expenses
related to administrative, program support, and direct
service-related activities.
Title IV access to research
This Act removes the requirement that Title IV grantees
enroll a ``significant number'' of patients in research
projects. Title IV provides an important link between women,
children, and families affected by HIV/AIDS and HIV-related
clinical research programs. The ``significant number''
requirement is removed here to eliminate the incentive for
providers to inappropriately encourage or pressure patients
to enroll in research programs.
To maintain appropriate access to research opportunities,
providers are required to develop better documentation of the
linkages between care and research. The Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), is also directed to examine the distribution
and availability of HIV-related clinical programs for
purposes of enhancing and expanding access to clinical
trials, including trials funded by NIH, CDC and private
sponsors. The Managers encourage the Secretary to assure that
NIH-sponsored HIV-related trials are responsive to the need
to coordinate the health services received by participants
with the achievement of research objectives. Nor do the
Managers intend this requirement to require the
redistribution of funds for such research projects.
Part F Dental Reimbursement Program
The Managers have established new grants for community-
based oral health care to support collaborative efforts
between dental education programs and community-based
providers directed at providing oral health care to patients
with HIV disease in currently unserved areas and communities
without dental education programs. Although the Dental
Program has been tremendously successful, there is still a
large HIV/AIDS population that has not benefitted because
there is not a dental education institution participating in
their area. These patients are also in need of dental
services that could be provided at community sites if more
community-based providers would partner with a dental school
or residency program. In these partnerships, dental students
or residents could provide treatment for HIV/AIDS patients in
underserved communities under the direction of a community-
based dentist who would serve as adjunct faculty. By
encouraging dental educational institutions to partner with
community-based providers, the Managers intend to address to
unmet need in these areas by ensuring that dental treatment
for the HIV/AIDS population is available in all areas of the
country, not just where dental schools are located.
Technical assistance and guidance
The Managers reaffirm the Secretary's responsibility in
providing needed guidance and tools to grantees in assisting
them in carrying out new requirements under this Act. The
Secretary is required to work with States and EMAs to
establish epidemiologic measures and tools for use in
identifying the number of individuals with HIV infection,
especially those who are not in care. The legislation
requests an IOM study to assist the Secretary in providing
this advice to grantees.
The Managers understand that the Secretary has convened a
Public Health Service Working Group on HIV Treatment
Information Dissemination, which has produced recommendations
and a strategy for the dissemination of HIV treatment
information to health care providers and patients.
Recognizing the importance of such a strategy, the Managers
intend that the Secretary issue
[[Page 21043]]
and begin implementation of the strategy to improve the
quality of care received by people living with HIV/AIDS.
Data collection through CDC
The Managers believe that an additional authorization for
HIV surveillance activities under the CDC will serve to
advance the purposes of the CARE Act. To better identify and
bring individuals with HIV/AIDS into care, States and cities
may use such funding to enhance their HIV/AIDS reporting
systems and expand case finding, surveillance, social
marketing campaigns, and other prevention service programs.
Notwithstanding its strong interest in improving the
coordination between HIV prevention and HIV care and
treatment services, the Managers intend that this enhanced
funding for CDC and its grantees ensure that CARE Act
programs and funds not duplicate or be diverted to activities
currently funded and administered by the CDC.
Coordination
This Act requires the Secretary to submit a plan to
Congress concerning the coordination of Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), and Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA), to enhance the continuity of care and
prevention services for individuals with HIV disease or those
at risk of such disease. The Managers believe that much
greater effort is required to ensure that the provision of
HIV prevention and care services becomes as seamless as
possible, and that coordination be pursued at the Federal
level, in the States and local communities to eliminate any
administrative barriers to the efficient provision of high
quality services to individuals with HIV disease.
A second plan for submission to Congress focuses on the
medical case management and provision of support services to
persons with HIV released from Federal or State prisons.
Administrative simplification
The Managers intend for the Secretary of HHS to explore
opportunities to reduce the administrative requirements of
Ryan CARE Act grantees through simplifying and streamlining
the administrative processes required of grantees and
providers under Titles I and II. In consultation with
grantees and service providers of both parts, the Secretary
is directed to (1) develop a plan for coordinating the
disbursement of appropriations for grants under Title I with
the disbursement of appropriations for grants under Title II,
(2) explore the impact of biennial application for Titles I
and II on the efficiency of administration and the
administrative burden imposed on grantees and providers under
Titles I and II, and (3) develop a plan for simplifying the
application process for grants under Titles I and II. It is
the intent of the Managers to improve the ability of grantees
to comply with administrative requirements while decreasing
the amount of staff time and resources spent on
administrative requirements.
Program and service studies
The Managers request that the Secretary, through the IOM,
examine changing trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the
financing and delivery of primary care and support services
for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured and individuals
with HIV disease. The Secretary is directed to make
recommendation regarding the most effective use of scarce
Federal resources. The purpose of the study is to examine key
factors associated with the effective and efficient financing
and delivery of HIV services (including the quality of
services, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness). The
Managers expect that the study would include examination of
CARE Act financing of services in relation to existing public
sector financing and private health coverage; general
demographics and comorbidities of individuals with HIV
disease; regional variations in the financing and costs of
HIV service delivery; the availability and utility of health
outcomes measures and data for measuring quality of Ryan
White funded service; and available epidemiological tools and
data sets necessary for local and national resource planning
and allocation decisions, including an assessment of
implementation of HIV infection reporting, as it impacts
these factors.
The Managers also require an IOM study focuses on
determining the number of newborns with HIV, where the HIV
status of the mother is unknown; perinatal HIV transmission
reduction efforts in States; and barriers to routine HIV
testing of pregnant women and newborns when the mothers' HIV
status is unknown. The study is intended to provide States
with recommendations on improving perinatal prevention
services and reducing the number of pediatric HIV/AIDS cases
resulting from perinatal transmission.
Development of Rapid HIV Test
The Managers encourage the Secretary to expedite the
availability of rapid HIV tests which are safe, effective,
reliable and affordable. The Managers intend that the
National Institutes of Health expand research which may lead
to such tests. The Managers also intend that the Director of
CDC should take primary responsibility, in conjunction with
the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, for a report to Congress
on the public health need and recommendations for the
expedited review of rapid HIV tests. The Managers believe
that the Food and Drug Administration should account for the
particular applications and urgent need for rapid HIV tests,
as articulated by public health experts and the CDC, when
determining the specific requirements to which such tests
will be held prior to marketing.
Department of Veterans Affairs
The Managers note that the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs is the largest single direct provider of HIV care and
services in the country. Over 18,000 veterans received HIV
care at VA facilities in 1999. Veterans with HIV infection
are eligible to participate in Ryan White Title I and Title
II programs when they meet eligibility requirements set by
EMAs and States, whose plans for the delivery of services
must account for the availability of VA services. VA
facilities are eligible providers of HIV health and support
services where appropriate. The Managers expect that HRSA's
Bureau of HIV/AIDS shall encourage Ryan White grantees to
develop collaborations between providers and VA facilities to
optimize coordination and access to care to all persons with
HIV/AIDS.
International HIV/AIDS Initiatives
The Managers note that the CARE Act provides a model of
service delivery and Federal partnerships with States, cities
and community-based organizations which should prove valuable
in global efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The
Managers strongly encourage the Secretary, the Bureau of HIV/
AIDS at HRSA, and the CDC to provide technical assistance
available to other countries which has already proven
invaluable in helping to limit the suffering caused by HIV/
AIDS. It is the Managers' hope that the hard-earned knowledge
and experience gained in this country can benefit people with
HIV/AIDS overseas.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 2311, the Ryan White
Care Act Amendments of 2000. Enactment of this legislation will truly
make a difference in people's lives.
The Ryan White CARE Act, without question, was the most important
legislation Congress has ever enacted for people living with HIV and
AIDS. Every year, CARE Act funds provide lifesaving medical and social
services for tens of thousands of uninsured and underinsured Americans
battling these devastating diseases. AIDS medications, viral load
testing, treatment education, and case management are just a few of the
essential support services provided by federal CARE Act dollars.
Each of the programs created under the CARE Act services a specific
need yet, combined, they make up the health care and social service
safety net of last resort. Since it's creation in 1990, reliability and
stability have been the two cornerstones of the Ryan White law. When we
passed the House version of the reauthorization in July, I spoke out
against a provision that ran directly contrary to this safety net
principle. A 25 percent reduction in the ``hold harmless'' that was
part of the original House bill would have caused a rapid
destabilization of systems of care in the Bay Area and potentially
around the country. I fought that provision and I'm so pleased that the
bill before us today includes a more equitable formula that reflects
the changing face of the disease without gutting funding to any one
Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA).
More people than ever are living with HIV/AIDS and the CARE Act must
keep pace with the increasing demands. When the CARE Act was passed in
1990, there were 155,619 AIDS cases. In 1996, there were 481,234 cases.
Today, America has 733,374 recorded cases of HIV/AIDS. AIDS is the
leading cause of death among African Americans between the ages of 25-
44 and the second leading cause of death among Latinos in the same age
group. HIV/AIDS are still very much with us and we must ensure that all
those infected get the medical and social services they need to live
longer, more productive lives.
And that's exactly what's been happening. Access to new medications
and treatments, such as combination antiretroviral therapies, has
significantly lengthened the life expectancy of people with HIV/AIDS.
People with AIDS are living longer and those with HIV aren't
progressing as quickly to full-blown AIDS. Thankfully, it's no longer
necessarily a death sentence. This, in turn, underscores the increasing
need for services. As people live longer, their dependence on CARE Act
programs greatly increases; hence, the importance of reauthorizing the
Ryan White Act.
So, I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Jeffords and
Representatives Brown, Waxman and Coburn, and their staffs, for their
work on S. 2311 and for their dedication to reauthorizing the CARE Act
this year. It's a good bill that will do wonderful things for people
across this country. I urge my colleagues' enthusiastic support.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2311, Ryan
White Care Act. I
[[Page 21044]]
am very thankful that were are acting on this very important bill,
before we run out of time, to ensure that individuals living with HIV
and AIDS will receive the health care and related supported services
that they need. While, S. 2311 is not perfect, it does provide the
necessary authorizations for appropriations and programmatic changes to
ensure that the CARE Act is responsive to the evolving demographic
trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic and advances in treatment care.
I am also pleased that one of my major concerns with the House bill
to reauthorize the CARE Act, HR 4807, involving incentives for HIV
testing of pregnant women and infants, is not in the bill before us
today. I oppose mandatory testing of any sub-population, and I strongly
believe, that this body must give full consideration to the IOM study
as it relates to this issue.
I am encouraged that S. 2311 also changes city and state funding
formulas to encompass all who are infected with HIV and not just
provide resources for individuals who have progressed to AIDS. This
change responds to the changing nature of the epidemic and the newer
treatment protocols, which begin medication earlier.
It allows for treatment programs to begin and expand critical
prevention efforts. This bill also more effectively represents the
burden of the disease and the need for care. In addition, this measure
makes a concerted effort to support the fact, that the funding
``needs'' to follow the trends of the disease (which are
disproportionately and increasingly affecting people of color).
It also encourages reporting of HIV infections by states (many do not
now report). Such adherence to reporting, will improve our ability to
be more progressive and get in front of this epidemic by increasing
prevention and outreach efforts.
Another major area that is of critical concern to the Congressional
Black Caucus and the communities we represent (which are primarily
people of color), is the community planning councils, their
composition, effectiveness and operations. This process has not worked
well for many disenfranchised communities under existing authorization.
Community input is essential to effective service provision at the
local level. Therefore, we are encouraged by the requirement in the
bill that planning, priority setting and funding allocation processes
must take into account the demographics of the local HIV/AIDs epidemic,
existing disparities in access to HIV--related care.
In this regard, I also encourage that African Americans and other
people of color be appropriately represented in the clinical trials and
investigator pools based on the trends of the disease.
I would be remiss if, I did not say that based on the past
epidemiology, and several studies and forecasts, FY 2001 funding for
the all important ADAP program falls around $100 million dollars short
of what will be needed to provide treatment to those infected.
This dramatic shortfall represents the many low income, uninsured and
under-insured Americans who will not receive appropriate care, and
further puts this country far from where we need to be in fighting this
epidemic and saving the lives of those infected and most at-risk.
We in the Caucus and our partners in the Congress and the communities
we serve, remain vigilant in the nation's fight against the HIV/AIDS
crisis. The Ryan White Care Act is the lifeline to countless Americans
infected with HIV and AIDS. It is our best ammunition in the war
against this devastating disease that is plaguing our nation. Clearly,
we in the U.S. Congress must not wait until this disease begins to
mirror the pandemic in Africa. An enhanced, strengthened, responsive
and adequately funded Ryan White Care Act is absolutely essential to
intensified care, treatment, prevention and outreach.
I urge my colleagues to support this much needed and important bill.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the
Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000. Over the past ten years, the
Ryan White Care Act has represented a unique partnership between
federal, state and local officials in delivering prevention and
treatment services to those affected by this disease.
The good news is the Care Act has expanded access to high quality
health care, which is more important than ever in accommodating the
growing numbers of people living with HIV and AIDS. As a result, it is
important that federal funds distributed to states and cities most
impacted by the disease, such as Long Beach, are needs-based. These
amendments are an important step towards the equitable distribution of
federal resources for people living with HIV and AIDS.
These amendments will also allow heavily impacted areas such as Long
Beach to use their funds now for early intervention services, so they
can locate people living with HIV and get them into care. With HIV
infecting more than 40,000 Americans each year--at an average treatment
cost of $200,000 per individual--prevention strategies remain the most
cost effective use of public health dollars.
Today, there are nearly 3800 AIDS cases in Long Beach alone. The Ryan
White Care Act Amendments will go a long way in improving access to
health care for these Americans, in addition to slowing the rate of new
infections, especially in communities of color. I am pleased to lend my
support to this important bill and encourage all my colleagues to do
the same.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This bill will make a real and
profound difference in the lives of persons living with HIV/AIDS by
providing resources for essential primary care health and support
services.
The Ryan White CARE Act was first passed in 1990. Since that time,
the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic has changed but the need for the Ryan
White CARE Act has not. Today, it is more important than ever that we
act to expand access to health and social services.
Since coming to Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit with
many of my constituents who have benefited from the Ryan White CARE
Act. Person after person has told me that, without this Act, they would
be unable to afford the treatments needed so that they can remain
healthy and productive members of their community. As members of
Congress, we have supported increased medical research efforts that
have led to promising treatment advances for people living with HIV/
AIDS. The Ryan White CARE Act helps to ensure that people can actually
obtain that treatment. It helps them find affordable housing and
employment opportunities. It is a program that works and deserves our
continued support.
In my district, as in other parts of the country, the HIV/AIDS
epidemic continues to threaten individuals, families and communities. I
want to recognize the outstanding efforts of many in combating this
crisis, both here and in the Chicagoland area. In particular, I want to
thank Representative Henry Waxman for his outstanding leadership. As
the original sponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act, he has worked to make
sure that it remains effective and is flexible enough to address the
changing nature of this epidemic.
I also want to point out the enormous efforts of the City of Chicago
and, specifically, the Department of Public Health. Mayor Richard Daley
has developed a strategic plan to provide a comprehensive response to
this epidemic, working with providers, prevention experts, community
representatives and, most importantly, people living with HIV/AIDS.
Recognizing that today there are more people living with an AIDS
diagnosis in Chicago than at any other time, the City is working to
prevent new infections, provide access to drug therapies and other
treatments, improve other services such as affordable housing, and
ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible to reflect
changing needs. Reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act with
adequate funding is essential to meeting those goals. I also want to
point out the important work of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and
Chicago Health Outreach in this effort.
Finally, we must recognize that women and people of color represent a
disproportionate number of new AIDS cases. Many of those impacted are
uninsured, have no regular access to primary care services, and are
unable to afford anti-HIV therapies. I am working with the Evanston
Health Department and the faith community in my district to reach out
to these communities and provide information on prevention and
available services. Therefore, I am pleased that S. 2311 makes
improvements in the Ryan White CARE Act to help eliminate disparities
in access to services and outreach to underserved communities.
I urge my colleagues to support the Ryan White CARE Act
reauthorization and to follow up on this action by providing full
appropriation levels for its essential services.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2311, which
reauthorizes ``The Ryan White CARE Act''.
HIV infection and AIDS in Brooklyn remains a difficult battle. The
Centers for Disease Control found that minorities now account for more
than half of all new cases in the United States. AIDS now kills more
black men that gunshot wounds. And, it is also the leading cause of
death for Hispanic men ages 25 to 44. This disease has equally affected
women and children in minority communities. Eighty-four percent of the
AIDS cases involving children, age 12 and under, can be found in the
black community. And, AIDS has now become the second leading cause of
death for black women
[[Page 21045]]
and the third leading cause for Hispanic women.
I have witnessed these statistics first hand. My congressional
district has the highest incidence of new AIDS cases of any area in New
York City. Brownsville has more people living with AIDS than 12 States.
It has the second highest number of blacks living with AIDS in all of
New York City. In addition, East New York and the Ft. Greene
neighborhoods have large populations of women living with AIDS.
Yet, we have not witnessed either the research or treatment and care
dollars following the change in disease patterns. While Brooklyn is the
epicenter of this disease in New York City, the majority of the Ryan
White and NIH funds are still going to organizations which do not serve
this constituency. In response to language which I worked to include in
this legislation, hopefully, this trend will be halted. And, minority
communities, like Brownsville, Ft. Greene and East New York, will
receive their fair share of treatment dollars.
I am very pleased that with today's floor consideration of the Ryan
White CARE Act we will be able to continue to bring resources to those
communities and people who are impacted by AIDS and HIV infection. And,
I would urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend Mr. Waxman and Mr. Coburn for their hard work on the
reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of 2000. The Ryan White CARE
Act provides grants to eligible metropolitan areas that are
disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic; it provides grants to
the states and territories to provide health care support services to
people living with HIV/AIDS; it provides programs which support
outpatient HIV early intervention services for low-income, medically
underserved people in existing primary care systems; and it provides
services for children, youth, women and families in a comprehensive,
community-based, family-centered system of care.
I am glad to see that the Ryan White CARE Act Amendment of 2000 which
I am a cosponsor, addresses the needs of people living with HIV and
AIDS. As we witness the dramatic changes taking place in other world
nations now confronting exploding epidemics of HIV/AIDS, we recognize
that the course of the HIV epidemic is also changing.
Racial and ethnic minorities are increasingly becoming affected with
this dreadful disease at an alarming rate. With adequate funding, the
Ryan White CARE Act can continue providing medical services to people
living with HIV/AIDS, which can help to improve their quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have come
to the floor today to speak on the importance of reauthorizing the Ryan
White CARE Act of 2000. I am pleased that this important piece of
legislation passed the House and Senate and that the leadership
considered this important reauthorization before the end of this
congressional session.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This is important bipartisan
legislation and I am pleased to see it on the floor today on its way to
swift passage. I want to thank the authors for hearing the concerns
that were raised when the bill first came through the House, and I
believe we have reached a good compromise.
Mr. Speaker, the AIDS epidemic has ravaged our communities throughout
the country. The statistics are devastating. Through December 1998,
nearly 700,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS. Over 400,000 of
these people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that over 40,000 people become infected with HIV each year
with an estimated 600,000 to 900,000 people living with HIV today.
As a nation, we could have thrown up our hands and given up in the
face of this terrible tragedy. But in 1990, in one of the great
legislative achievements of the last decade, Congress took action to
address this emergency and passed the Ryan White CARE Act. The CARE Act
is a comprehensive program providing treatment and support services to
those living with HIV and AIDS. It has brought hope and a little
humanity to this terrifying crisis.
The CARE Act is a model of how we can accomplish great things in this
chamber. By working together, we have produced a program that provides
vital health services to people across the country while targeting
communities most in need. It is an efficient program that has been an
unqualified success.
We haven't found a cure for AIDS yet, but scientists are making
promising discoveries every day, bringing hope that we may one day rid
ourselves of this disease once and for all. Until then, there is the
CARE Act, reaching out to people who are suffering with HIV and AIDS
today and who need our help to lead healthy and productive lives. This
is a humane program that deserves our strong support.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for a
cause that must be sustained and implemented in America today. S. 2311,
``Ryan White CARE Act of 2000'' will reauthorize the funds for programs
while also changing the formula for current distribution of Ryan White
programs. Mr. Speaker, I support this measure that builds on continuing
efforts to safeguard the lives of those suffering the most.
Accordingly, I applaud the efforts to bring this important legislation
to the floor today before the end of the 106th Congress.
Thanks to the persuasive skills by those working on behalf of those
afflicted with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the funding formula within this
legislation will actually ensure that minorities are properly covered.
The legislation maintains the integrity of the multistructure of the
CARE Act, allowing funds to be targeted to the areas hardest hit by the
HIV and AIDS epidemic. In addition, I am pleased that the legislation
maintains and, in fact, strengthens the decision-making authority of
local planning councils and allows resources to be used to locate and
bring more individuals into the health care system. Further, I am also
delighted to learn that the bill will provide more individuals with
early intervention services, such as counseling and testing.
This bill will give states the option to readily extend Medicaid
coverage to people living with HIV. If adopted, states will have the
ability to add poor and low-income uninsured persons living with HIV to
the list of persons categorically eligible for Medicaid. This is very
important for people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas who
deserve every opportunity to getting the proper coverage it is so
critical that they receive quality care. There are HIV-infected persons
in my district and across America that need some relief immediately and
thus I am pleased by the Medicaid provision in the legislation.
Under current rules, most people living with HIV are ineligible for
Medicaid until they have progressed to AIDS and are disabled. Yet, new
treatment, such as highly active antiretrovial therapy (HAART), are
successfully delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS. That
is exciting, Mr. Speaker. We can turn this situation around. These
advances, along with access to comprehensive health care, have improved
the health and quality of life for many people living with HIV.
However, without access to Medicaid these advances will remain out of
reach for thousands of poor and low-income uninsured people living with
HIV.
Early access to HIV treatment through Medicaid, as provided by this
legislation, will result in a reduction of new AIDS cases, increase the
quality of life of thousands living with HIV, reduce high medical
interventions such as inpatient hospitalizations and terminal care,
increase tax revenues and reduce costs in the SSI and SSDI programs.
Another initiative, that effects personally my 18th district in
Texas, is the establishment of a new supplementary competitive grant
program for states in ``severe need''. HHS must consider the importance
of HIV and AIDS, the increased need for service along with the level of
unmet need. HHS also must look at disparities in the access to services
for historically underserved communities. Acknowledgment of loopholes
is being met and solutions being made to combat the destitute situation
many underserved communities find themselves in.
Finally, I believe it is significant that the reauthorization of the
Ryan White Act has the strong support of the Human Rights Campaign and
AIDS Action, two organizations that has done monumental work in the
promotion of better health care and other critical benefits for those
afflicted with HIV/AIDS. As a result of their hard work, we have a
bipartisan effort that finally begins to seek to reach out to
minorities in unprecedented fashion.
Congress has long recognized the broad scope of benefits of CARE Act
programs to those impacted by the HIV and AIDS. We need to continue
helping those in need and redouble our efforts to eliminate the
epidemic of HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to
strongly support this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for
passing S. 2311 to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the House reauthorization (H.R. 4807)
that we passed by voice vote on July 27, 2000. I am equally proud to
stand in support of Senate bill 2311. I urge my colleagues to continue
their support for these amendments by voting for S. 2311, and help
ensure that those with AIDS will continue to receive the support and
resources they need.
[[Page 21046]]
Mr. Speaker, we all know the troubling statistics. Since its
inception, AIDS has claimed over 400,000 lives in the United States. An
estimated 900,000 Americans are living with HIV/AIDS today. Women
account for 30 percent of new infections. Over half of all new
infections occur in persons under 25. As the AIDS crisis has continued
year after year, it has become more and more difficult for anyone to
claim that AIDS is someone else's problem.
Since 1990, the CARE Act has helped establish a comprehensive,
community-based continuum of care for uninsured and under-insured
people living with HIV and AIDS, including access to primary medical
care, pharmaceuticals, and support services. The CARE Act provides
services to people who would not otherwise have access to care.
As a result of the CARE Act, many people with HIV and AIDS are
leading longer and healthier lives today.
Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress, I have strongly supported
increases in funding for medical research. As the spouse of a
physician, I have a special affinity for those suffering from life-
threatening illnesses. I know some believe that government is the
problem and not the solution. But the truth is the opposite: in times
of great human suffering and injustice, our government has acted to
help our fellow citizens overcome life-threatening conditions and
situations. Federal aid for the Ryan White CARE Act is a prime example
of the good government can do in the face of tragedy and national
danger.
By passing S. 2311, we are making clear that the AIDS epidemic in the
United States will receive the attention and public health response it
deserves.
By passing S. 2311 today, Mr. Speaker, we will affirm our commitment
to people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. We will also be
affirming our dedication to sound public policy. By reauthorizing the
CARE Act, today, Mr. Speaker, we will give hope and a real chance for a
better life to thousands of HIV/AIDS victims.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This is an
excellent bill and it deserves our immediate consideration and support.
I want to take particular note of the way in which this bill has been
developed. This bill comes to us by way of a remarkable bipartisan
effort led by my good friend and colleague Representative Waxman and
from the other side of the aisle, Representative Coburn. Given the
complexity of the Ryan White program and the potentially controversial
nature of the subject matter, the fact that we will pass a good bill at
this time of year with a strong bipartisan vote is a tribute to them.
Our colleagues in the other body have also worked hard on this bill
and are to be congratulated for their effort. Senators Jeffords,
Kennedy, and Frist have been solid partners in forging the legislation
before us today.
The CDC estimates that more than 900,000 persons in America are now
living with HIV. Approximately one-third of these persons know they are
infected and are receiving treatment. Another third know they are
infected, but are not receiving treatment. Another third does not know
they are infected. Another complication is that HIV infections are
occurring in every region of the country and in every kind of
situation. Underserved areas, such as rural areas, are having a
particularly difficult time because they lack the infrastructure of
proven prevention and treatment programs.
In brief, S. 2311 keeps those programs that have withstood the test
of time. Just as significantly, it makes changes where they were
needed. The four titles of the Ryan White CARE Act contain a variety of
grants and formulas that distribute funds at the state and local
levels. As we all know, changing programs of this kind is never easy.
In this case, we have successfully blended the need for change with the
need for continuity of care for those areas that have been especially
hard hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. On this point, let me note the great
work of our colleagues Representatives Eshoo, Towns and Pelosi. I note,
also, that a listing of all of the changes made to the Ryan White
program by this bill is set forth in the statement of managers that
will be included in the record of today's proceedings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the work of ranking
member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, Representative
Brown, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Representative Bilirakis. They
have forged a solid working relationship on a variety of bills that
have come before us this year and we are grateful for their hard work
and cooperation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 611, the previous question is ordered on
the Senate bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411,
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
[[Page 21047]]
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--22
Berkley
Bonior
Clay
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hefley
King (NY)
Klink
Lazio
Maloney (CT)
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Obey
Paul
Rangel
Sweeney
Vento
Wise
Young (FL)
{time} 1151
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend programs
established under the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency
Act of 1990, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained
during rollcall vote No. 512. Had I been present I would have voted
``yes.''
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2941, LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 610 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 610
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2941) to establish the Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area in the State of Arizona. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the
Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record
and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 610 is an open rule waiving all points of order
against the consideration of H.R. 2941, a bill to establish the Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area in the State of Arizona.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Resources. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be open for amendment
at any point. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The rule also authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. The rule further allows the chairman of the Committee on the
Whole to postpone votes during the consideration of the bill and to
reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote
follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
H.R. 2941, a bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), establishes the Las Cienegas National Conservation
Area in parts of Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties in Arizona. The
bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a management plan
for the 42,000 acre area which will conserve, protect, and enhance its
resources and values.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also authorizes the Secretary to
purchase or exchange necessary acreage for the conservation area from
willing sellers, both individuals and from the State of Arizona.
The bill preserves a significant amount of land that is home to an
important cross-section of plants and wildlife. It also creates
142,000-plus acre planning district that is an important first step
towards providing a biological corridor from the north of Tucson to
Mexico for animal movements that are necessary for the long-term
viability of some species.
In addition, two of southern Arizona's perennial streams, the Cienega
Creek and the Babocamari River, would be protected by this legislation,
ensuring a long-term sustainable riparian area.
{time} 1200
Land will also be available for human use in ranching, hunting, and
recreation.
H.R. 2941 was reported by unanimous consent by the Committee on
Resources on September 20, 2000. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule, House Resolution 610, and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule, and urge my
colleagues to pass it.
The underlying bill comes after extensive negotiations between the
bill's supporters and the administration, and would establish the Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area located in Arizona.
This land is important for a diverse cross-section of plants and
wildlife. The bill creates the 137,000-acre Sonoita Valley Conservation
Planning District, which includes the 42,000 acre Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area.
[[Page 21048]]
Moreover, the bill would provide an important first step to creating
a biological corridor that extends from north of Tucson to Mexico for
animal movements that are necessary for the long-term viability of some
species.
In addition, two of southern Arizona's perennial streams, the Cienega
Creek and the Babocomari River, would be protected, ensuring a long-
term, sustainable riparian area.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the author of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for H.R. 2941,
the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Establishment Act.
As the gentleman from Washington said, it is an open rule, and
deserves support of all the Members of this body.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411,
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Baird
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Goodling
Granger
Hefley
King (NY)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Obey
Paul
Payne
Stabenow
Sweeney
Vento
Wise
{time} 1220
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its
clerks, announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a joint
resolution of the House of the following title:
H.J. Res. 110. Joint Resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
____________________
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of a personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair has been apprised of
the predicate on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
seeks recognition and finds (in consonance with the precedents cited in
section 708 of the House Rules and Manual) that it qualifies as a
question of personal privilege under rule IX.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for concluding what has been
a 4-year nightmare to myself and my family. In fact, 4 years, 1 month
and 31 days ago, a group associated with Ralph Nader filed an ethics
complaint against me.
I have agreed to accept a single letter of reproval to settle this
matter. Now, this letter of reproval deals with matters of appearances
of improprieties to which I acknowledge. I am very pleased that the
committee dismissed the wild and inaccurate charges originally filed by
the Nader group. I am very pleased
[[Page 21049]]
that not a single allegation, not a scintilla of evidence, not a hint
of any of this referred to any actions that I took that influenced my
activities as chairman of my committee.
Now, the Webster dictionary defines reproval. As we know, a letter of
reproval, by definition, is the mildest form of sanction. The Webster
dictionary defines it as, and I quote, ``to scold or correct, usually
gently and with kindly intent.''
Now, I must confess I feel neither gentle nor kindly about this 4-
year nightmare which has been so difficult for my family and which has
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
It began with this Nader organization complaint filed. And under the
rules, it is a fact, not an opinion, it is a fact that, under the
rules, such a complaint must include the signatures of three sitting
Members. It is a fact, not an opinion, that at least one of those
signatures, not only was not signed by a Member, his name was not even
spelled correctly. So on the face of it, this should have been rejected
in the very beginning. The then committee began the investigation by
violating their own rules. But that is something behind us.
It is also a fact that, in the week of October 5, 1998, 2 years ago,
the then chairman of the committee sought me out and said to me, and I
can quote it because I immediately not only wrote it down, but also
sent it to my attorneys and sent a copy of a letter to the
distinguished gentleman himself to make sure that I had not
misunderstood. He said to me that, after conferring with other Members
of the committee, that they wanted to wrap up the matter by year's end
because there was nothing of substance. It was, and I emphasize, I
quote, ``B.S.'' I immediately prepared a memorandum, and of course my
family and I proceeded on this basis.
As it turned out, that was 2 years ago. I was told they wanted to
wrap it up by year's end. It did not happen. We regret that. But we
went on to do our best to try to comply with this nightmare.
It is also a matter of public record that the chairman of the
investigation committee and I have had bad blood over the years,
largely, although not exclusively, over the fact that I refused to
block a 6-runway which he wanted killed for his airport. At the time,
people came to me and said ``you should object under the rules to that
gentleman being chairman of the subcommittee.'' I said absolutely not.
I said then that gentleman is an honorable gentleman, and I said now
that gentleman is an honorable gentleman. So I agreed for us to proceed
under those rules.
I agreed to this letter. It is true that, after my chief of staff of
22 years retired, I and my new chief of staff contacted that old chief
of staff numerous times on official business to get guidance because
that former chief of staff was the only one who had the knowledge that
we needed to conduct the affairs of our office. If that created an
appearance of impropriety, absolutely. That is true.
It is also true that my wife and I and my family went to Puerto Rico
on what we believed to be an official trip. While it is true that we
did, indeed, meet with two different organizations on official business
plus, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I
took time to meet with DEA agents on drug matters relating to Puerto
Rico, nevertheless it was concluded by the committee that this trip was
more recreational. I accept that judgment that it created the
appearance of recreation.
It is also true that my congressional staff contributed many times to
work in my campaign. It is true that we kept no written records. I
acknowledge that. I admit that. If that is an appearance of
impropriety, so be it. We understand that the particular staff person
in question did testify that she worked nights and weekends to make it
up. But, absolutely, we did not keep records which have been deemed to
be adequate, and so I have no problem in acknowledging that violation.
It is also true that the Bud Shuster for Congress Committee spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars on dinners and charter flights. We
identified it as political. But it is true that we did not spell out
the details. We did not spell out who it was we had dinner with. We did
not spell out the purpose of the dinner. We reported it all on our FEC
reports, but we did not provide any detail. So if that is an appearance
of impropriety, so be it. I accept it.
Also, the word ``excessive'' was used in spending campaign funds.
Now, if one comes from a rural area, we do not have the benefit of
airlines, scheduled airlines. We have to use charter flights.
{time} 1230
But between the dinners and the flights, these campaign expenses were
``excessive.'' We thought that was something the FEC was supposed to
deal with, but nevertheless we accept that. If that created the
appearance of impropriety, so be it.
But I would point out, in fact, it really raises my hackles a bit
when people say, ``Well, you didn't have any opposition.'' My
colleagues, I have got to confess to the sin of pride. I am the only
Pennsylvanian in our Nation's history who has won both the Democratic
and the Republican nominations nine times. These Democratic nominations
did not fall out of the sky. We conduct very, very complicated write-in
campaigns. And in 11 counties, we have had to run 11 campaigns for a
write-in campaign. It costs a lot of money.
We work 365 days a year on the political end of our activities, and
we do spend an awful lot of money. And if that created the appearance
of impropriety, I accept that.
Now, if our practices created the appearance of impropriety, our
attorneys at one point said, wait a minute, these are common practices.
I said, well, I thought they were, but maybe they are not. So our
attorneys initiated investigations into the FEC reports as well as the
ethics report of 35 Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle,
particularly Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
and the leadership in the Congress to see whether these practices were
also conducted by other Members of the Congress. And, indeed, they
discovered that in a vast majority of the cases, meals, with the full
range of Washington restaurants, Mr. K's, Red Sage, Morton's, Capitol
Grill, were paid for by campaign expenses. The Palm, the MCI Center,
private clubs, golfing expenses; all paid for with campaign expenses.
Entertainment, music, florists, commercial airfare.
Indeed, I emphasize since we do not have commercial flights in rural
Pennsylvania, I had to rely on charter flights, but we spent an awful
lot of money on it. And if that created an appearance of impropriety,
absolutely I accept that.
Members, as they traveled around in style, Sun Valley, campaign
expenses or paid for by private groups; Sun Valley, Idaho, Jackson
Hole, Aspen, Boulder, Miami, Boca Raton, Orlando, Ft. Myers, Naples,
Palm Springs, Pebble Beach, the list goes on and on, Mexico, Puerto
Rico, Bermuda, Virgin Islands, Cuba, Panama, London, Scotland, Ireland,
Rome, Zurich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, et cetera, et
cetera, all paid for by private groups.
Now, it is a fact that we did not keep a record of how much of my
time was spent on official business and how much time was spent on
recreation. This is one of the things that the Congress and the
committee might want to consider clarifying this, so that when a Member
does go on a trip paid for by a private group, he should keep a record
of how many hours and minutes he spends on official business and how
many hours and minutes he spends on recreations so we would know
clearly and so my colleagues do not find themselves in the same
difficulty in which we have found ourselves.
In fact, I considered introducing legislation, but it is not my style
to do something with tongue-in-cheek to say that we have got to have
written records of every time we go and have a dinner with somebody,
and we must write down who the person was and what was talked about. Do
we really want that around here? Well, what is
[[Page 21050]]
good for the goose is good for the gander, but it is certainly not my
point to suggest that that should be done.
I have to tell my colleagues that my attorneys read the committee
report, and they take violent exception to some of the
characterizations in it, and urge, by the way, that all my colleagues
read our reply to the report, but I accept the letter of reproval. I
accept the appearance of impropriety. In the course of it, my attorneys
tell me there were 150 subpoenas, 75 witnesses, 33 depositions; and
they tell me time and time again in debriefings that they were informed
that these witnesses by the staff attorneys were intimidated, were
threatened, and were harassed.
I want to emphasize very strongly, these are not the gentlemen and
ladies on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As far as I
have been apprised, the gentlemen and the ladies on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct conducted themselves in a manner which we
all would expect them to conduct themselves. The staff, of course, was
a different situation.
So in conclusion, this 4-year ordeal is over. I accept the findings
to stop the hemorrhaging of legal fees and to put this behind us. I am
less than thrilled by the drumbeat of malicious, inaccurate newspaper
stories which have appeared over the period of time. I certainly want
to thank my family and my friends, my staff and my colleagues for their
tremendous support which I have received during this 4-year nightmare.
And perhaps most significantly, as a result of the tremendous support I
have received, our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
been able to be an effective committee, has been a committee which in
fact, more than any other committee in the Congress, I am told, has
seen 119 pieces of legislation signed into law, the largest and most
productive committee of the Congress with, indeed, some historic pieces
of legislation.
So I accept the findings of the committee in order to put this behind
us. And most importantly I want to thank all my colleagues for their
tremendous support over this period of time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the apologia pro vita sua we have just
heard from the gentleman in the well is and represents one of the most
intensely personal moments in this body; one of the most human
experiences that we engage in. None of us, unless we stand in that
well, as the gentleman has just done, can understand the pain and the
difficulty, but also the strength of character it takes to deliver the
statement the gentleman has just made, and to say ``I accept the
judgment.'' But it is characteristic of the gentleman to do so.
The gentleman has led the committee throughout all this ordeal with
dignity and effectiveness. I know how pained the gentleman is over this
report, but I am proud of this moment that he has taken to address his
colleagues and to address the country and to address this institution,
and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
610 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2941.
{time} 1240
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2941) to establish the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in
the State of Arizona, with Mr. Quinn in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in full support of H.R. 2941, which establishes the Cienegas
National Conservation Area and the Sonoita Valley Conservation Planning
District in the State of Arizona. Authored by my colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), this legislation will ensure the
future protection and use of this area.
The purpose of H.R. 2941 is to preserve the many historical,
recreation, and rangeland resources of the region while also allowing
for environmentally responsible grazing and recreation to continue. The
planning district consists of approximately 137,000 acres of land in
the Arizona counties of Pima and Santa Cruz. The conservation area on
the southern end of the planning district encompasses nearly 42,000
acres of Federal public land. Both of these management prescriptions
will conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of
present and future generations the unique aquatic, wildlife, cave,
historical, and other resources and values which allowing livestock
grazing and recreation to continue.
In 1995, the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership was formed to work
on public lands issues in the Empire-Cienega Resources Conservation
Area, which the BLM established in 1988. The partnership is comprised
of various stakeholders, such as hiking clubs, conservation
organizations, grazing and mining interests, off-highway vehicle clubs,
mountain bike clubs, as well as Federal, States, and county government
entities. The SVPP has developed a collaborative management plan for
these lands, and the National Conservation Area designation gives this
plan's objectives permanence.
The establishment of this conservation planning district and national
conservation will not affect any property rights of any lands or
interests in lands held by the State of Arizona, any political
subdivisions of the State of Arizona, or any private landowners. In
addition, reasonable access to non-federally owned lands or interest in
lands within the NCA must be provided. The establishment of the
National Conservation Area must also allow for multiple use, such as
grazing, motorized vehicles, military overflights, and hunting.
Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures the designation of the NCA will not
lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones. This
bill also assures that any activity or use on lands outside the NCA are
not precluded as a result of the designation. In addition, this bill
directs the Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive
management plan for the long-term management of the area.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe),
deserves a lot of credit for bringing H.R. 2941 to this point.
Following the initial hearing on this legislation, many concerns were
raised about boundaries, private and State lands, and grazing language.
After several months of negotiation with the minority and the Secretary
of the Interior, he has produced legislation that is balanced and
reasonable. I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
for his patience and hard work. This is a worthy piece of legislation,
and I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2941.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the powerful Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this legislation, which I
have cosponsored and is of tremendous importance to Arizona
maintenance.
I appreciate the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
[[Page 21051]]
George Miller); as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen); and my dear friend, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for moving this legislation.
As my colleagues know, this legislation will designate approximately
206,000 acres of land within Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties as
a National Conservation Area. I represent the area of the designation
within Santa Cruz County. I believe, as do many others within Arizona,
that it is important for this area to be designated a National
Conservation Area.
{time} 1245
This designation would allow for the local people to continue their
involvement in the use and preservation of this area by having a say in
the important management plan to be developed by the Secretary of
Interior.
In 1988, the Empire-Cienegas Resources Conservation Area was
established by the Bureau of Land Management. In 1995, in order to
address and work on land issues within the Conservation Area, a diverse
and caring group of citizens formed the Sonoita Valley Planning
Partnership. Virtually every group with an interest in the use and
conservation of the area was included in the Partnership.
Conservation organizations have continued to have a say in how this
land should be used and protected. Hiking clubs address the needs of
the area both in the recreational activities and preservation. Off-
highway vehicle clubs and mountain biking clubs have explored ways to
use this land while protecting its pristine value and not spoiling it
for wildlife and for plant species.
Ranchers have joined the Partnership to best explain how the land can
be used for grazing without having a detrimental impact on the
environment. Mining companies continue to work within the Partnership
in hopes of ensuring an area will be preserved for recreation,
wildlife, and beauty.
Finally, State, Federal, and local governments have been included to
address the needs of their constituents which are not part of other
groups.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership for
having developed a management plan for these lands. By Congress
designating Las Cienegas as a National Conservation Area, we will give
a permanence to the bold and innovative plan that the Partnership has
developed. In fact, the management plan is the core of this National
Conservation Area designation. In simple terms, it is a plan by local
people for local lands.
Mr. Chairman, while there are many details to this legislation, it is
important to point out that this bill would preserve a significant
amount of land from Tucson to Mexico. It would create a biological
corridor that is necessary for the long-term survival of several
species that move within the designated area, not to mention protecting
a diverse cross-section of plants. It would also sustain a long-term
riparian area along two southern Arizona perennial streams.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we all know there are several options for
protecting this land. After looking at all the alternatives, I support
the approach of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) of the Sonoita
Valley Planning Partnership as the best alternative to maintaining and
preserving this area. By designating this area as a National
Conservation Area, we are taking a practical and meaningful approach
toward preserving our environment in southeastern Arizona.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe), who has done such an outstanding job on this legislation.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, consideration of H.R.
2941 marks not the beginning of the end for this legislation, but
rather the end of the beginning.
I say that because this is the culmination of 5 years of work by the
people who live and work in the area, but its enactment will mark the
beginning of an effort to preserve 143,000 acres of land so that future
generations can enjoy Arizona's great western heritage, ranching,
outdoor recreation and vast open spaces of desert filled with wildlife.
This bill establishes the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my colleagues, ``Las Cienegas'' means
``the marshes,'' something we do not normally associate with Arizona.
And yet this river bottom, this watershed is indeed one of the
spectacular areas of marshes and bogs.
The legislation will ensure that a land management plan is developed
that is consistent with local needs and interests. Besides grazing and
recreation, other authorized uses of the lands and the NCA include
motorized vehicles on specified roads and trails, continued military
overflights, and hunting in accordance with State law.
However, future mineral leases are prohibited. The management plan of
this NCA must be based on the local partnership's land use plan that
has been collaborative in nature. The plan must include educational
programs as well as the strategies for management of wildlife, cultural
resources, and cave resources.
The bill also protects private property rights and it ensures access
to private and other non-Federal properties within the NCA boundary.
This legislation reflects, I believe, a balanced approach to land
management that recreation, hunting and ranching can coexist with the
Sonoran desert ecosystem. Several perspectives have been brought to the
table during the 5 years that this vision has been molded into its
current shape, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) alluded to some
of that.
The interest of hiking clubs, of conservation groups, of grazing
permittees, of mountain bike clubs, as well as State and county
governments have all been intricately involved and interwoven in this
consensus building process.
The bill does indeed, as a result, have very broad support. Both
counties affected by this bill have passed unanimous bipartisan
resolutions of support. It has shown to have bipartisan support here in
the House of Representatives. It has support from the Department of
Army and the very nearby Fort Huachuca. It has support of the City of
Tucson and support of the Empire Ranch Foundation, of environmental
organizations, of the Arizona and Pima Trail Associations, of the
Southern Arizona Mountain Bike Association, of the Green Valley Hiking
Club. And today, just this morning, I am pleased to say that the
Governor of the State of Arizona has just faxed us a letter of her
support.
Yes, it even has the support of developers.
The bill establishes a 142,800 acres Sonoita Valley Acquisition
Planning District, which includes the 42,000 acres Las Cienegas
National Conservation Area.
The goal of this acquisition planning district is to give the
Secretary of the Interior the authority to reach a consensual agreement
with the Governor of Arizona to acquire the State lands and prevent
urban sprawl in the region.
This is a one-way street, however. The Secretary of Interior has to
try to negotiate and coordinate with the State, but the State must
weigh its options and decide whether this would be beneficial for them.
If the State or other non-Federal landowners decide not to participate
in this vision, this legislation does not prevent them from doing
anything that would be allowed today on that land. It simply provides
another option to the State as the major landholder within this
acquisition planning area.
Also, let me point out that there are no private lands within the NCA
boundary, and non-Federal land within the acquisition planning district
could become a part of the National Conservation Area only if they are
acquired from a willing seller or if a conservation easement is
purchased by the Bureau of Land Management.
[[Page 21052]]
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be here today representing the people of
southeastern Arizona on the development of this legislation. They have
made a very conscious effort to work with their neighbors, to
understand the differing interests, the competing interests that are
included in this bill, and to come up with a plan that meets everyone's
needs.
Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks
and appreciation to the multitude of people who have helped us to get
to this point. Many people have put their heart and soul into this
bill.
I think of Luther Propst and Mary Vint with the Sonoran Institute;
John and Mac Donaldson and John McDonald with the Empire Ranch, and I
only wish, I might add, that I could give them some rain right now for
their cattle and their feed; of Sheldon Clark, Peter Backus;
Supervisors Ray Carroll of Pima County and Ron Morriss of Santa Cruz
County; Arizona Game & Fish Commissioner Joe Carter; and Jesse Juen and
Laurie Sedlmayr with the Bureau of Land Management.
I also commend Governor Hull and her staff for their valuable
contributions to the legislation. I especially want to thank my
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), for his consistent
support. Lisa Daly with Legislative Counsel has to be commended for
dealing with my staff's constant pestering and pleasantly and
competently dealing with the seemingly never-ending changes to the
bill.
Finally, I thank my own staff in Arizona: Kay McLoughlin, Bernadette
Polley. And as a witness to just how long this has been going on, I
express my thanks also to Melinda Carrell, who retired more than a year
ago, not, I might add, because of this bill, but played an instrumental
role in developing this legislation.
Without the dedicated work of Kevin Messner, who is with me on the
floor today, giving birth to this bill countless times, negotiating
improvements, and maneuvering through mine fields, we would not be here
on the floor with this bill today.
And finally, last but not least, let me also thank the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of subcommittee; Allen Freemyer from
the majority staff; and Rick Healy from the minority staff for their
invaluable input for bringing us here. These folks have been invaluable
in this effort. I give my heartfelt thanks to them and say this is what
I think the legislative process ought to be about.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a 5-year bipartisan, multi-
interest compromise that is being asked for by the people, and I can
say virtually all the people, of southern Arizona.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend and congratulate the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the manner in which he has moved this
legislation, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
At the appropriate time, I will submit the statement of the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the
Record.
We support the revised bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the
excellent presentation that he just gave us concerning this piece of
legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2941, introduced
by Mr. Kolbe, would establish a new national conservation area (NCA) in
southeastern Arizona, near Tucson. The area consists of hills,
grasslands and marshes along a stretch of Cienega Creek. Left
unaddressed, this area is likely to succumb to urban sprawl.
At the hearing on H.R. 2941, Interior Secretary Babbitt testified in
general support a conservation designation for the area. However, there
were a significant number of problems with the language of the bill
that the Secretary and others elaborated on.
Between the hearing and mark up of the legislation there were
discussions among the majority and minority staffs, as well as BLM
staff and the bill sponsor on changes that could be made to the bill to
make it an acceptable proposal.
We appreciate the fact that the bill reported by the Resources
Committee made many positive changes to the bill. However, in one
instance the reported bill represented a step backward rather than a
step forward.
We did not support the language in the Committee bill as it pertains
to grazing. This language had the effect of according grazing a higher
status than it has under current law. While the revised bill had many
good features to it, on grazing it fell short.
I am pleased that the version of the bill made in order today under
the Rule includes provisions that address the problem with the grazing
language of the Committee-reported bill. The new language provides for
environmentally sustainable grazing on appropriate lands within the
conservation area. As such, this language will be consistent with the
protection of the important resource values of the area.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Representative Kolbe and his
staff in addressing this important matter. I will be supporting H.R.
2941 with this new language and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and
numbered 1. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following new text:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area''
means the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area established
by section 4(a).
(2) Acquisition planning district.--The term ``Acquisition
Planning District'' means the Sonoita Valley Acquisition
Planning District established by section 2(a).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Conservation Area.
(4) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' has the
meaning given the term in section 103(e) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)), except
that such term shall not include interest in lands not owned
by the United States.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SONOITA VALLEY ACQUISITION
PLANNING DISTRICT.
(a) In General.--In order to provide for future
acquisitions of important conservation land within the
Sonoita Valley region of the State of Arizona, there is
hereby established the Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning
District.
(b) Areas Included.--The Acquisition Planning District
shall consist of approximately 142,800 acres of land in the
Arizona counties of Pima and Santa Cruz, including the
Conservation Area, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District and Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area'' and dated October 2,
2000.
(c) Map and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
Acquisition Planning District. In case of a conflict between
the map referred to in subsection (b) and the map and legal
description submitted by the Secretary, the map referred to
in subsection (b) shall control. The map and legal
description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in such map and legal
description. Copies of the map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the Office of
the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and in the
appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management in
Arizona.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES OF THE ACQUISITION PLANNING DISTRICT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall negotiate with land
owners for the acquisition of lands and interest in lands
suitable for Conservation Area expansion that meet the
purposes described in section 4(a). The Secretary shall only
acquire property under this Act pursuant to section 7.
(b) Federal Lands.--The Secretary, through the Bureau of
Land Management, shall administer the public lands within the
Acquisition Planning District pursuant to this Act and the
applicable provisions of the
[[Page 21053]]
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.), subject to valid existing rights, and in
accordance with the management plan. Such public lands shall
become part of the Conservation Area when they become
contiguous with the Conservation Area.
(c) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities
of the State of Arizona with respect to fish and wildlife
within the Acquisition Planning District.
(d) Protection of State and Private Lands and Interests.--
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting any
property rights or management authority with regard to any
lands or interest in lands held by the State of Arizona, any
political subdivision of the State of Arizona, or any private
property rights within the boundaries of the Acquisition
Planning District.
(e) Public Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as in any way diminishing the Secretary's or the Bureau of
Land Management's authorities, rights, or responsibilities
for managing the public lands within the Acquisition Planning
District.
(f) Coordinated Management.--The Secretary shall coordinate
the management of the public lands within the Acquisition
Planning District with that of surrounding county, State, and
private lands consistent with the provisions of subsection
(d).
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) In General.--In order to conserve, protect, and enhance
for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations the unique and nationally important aquatic,
wildlife, vegetative, archaeological, paleontological,
scientific, cave, cultural, historical, recreational,
educational, scenic, rangeland, and riparian resources and
values of the public lands described in subsection (b) while
allowing livestock grazing and recreation to continue in
appropriate areas, there is hereby established the Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area in the State of Arizona.
(b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of
approximately 42,000 acres of public lands in the Arizona
counties of Pima and Santa Cruz, as generally depicted on the
map entitled ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District
and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area'' and dated
October 2, 2000.
(c) Maps and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a map and legal description of the
Conservation Area. In case of a conflict between the map
referred to in subsection (b) and the map and legal
description submitted by the Secretary, the map referred to
in subsection (b) shall control. The map and legal
description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in such map and legal
description. Copies of the map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the Office of
the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and in the
appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management in
Arizona.
(d) Forest Lands.--Any lands included in the Coronado
National Forest that are located within the boundaries of the
Conservation Area shall be considered to be a part of the
Conservation Area. The Secretary of Agriculture shall revise
the boundaries of the Coronado National Forest to reflect the
exclusion of such lands from the Coronado National Forest.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT OF THE LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL CONSERVATION
AREA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the
Conservation Area in a manner that conserves, protects, and
enhances its resources and values, including the resources
and values specified in section 4(a), pursuant to the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.) and other applicable law, including this Act.
(b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the
Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further the
purposes for which the Conservation Area is established as
set forth in section 4(a).
(c) Grazing.--The Secretary of the Interior shall permit
grazing subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and
Executive Orders consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(d) Motorized Vehicles.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of
motorized vehicles on public lands in the Conservation Area
shall be allowed only--
(1) before the effective date of a management plan prepared
pursuant to section 6, on roads and trails designated for use
of motorized vehicles in the management plan that applies on
the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) after the effective date of a management plan prepared
pursuant to section 6, on roads and trails designated for use
of motor vehicles in that management plan.
(e) Military Airspace.--Prior to the date of the enactment
of this Act the Federal Aviation Administration approved
restricted military airspace (Areas 2303A and 2303B) which
covers portions of the Conservation Area. Designation of the
Conservation Area shall not impact or impose any altitude,
flight, or other airspace restrictions on current or future
military operations or missions. Should the military require
additional or modified airspace in the future, the Congress
does not intend for the designation of the Conservation Area
to impede the military from petitioning the Federal Aviation
Administration to change or expand existing restricted
military airspace.
(f) Access to State and Private Lands.--Nothing in this Act
shall affect valid existing rights-of-way within the
Conservation Area. The Secretary shall provide reasonable
access to nonfederally owned lands or interest in lands
within the boundaries of the Conservation Area.
(g) Hunting.--Hunting shall be allowed within the
Conservation Area in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations of the United States and the State of Arizona,
except that the Secretary, after consultation with the
Arizona State wildlife management agency, may issue
regulations designating zones where and establishing periods
when no hunting shall be permitted for reasons of public
safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment.
(h) Preventative Measures.--Nothing in this Act shall
preclude such measures as the Secretary determines necessary
to prevent devastating fire or infestation of insects or
disease within the Conservation Area.
(i) No Buffer Zones.--The establishment of the Conservation
Area shall not lead to the creation of protective perimeters
or buffer zones around the Conservation Area. The fact that
there may be activities or uses on lands outside the
Conservation Area that would not be permitted in the
Conservation Area shall not preclude such activities or uses
on such lands up to the boundary of the Conservation Area
consistent with other applicable laws.
(j) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights all
Federal lands within the Conservation Area and all lands and
interest therein which are hereafter acquired by the United
States are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws and
from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and
from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws and all amendments thereto.
SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) Plan Required.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, through the
Bureau of Land Management, shall develop and begin to
implement a comprehensive management plan for the long-term
management of the public lands within the Conservation Area
in order to fulfill the purposes for which it is established,
as set forth in section 4(a). Consistent with the provisions
of this Act, the management plan shall be developed--
(1) in consultation with appropriate departments of the
State of Arizona, including wildlife and land management
agencies, with full public participation;
(2) from the draft Empire-Cienega Ecosystem Management
Plan/EIS, dated October 2000, as it applies to Federal lands
or lands with conservation easements; and
(3) in accordance with the resource goals and objectives
developed through the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership
process as incorporated in the draft Empire-Cienega Ecosystem
Management Plan/EIS, dated October 2000, giving full
consideration to the management alternative preferred by the
Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership, as it applies to Federal
lands or lands with conservation easements.
(b) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
(1) provisions designed to ensure the protection of the
resources and values described in section 4(a);
(2) an implementation plan for a continuing program of
interpretation and public education about the resources and
values of the Conservation Area;
(3) a proposal for minimal administrative and public
facilities to be developed or improved at a level compatible
with achieving the resource objectives for the Conservation
Area and with the other proposed management activities to
accommodate visitors to the Conservation Area;
(4) cultural resources management strategies for the
Conservation Area, prepared in consultation with appropriate
departments of the State of Arizona, with emphasis on the
preservation of the resources of the Conservation Area and
the interpretive, educational, and long-term scientific uses
of these resources, giving priority to the enforcement of the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C.
470aa et seq.) and the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.) within the Conservation Area;
(5) wildlife management strategies for the Conservation
Area, prepared in consultation with appropriate departments
of the State of Arizona and using previous studies of the
Conservation Area;
(6) production livestock grazing management strategies,
prepared in consultation with appropriate departments of the
State of Arizona;
(7) provisions designed to ensure the protection of
environmentally sustainable livestock use on appropriate
lands within the Conservation Area;
(8) recreation management strategies, including motorized
and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities for the
Conservation Area, prepared in consultation
[[Page 21054]]
with appropriate departments of the State of Arizona;
(9) cave resources management strategies prepared in
compliance with the goals and objectives of the Federal Cave
Resources Protection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.);
and
(10) provisions designed to ensure that if a road or trail
located on public lands within the Conservation Area, or any
portion of such a road or trail, is removed, consideration
shall be given to providing similar alternative access to the
portion of the Conservation Area serviced by such removed
road or trail.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--In order to better implement
the management plan, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies pursuant to section 307(b) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(b)).
(d) Research Activities.--In order to assist in the
development and implementation of the management plan, the
Secretary may authorize appropriate research, including
research concerning the environmental, biological,
hydrological, cultural, agricultural, recreational, and other
characteristics, resources, and values of the Conservation
Area, pursuant to section 307(a) of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(a)).
SEC. 7. LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Priority to conservation easements.--In acquiring lands
or interest in lands under this section, the Secretary shall
give priority to such acquisitions in the form of
conservation easements.
(2) Private lands.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
privately held lands or interest in lands within the
boundaries of the Acquisition Planning District only from a
willing seller through donation, exchange, or purchase.
(3) County lands.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
county lands or interest in lands within the boundaries of
the Acquisition Planning District only with the consent of
the county through donation, exchange, or purchase.
(4) State lands.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
lands or interest in lands owned by the State of Arizona
located within the boundaries of the Acquisition Planning
District only with the consent of the State and in accordance
with State law, by donation, exchange, purchase, or eminent
domain.
(B) Sunset of authority to acquire by eminent domain.--The
authority to acquire State lands under subparagraph (A) shall
expire 10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(C) Consideration.--As consideration for the acquisitions
by the United States of lands or interest in lands under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall pay fair market value for such
lands or shall convey to the State of Arizona all or some
interest in Federal lands (including buildings and other
improvements on such lands or other Federal property other
than real property) or any other asset of equal value within
the State of Arizona.
(D) Transfer of jurisdiction.--All Federal agencies are
authorized to transfer jurisdiction of Federal lands or
interest in lands (including buildings and other improvements
on such lands or other Federal property other than real
property) or any other asset within the State of Arizona to
the Bureau of Land Management for the purpose of acquiring
lands or interest in lands as provided for in this paragraph.
(b) Management of Acquired Lands.--Lands acquired under
this section shall, upon acquisition, become part of the
Conservation Area and shall be administered as part of the
Conservation Area. These lands shall be managed in accordance
with this Act, other applicable laws, and the management
plan.
SEC. 8. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Protection of Certain Lands.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the most
effective measures to protect the lands north of the
Acquisition Planning District within the Rincon Valley,
Colossal Cave area, and Agua Verde Creek corridor north of
Interstate 10 to provide an ecological link to Saguaro
National Park and the Rincon Mountains and contribute to
local government conservation priorities.
(b) Implementation of This Act.--Not later than 5 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at least at
the end of every 10-year period thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the
implementation of this Act, the condition of the resources
and values of the Conservation Area, and the progress of the
Secretary in achieving the purposes for which the
Conservation Area is established as set forth in section
4(a).
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum 5 minutes
the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe:
Page 14, beginning on line 2, strike ``by donation,
exchange, purchase, or eminent domain'' and insert ``by
donation, exchange, or purchase''.
Page 14, strike lines 4 through 8.
Page 14, line 9, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 14, line 19, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, this represents the last
piece of the compromise on this legislation. After discussions at the
last hour last night with the Secretary of Interior, we have agreed to
remove the provision providing for any eminent domain provisions in the
legislation.
If Arizona adopts a constitutional change this year, the provisions
dealing with sale or exchange will still be valid, but we have removed
the eminent domain. And this amendment accomplishes that.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute and we feel it is a good
amendment, and we would accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter and
attachment from the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 5, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2941, a bill to
establish the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in the
State of Arizona.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 2941--A bill to establish the Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area in the state of Arizona
As reported by the House Committee on Resources on October
4, 2000
CBO estimates that H.R. 2941 would have no significant
impact on the federal budget. The bill could affect direct
spending (including offsetting receipts); therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply, but we estimate that any such
impacts would be less than $500,000 in any given year.
H.R. 2941 would establish the Sonoita Valley Conservation
Planning District on 136,900 acres of land in Arizona. The
bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish and operate an advisory council for 10 years to
assist the Secretary in managing public lands within the
proposed district. Within the district, H.R. 2941 also would
establish the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area on
42,000 acres of federal lands and would specify requirements
for managing those lands. The bill would direct the Secretary
to prepare a management plan for the area and would authorize
the Secretary to acquire, through purchase or exchange,
nonfederal lands within its boundaries. Subject to valid
existing rights, H.R. 2941 would withdraw federal lands
within the conservation area from mining and from mineral and
geothermal leasing and development. Finally, H.R. 2941 would
require the Secretary to report to the Congress on activities
within the proposed planning district and conservation area.
Based on information from the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would
[[Page 21055]]
cost about $500,000 annually, assuming appropriation of the
necessary sums. That estimate includes the estimated costs of
establishing and managing the proposed district and
conservation area, operating the advisory council, updating
an existing management plan, and preparing the required
reports.
Withdrawing lands within the proposed conservation area
from mining and from mineral and geothermal leasing and
development could result in forgone offsetting receipts from
those lands if, under current law, the land would generate
receipts from those activities. According to BLM, however,
those lands currently generate no significant receipts from
such activities, and the agency does not expect them to
generate significant receipts over the next 10 years. CBO
estimates that any forgone receipts that might result under
this provision would total less than $500,000 a year.
H.R. 2941 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA). Any significant costs incurred by state, local, or
tribal governments would result from voluntary decisions to
participate in managing the areas affected by this bill.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll,
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments? If not, the question is
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. Quinn, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2941) to
establish the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in the State of
Arizona, pursuant to House Resolution 610, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1300
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 2941, the legislation just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3244, VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING AND VIOLENCE
PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following conference report and
statement on the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons,
especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions in
the United States and countries around the world through prevention,
through prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-939)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3244), an Act to combat trafficking of persons, especially
into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in
the United States and countries around the world through
prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against
traffickers, and through protection and assistance to victims
of trafficking, having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Divisions.--This Act is organized into three divisions,
as follows:
(1) Division a.--Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000.
(2) Division b.--Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
(3) Division c.--Miscellaneous Provisions.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
DIVISION A--TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Purposes and findings.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
Sec. 104. Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Sec. 105. Interagency Task Force To Monitor and Combat Trafficking.
Sec. 106. Prevention of trafficking.
Sec. 107. Protection and assistance for victims of trafficking.
Sec. 108. Minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.
Sec. 109. Assistance to foreign countries to meet minimum standards.
Sec. 110. Actions against governments failing to meet minimum
standards.
Sec. 111. Actions against significant traffickers in persons.
Sec. 112. Strengthening prosecution and punishment of traffickers.
Sec. 113. Authorizations of appropriations.
DIVISION B--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000
Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Definitions.
Sec. 1003. Accountability and oversight.
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Sec. 1101. Full faith and credit enforcement of protection orders.
Sec. 1102. Role of courts.
Sec. 1103. Reauthorization of STOP grants.
Sec. 1104. Reauthorization of grants to encourage arrest policies.
Sec. 1105. Reauthorization of rural domestic violence and child abuse
enforcement grants.
Sec. 1106. National stalker and domestic violence reduction.
Sec. 1107. Amendments to domestic violence and stalking offenses.
Sec. 1108. School and campus security.
Sec. 1109. Dating violence.
TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Sec. 1201. Legal assistance for victims.
Sec. 1202. Shelter services for battered women and children.
Sec. 1203. Transitional housing assistance for victims of domestic
violence.
Sec. 1204. National domestic violence hotline.
Sec. 1205. Federal victims counselors.
Sec. 1206. Study of State laws regarding insurance discrimination
against victims of violence against women.
Sec. 1207. Study of workplace effects from violence against women.
Sec. 1208. Study of unemployment compensation for victims of violence
against women.
Sec. 1209. Enhancing protections for older and disabled women from
domestic violence and sexual assault.
TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
Sec. 1301. Safe havens for children pilot program.
Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of victims of child abuse programs.
Sec. 1303. Report on effects of parental kidnapping laws in domestic
violence cases.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
Sec. 1401. Rape prevention and education.
Sec. 1402. Education and training to end violence against and abuse of
women with disabilities.
Sec. 1403. Community initiatives.
Sec. 1404. Development of research agenda identified by the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994.
Sec. 1405. Standards, practice, and training for sexual assault
forensic examinations.
[[Page 21056]]
Sec. 1406. Education and training for judges and court personnel.
Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force.
TITLE V--BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN
Sec. 1501. Short title.
Sec. 1502. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 1503. Improved access to immigration protections of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 for battered immigrant women.
Sec. 1504. Improved access to cancellation of removal and suspension of
deportation under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Sec. 1505. Offering equal access to immigration protections of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for all qualified
battered immigrant self-petitioners.
Sec. 1506. Restoring immigration protections under the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994.
Sec. 1507. Remedying problems with implementation of the immigration
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Sec. 1508. Technical correction to qualified alien definition for
battered immigrants.
Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act for battered immigrant
spouses and children.
Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act for battered spouses and children.
Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998 for
battered spouses and children.
Sec. 1512. Access to services and legal representation for battered
immigrants.
Sec. 1513. Protection for certain crime victims including victims of
crimes against women.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 1601. Notice requirements for sexually violent offenders.
Sec. 1602. Teen suicide prevention study.
Sec. 1603. Decade of pain control and research.
DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. Aimee's law.
Sec. 2002. Payment of anti-terrorism judgments.
Sec. 2003. Aid to victims of terrorism.
Sec. 2004. Twenty-first century amendment.
DIVISION A--TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000''.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this division are to combat
trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of
slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children,
to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and
to protect their victims.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that:
(1) As the 21st century begins, the degrading institution
of slavery continues throughout the world. Trafficking in
persons is a modern form of slavery, and it is the largest
manifestation of slavery today. At least 700,000 persons
annually, primarily women and children, are trafficked within
or across international borders. Approximately 50,000 women
and children are trafficked into the United States each year.
(2) Many of these persons are trafficked into the
international sex trade, often by force, fraud, or coercion.
The sex industry has rapidly expanded over the past several
decades. It involves sexual exploitation of persons,
predominantly women and girls, involving activities related
to prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, and other
commercial sexual services. The low status of women in many
parts of the world has contributed to a burgeoning of the
trafficking industry.
(3) Trafficking in persons is not limited to the sex
industry. This growing transnational crime also includes
forced labor and involves significant violations of labor,
public health, and human rights standards worldwide.
(4) Traffickers primarily target women and girls, who are
disproportionately affected by poverty, the lack of access to
education, chronic unemployment, discrimination, and the lack
of economic opportunities in countries of origin. Traffickers
lure women and girls into their networks through false
promises of decent working conditions at relatively good pay
as nannies, maids, dancers, factory workers, restaurant
workers, sales clerks, or models. Traffickers also buy
children from poor families and sell them into prostitution
or into various types of forced or bonded labor.
(5) Traffickers often transport victims from their home
communities to unfamiliar destinations, including foreign
countries away from family and friends, religious
institutions, and other sources of protection and support,
leaving the victims defenseless and vulnerable.
(6) Victims are often forced through physical violence to
engage in sex acts or perform slavery-like labor. Such force
includes rape and other forms of sexual abuse, torture,
starvation, imprisonment, threats, psychological abuse, and
coercion.
(7) Traffickers often make representations to their victims
that physical harm may occur to them or others should the
victim escape or attempt to escape. Such representations can
have the same coercive effects on victims as direct threats
to inflict such harm.
(8) Trafficking in persons is increasingly perpetrated by
organized, sophisticated criminal enterprises. Such
trafficking is the fastest growing source of profits for
organized criminal enterprises worldwide. Profits from the
trafficking industry contribute to the expansion of organized
crime in the United States and worldwide. Trafficking in
persons is often aided by official corruption in countries of
origin, transit, and destination, thereby threatening the
rule of law.
(9) Trafficking includes all the elements of the crime of
forcible rape when it involves the involuntary participation
of another person in sex acts by means of fraud, force, or
coercion.
(10) Trafficking also involves violations of other laws,
including labor and immigration codes and laws against
kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, assault, battery,
pandering, fraud, and extortion.
(11) Trafficking exposes victims to serious health risks.
Women and children trafficked in the sex industry are exposed
to deadly diseases, including HIV and AIDS. Trafficking
victims are sometimes worked or physically brutalized to
death.
(12) Trafficking in persons substantially affects
interstate and foreign commerce. Trafficking for such
purposes as involuntary servitude, peonage, and other forms
of forced labor has an impact on the nationwide employment
network and labor market. Within the context of slavery,
servitude, and labor or services which are obtained or
maintained through coercive conduct that amounts to a
condition of servitude, victims are subjected to a range of
violations.
(13) Involuntary servitude statutes are intended to reach
cases in which persons are held in a condition of servitude
through nonviolent coercion. In United States v. Kozminski,
487 U.S. 931 (1988), the Supreme Court found that section
1584 of title 18, United States Code, should be narrowly
interpreted, absent a definition of involuntary servitude by
Congress. As a result, that section was interpreted to
criminalize only servitude that is brought about through use
or threatened use of physical or legal coercion, and to
exclude other conduct that can have the same purpose and
effect.
(14) Existing legislation and law enforcement in the United
States and other countries are inadequate to deter
trafficking and bring traffickers to justice, failing to
reflect the gravity of the offenses involved. No
comprehensive law exists in the United States that penalizes
the range of offenses involved in the trafficking scheme.
Instead, even the most brutal instances of trafficking in the
sex industry are often punished under laws that also apply to
lesser offenses, so that traffickers typically escape
deserved punishment.
(15) In the United States, the seriousness of this crime
and its components is not reflected in current sentencing
guidelines, resulting in weak penalties for convicted
traffickers.
(16) In some countries, enforcement against traffickers is
also hindered by official indifference, by corruption, and
sometimes even by official participation in trafficking.
(17) Existing laws often fail to protect victims of
trafficking, and because victims are often illegal immigrants
in the destination country, they are repeatedly punished more
harshly than the traffickers themselves.
(18) Additionally, adequate services and facilities do not
exist to meet victims' needs regarding health care, housing,
education, and legal assistance, which safely reintegrate
trafficking victims into their home countries.
(19) Victims of severe forms of trafficking should not be
inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized
solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of
being trafficked, such as using false documents, entering the
country without documentation, or working without
documentation.
(20) Because victims of trafficking are frequently
unfamiliar with the laws, cultures, and languages of the
countries into which they have been trafficked, because they
are often subjected to coercion and intimidation including
physical detention and debt bondage, and because they often
fear retribution and forcible removal to countries in which
they will face retribution or other hardship, these victims
often find it difficult or impossible to report the crimes
committed against them or to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of such crimes.
(21) Trafficking of persons is an evil requiring concerted
and vigorous action by countries of origin, transit or
destination, and by international organizations.
(22) One of the founding documents of the United States,
the Declaration of Independence, recognizes the inherent
dignity and worth of all people. It states that all men are
created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights. The right to be free from slavery
and involuntary servitude is among those unalienable rights.
Acknowledging this fact, the United States outlawed slavery
and involuntary servitude in 1865, recognizing them as evil
institutions that must be abolished. Current practices of
sexual slavery and trafficking of women and children are
similarly abhorrent to the principles upon which the United
States was founded.
(23) The United States and the international community
agree that trafficking in persons involves grave violations
of human rights and is a matter of pressing international
concern. The international community has repeatedly condemned
slavery and involuntary servitude, violence against women,
and other elements of trafficking, through declarations,
treaties, and United Nations resolutions and reports,
including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
[[Page 21057]]
the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices
Similar to Slavery; the 1948 American Declaration on the
Rights and Duties of Man; the 1957 Abolition of Forced Labor
Convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; United Nations
General Assembly Resolutions 50/167, 51/66, and 52/98; the
Final Report of the World Congress against Sexual
Exploitation of Children (Stockholm, 1996); the Fourth World
Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995); and the 1991 Moscow
Document of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
(24) Trafficking in persons is a transnational crime with
national implications. To deter international trafficking and
bring its perpetrators to justice, nations including the
United States must recognize that trafficking is a serious
offense. This is done by prescribing appropriate punishment,
giving priority to the prosecution of trafficking offenses,
and protecting rather than punishing the victims of such
offenses. The United States must work bilaterally and
multilaterally to abolish the trafficking industry by taking
steps to promote cooperation among countries linked together
by international trafficking routes. The United States must
also urge the international community to take strong action
in multilateral fora to engage recalcitrant countries in
serious and sustained efforts to eliminate trafficking and
protect trafficking victims.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
In this division:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Coercion.--The term ``coercion'' means--
(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint
against any person;
(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person
to believe that failure to perform an act would result in
serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or
(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
(3) Commercial sex act.--The term ``commercial sex act''
means any sex act on account of which anything of value is
given to or received by any person.
(4) Debt bondage.--The term ``debt bondage'' means the
status or condition of a debtor arising from a pledge by the
debtor of his or her personal services or of those of a
person under his or her control as a security for debt, if
the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not
applied toward the liquidation of the debt or the length and
nature of those services are not respectively limited and
defined.
(5) Involuntary servitude.--The term ``involuntary
servitude'' includes a condition of servitude induced by
means of--
(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person
to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue
in such condition, that person or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint, or
(B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
(6) Minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.--
The term ``minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking'' means the standards set forth in section 108.
(7) Nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance.--
The term ``nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign
assistance'' means--
(A) any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, other than--
(i) assistance under chapter 4 of part II of that Act that
is made available for any program, project, or activity
eligible for assistance under chapter 1 of part I of that
Act;
(ii) assistance under chapter 8 of part I of that Act;
(iii) any other narcotics-related assistance under part I
of that Act or under chapter 4 or 5 part II of that Act, but
any such assistance provided under this clause shall be
subject to the prior notification procedures applicable to
reprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of that Act;
(iv) disaster relief assistance, including any assistance
under chapter 9 of part I of that Act;
(v) antiterrorism assistance under chapter 8 of part II of
that Act;
(vi) assistance for refugees;
(vii) humanitarian and other development assistance in
support of programs of nongovernmental organizations under
chapters 1 and 10 of that Act;
(viii) programs under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of
that Act, relating to the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation; and
(ix) other programs involving trade-related or humanitarian
assistance; and
(B) sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms Export
Control Act, other than sales or financing provided for
narcotics-related purposes following notification in
accordance with the prior notification procedures applicable
to reprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.
(8) Severe forms of trafficking in persons.--The term
``severe forms of trafficking in persons'' means--
(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is
induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person
induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age;
or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision,
or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the
use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of
subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage,
or slavery.
(9) Sex trafficking.--The term ``sex trafficking'' means
the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or
obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex
act.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and territories and possessions of
the United States.
(11) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
established under section 105.
(12) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the
fifty States of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the territories and possessions of the United
States.
(13) Victim of a severe form of trafficking.--The term
``victim of a severe form of trafficking'' means a person
subject to an act or practice described in paragraph (8).
(14) Victim of trafficking.--The term ``victim of
trafficking'' means a person subjected to an act or practice
described in paragraph (8) or (9).
SEC. 104. ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES.
(a) Countries Receiving Economic Assistance.--Section
116(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f)(1) The report required by subsection (d) shall
include the following:
``(A) A description of the nature and extent of severe
forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, in each
foreign country.
``(B) With respect to each country that is a country of
origin, transit, or destination for victims of severe forms
of trafficking in persons, an assessment of the efforts by
the government of that country to combat such trafficking.
The assessment shall address the following:
``(i) Whether government authorities in that country
participate in, facilitate, or condone such trafficking.
``(ii) Which government authorities in that country are
involved in activities to combat such trafficking.
``(iii) What steps the government of that country has taken
to prohibit government officials from participating in,
facilitating, or condoning such trafficking, including the
investigation, prosecution, and conviction of such officials.
``(iv) What steps the government of that country has taken
to prohibit other individuals from participating in such
trafficking, including the investigation, prosecution, and
conviction of individuals involved in severe forms of
trafficking in persons, the criminal and civil penalties for
such trafficking, and the efficacy of those penalties in
eliminating or reducing such trafficking.
``(v) What steps the government of that country has taken
to assist victims of such trafficking, including efforts to
prevent victims from being further victimized by traffickers,
government officials, or others, grants of relief from
deportation, and provision of humanitarian relief, including
provision of mental and physical health care and shelter.
``(vi) Whether the government of that country is
cooperating with governments of other countries to extradite
traffickers when requested, or, to the extent that such
cooperation would be inconsistent with the laws of such
country or with extradition treaties to which such country is
a party, whether the government of that country is taking all
appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and
treaties so as to permit such cooperation.
``(vii) Whether the government of that country is assisting
in international investigations of transnational trafficking
networks and in other cooperative efforts to combat severe
forms of trafficking in persons.
``(viii) Whether the government of that country refrains
from prosecuting victims of severe forms of trafficking in
persons due to such victims having been trafficked, and
refrains from other discriminatory treatment of such victims.
``(ix) Whether the government of that country recognizes
the rights of victims of severe forms of trafficking in
persons and ensures their access to justice.
``(C) Such other information relating to trafficking in
persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
``(2) In compiling data and making assessments for the
purposes of paragraph (1), United States diplomatic mission
personnel shall consult with human rights organizations and
other appropriate nongovernmental organizations.''.
(b) Countries Receiving Security Assistance.--Section 502B
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h)(1) The report required by subsection (b) shall
include the following:
``(A) A description of the nature and extent of severe
forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, in each
foreign country.
``(B) With respect to each country that is a country of
origin, transit, or destination for victims of severe forms
of trafficking in persons, an
[[Page 21058]]
assessment of the efforts by the government of that country
to combat such trafficking. The assessment shall address the
following:
``(i) Whether government authorities in that country
participate in, facilitate, or condone such trafficking.
``(ii) Which government authorities in that country are
involved in activities to combat such trafficking.
``(iii) What steps the government of that country has taken
to prohibit government officials from participating in,
facilitating, or condoning such trafficking, including the
investigation, prosecution, and conviction of such officials.
``(iv) What steps the government of that country has taken
to prohibit other individuals from participating in such
trafficking, including the investigation, prosecution, and
conviction of individuals involved in severe forms of
trafficking in persons, the criminal and civil penalties for
such trafficking, and the efficacy of those penalties in
eliminating or reducing such trafficking.
``(v) What steps the government of that country has taken
to assist victims of such trafficking, including efforts to
prevent victims from being further victimized by traffickers,
government officials, or others, grants of relief from
deportation, and provision of humanitarian relief, including
provision of mental and physical health care and shelter.
``(vi) Whether the government of that country is
cooperating with governments of other countries to extradite
traffickers when requested, or, to the extent that such
cooperation would be inconsistent with the laws of such
country or with extradition treaties to which such country is
a party, whether the government of that country is taking all
appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and
treaties so as to permit such cooperation.
``(vii) Whether the government of that country is assisting
in international investigations of transnational trafficking
networks and in other cooperative efforts to combat severe
forms of trafficking in persons.
``(viii) Whether the government of that country refrains
from prosecuting victims of severe forms of trafficking in
persons due to such victims having been trafficked, and
refrains from other discriminatory treatment of such victims.
``(ix) Whether the government of that country recognizes
the rights of victims of severe forms of trafficking in
persons and ensures their access to justice.
``(C) Such other information relating to trafficking in
persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
``(2) In compiling data and making assessments for the
purposes of paragraph (1), United States diplomatic mission
personnel shall consult with human rights organizations and
other appropriate nongovernmental organizations.''.
SEC. 105. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT
TRAFFICKING.
(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish an
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking.
(b) Appointment.--The President shall appoint the members
of the Task Force, which shall include the Secretary of
State, the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Director of Central Intelligence, and such
other officials as may be designated by the President.
(c) Chairman.--The Task Force shall be chaired by the
Secretary of State.
(d) Activities of the Task Force.--The Task Force shall
carry out the following activities:
(1) Coordinate the implementation of this division.
(2) Measure and evaluate progress of the United States and
other countries in the areas of trafficking prevention,
protection, and assistance to victims of trafficking, and
prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, including
the role of public corruption in facilitating trafficking.
The Task Force shall have primary responsibility for
assisting the Secretary of State in the preparation of the
reports described in section 110.
(3) Expand interagency procedures to collect and organize
data, including significant research and resource information
on domestic and international trafficking. Any data
collection procedures established under this subsection shall
respect the confidentiality of victims of trafficking.
(4) Engage in efforts to facilitate cooperation among
countries of origin, transit, and destination. Such efforts
shall aim to strengthen local and regional capacities to
prevent trafficking, prosecute traffickers and assist
trafficking victims, and shall include initiatives to enhance
cooperative efforts between destination countries and
countries of origin and assist in the appropriate
reintegration of stateless victims of trafficking.
(5) Examine the role of the international ``sex tourism''
industry in the trafficking of persons and in the sexual
exploitation of women and children around the world.
(6) Engage in consultation and advocacy with governmental
and nongovernmental organizations, among other entities, to
advance the purposes of this division.
(e) Support for the Task Force.--The Secretary of State is
authorized to establish within the Department of State an
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, which shall provide
assistance to the Task Force. Any such Office shall be headed
by a Director. The Director shall have the primary
responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State in
carrying out the purposes of this division and may have
additional responsibilities as determined by the Secretary.
The Director shall consult with nongovernmental organizations
and multilateral organizations, and with trafficking victims
or other affected persons. The Director shall have the
authority to take evidence in public hearings or by other
means. The agencies represented on the Task Force are
authorized to provide staff to the Office on a
nonreimbursable basis.
SEC. 106. PREVENTION OF TRAFFICKING.
(a) Economic Alternatives To Prevent and Deter
Trafficking.--The President shall establish and carry out
international initiatives to enhance economic opportunity for
potential victims of trafficking as a method to deter
trafficking. Such initiatives may include--
(1) microcredit lending programs, training in business
development, skills training, and job counseling;
(2) programs to promote women's participation in economic
decisionmaking;
(3) programs to keep children, especially girls, in
elementary and secondary schools, and to educate persons who
have been victims of trafficking;
(4) development of educational curricula regarding the
dangers of trafficking; and
(5) grants to nongovernmental organizations to accelerate
and advance the political, economic, social, and educational
roles and capacities of women in their countries.
(b) Public Awareness and Information.--The President,
acting through the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the
Secretary of State, shall establish and carry out programs to
increase public awareness, particularly among potential
victims of trafficking, of the dangers of trafficking and the
protections that are available for victims of trafficking.
(c) Consultation Requirement.--The President shall consult
with appropriate nongovernmental organizations with respect
to the establishment and conduct of initiatives described in
subsections (a) and (b).
SEC. 107. PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF
TRAFFICKING.
(a) Assistance for Victims in Other Countries.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, in consultation with appropriate nongovernmental
organizations, shall establish and carry out programs and
initiatives in foreign countries to assist in the safe
integration, reintegration, or resettlement, as appropriate,
of victims of trafficking. Such programs and initiatives
shall be designed to meet the appropriate assistance needs of
such persons and their children, as identified by the Task
Force.
(2) Additional requirement.--In establishing and conducting
programs and initiatives described in paragraph (1), the
Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development shall take all
appropriate steps to enhance cooperative efforts among
foreign countries, including countries of origin of victims
of trafficking, to assist in the integration, reintegration,
or resettlement, as appropriate, of victims of trafficking,
including stateless victims.
(b) Victims in the United States.--
(1) Assistance.--
(A) Eligibility for benefits and services.--Notwithstanding
title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, an alien who is a victim of a
severe form of trafficking in persons shall be eligible for
benefits and services under any Federal or State program or
activity funded or administered by any official or agency
described in subparagraph (B) to the same extent as an alien
who is admitted to the United States as a refugee under
section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(B) Requirement to expand benefits and services.--Subject
to subparagraph (C) and, in the case of nonentitlement
programs, to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of
Labor, the Board of Directors of the Legal Services
Corporation, and the heads of other Federal agencies shall
expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of
trafficking in persons in the United States, without regard
to the immigration status of such victims.
(C) Definition of victim of a severe form of trafficking in
persons.--For the purposes of this paragraph, the term
``victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons'' means
only a person--
(i) who has been subjected to an act or practice described
in section 103(8) as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(ii)(I) who has not attained 18 years of age; or
(II) who is the subject of a certification under
subparagraph (E).
(D) Annual report.--Not later than December 31 of each
year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Board of
Directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and the heads of
other appropriate Federal agencies shall submit a report,
which includes information on the number of persons who
received benefits or other services under this paragraph in
connection with programs or activities funded or administered
by such agencies or officials during the preceding fiscal
year, to the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on
International Relations, and the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance,
the Committee on
[[Page 21059]]
Foreign Relations, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate.
(E) Certification.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the certification
referred to in subparagraph (C) is a certification by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation
with the Attorney General, that the person referred to in
subparagraph (C)(ii)(II)--
(I) is willing to assist in every reasonable way in the
investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking
in persons; and
(II)(aa) has made a bona fide application for a visa under
section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
as added by subsection (e), that has not been denied; or
(bb) is a person whose continued presence in the United
States the Attorney General is ensuring in order to
effectuate prosecution of traffickers in persons.
(ii) Period of effectiveness.--A certification referred to
in subparagraph (C), with respect to a person described in
clause (i)(II)(bb), shall be effective only for so long as
the Attorney General determines that the continued presence
of such person is necessary to effectuate prosecution of
traffickers in persons.
(iii) Investigation and prosecution defined.--For the
purpose of a certification under this subparagraph, the term
``investigation and prosecution'' includes--
(I) identification of a person or persons who have
committed severe forms of trafficking in persons;
(II) location and apprehension of such persons; and
(III) testimony at proceedings against such persons.
(2) Grants.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Attorney General may make grants to
States, Indian tribes, units of local government, and
nonprofit, nongovernmental victims' service organizations to
develop, expand, or strengthen victim service programs for
victims of trafficking.
(B) Allocation of grant funds.--Of amounts made available
for grants under this paragraph, there shall be set aside--
(i) three percent for research, evaluation, and statistics;
(ii) two percent for training and technical assistance; and
(iii) one percent for management and administration.
(C) Limitation on federal share.--The Federal share of a
grant made under this paragraph may not exceed 75 percent of
the total costs of the projects described in the application
submitted.
(c) Trafficking Victim Regulations.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State shall promulgate
regulations for law enforcement personnel, immigration
officials, and Department of State officials to implement the
following:
(1) Protections while in custody.--Victims of severe forms
of trafficking, while in the custody of the Federal
Government and to the extent practicable, shall--
(A) not be detained in facilities inappropriate to their
status as crime victims;
(B) receive necessary medical care and other assistance;
and
(C) be provided protection if a victim's safety is at risk
or if there is danger of additional harm by recapture of the
victim by a trafficker, including--
(i) taking measures to protect trafficked persons and their
family members from intimidation and threats of reprisals and
reprisals from traffickers and their associates; and
(ii) ensuring that the names and identifying information of
trafficked persons and their family members are not disclosed
to the public.
(2) Access to information.--Victims of severe forms of
trafficking shall have access to information about their
rights and translation services.
(3) Authority to permit continued presence in the united
states.--Federal law enforcement officials may permit an
alien individual's continued presence in the United States,
if after an assessment, it is determined that such individual
is a victim of a severe form of trafficking and a potential
witness to such trafficking, in order to effectuate
prosecution of those responsible, and such officials in
investigating and prosecuting traffickers shall protect the
safety of trafficking victims, including taking measures to
protect trafficked persons and their family members from
intimidation, threats of reprisals, and reprisals from
traffickers and their associates.
(4) Training of government personnel.--Appropriate
personnel of the Department of State and the Department of
Justice shall be trained in identifying victims of severe
forms of trafficking and providing for the protection of such
victims.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (c) shall be
construed as creating any private cause of action against the
United States or its officers or employees.
(e) Protection From Removal for Certain Crime Victims.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (R);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (S)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(T)(i) subject to section 214(n), an alien who the
Attorney General determines--
``(I) is or has been a victim of a severe form of
trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,
``(II) is physically present in the United States, American
Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
or at a port of entry thereto, on account of such
trafficking,
``(III)(aa) has complied with any reasonable request for
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of
trafficking, or
``(bb) has not attained 15 years of age, and
``(IV) the alien would suffer extreme hardship involving
unusual and severe harm upon removal; and
``(ii) if the Attorney General considers it necessary to
avoid extreme hardship--
``(I) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who
is under 21 years of age, the spouse, children, and parents
of such alien; and
``(II) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who
is 21 years of age or older, the spouse and children of such
alien,
if accompanying, or following to join, the alien described in
clause (i).''.
(2) Conditions of nonimmigrant status.--Section 214 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--
(A) by redesignating the subsection (l) added by section
625(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-1820) as subsection (m); and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(n)(1) No alien shall be eligible for admission to the
United States under section 101(a)(15)(T) if there is
substantial reason to believe that the alien has committed an
act of a severe form of trafficking in persons (as defined in
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000).
``(2) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year
under section 101(a)(15)(T) may not exceed 5,000.
``(3) The numerical limitation of paragraph (2) shall only
apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses, sons,
daughters, or parents of such aliens.''.
(3) Waiver of grounds for ineligibility for admission.--
Section 212(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(13)(A) The Attorney General shall determine whether a
ground for inadmissibility exists with respect to a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(T).
``(B) In addition to any other waiver that may be available
under this section, in the case of a nonimmigrant described
in section 101(a)(15)(T), if the Attorney General considers
it to be in the national interest to do so, the Attorney
General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the
application of--
``(i) paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a); and
``(ii) any other provision of such subsection (excluding
paragraphs (3), (10)(C), and (10(E)) if the activities
rendering the alien inadmissible under the provision were
caused by, or were incident to, the victimization described
in section 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I).''.
(4) Duties of the attorney general with respect to ``t''
visa nonimmigrants.--Section 101 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) With respect to each nonimmigrant alien described in
subsection (a)(15)(T)(i)--
``(1) the Attorney General and other Government officials,
where appropriate, shall provide the alien with a referral to
a nongovernmental organization that would advise the alien
regarding the alien's options while in the United States and
the resources available to the alien; and
``(2) the Attorney General shall, during the period the
alien is in lawful temporary resident status under that
subsection, grant the alien authorization to engage in
employment in the United States and provide the alien with an
`employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate work
permit.''.
(5) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section, or in
the amendments made by this section, shall be construed as
prohibiting the Attorney General from instituting removal
proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) against an alien admitted as
a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i) of that Act, as
added by subsection (e), for conduct committed after the
alien's admission into the United States, or for conduct or a
condition that was not disclosed to the Attorney General
prior to the alien's admission as a nonimmigrant under such
section 101(a)(15)(T)(i).
(f) Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status.--Section 245
of such Act (8 U.S.C 1255) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(l)(1) If, in the opinion of the Attorney General, a
nonimmigrant admitted into the United States under section
101(a)(15)(T)(i)--
``(A) has been physically present in the United States for
a continuous period of at least 3 years since the date of
admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i),
``(B) has, throughout such period, been a person of good
moral character, and
``(C)(i) has, during such period, complied with any
reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of acts of trafficking, or
``(ii) the alien would suffer extreme hardship involving
unusual and severe harm upon removal from the United States,
[[Page 21060]]
the Attorney General may adjust the status of the alien (and
any person admitted under that section as the spouse, parent,
or child of the alien) to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien admitted
under section 101(a)(15)(T) who is inadmissible to the United
States by reason of a ground that has not been waived under
section 212, except that, if the Attorney General considers
it to be in the national interest to do so, the Attorney
General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the
application of--
``(A) paragraphs (1) and (4) of section 212(a); and
``(B) any other provision of such section (excluding
paragraphs (3), (10)(C), and (10(E)), if the activities
rendering the alien inadmissible under the provision were
caused by, or were incident to, the victimization described
in section 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I).
``(2) An alien shall be considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence in the United States
under paragraph (1)(A) if the alien has departed from the
United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for any
periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
``(3)(A) The total number of aliens whose status may be
adjusted under paragraph (1) during any fiscal year may not
exceed 5,000.
``(B) The numerical limitation of subparagraph (A) shall
only apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses, sons,
daughters, or parents of such aliens.
``(4) Upon the approval of adjustment of status under
paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record the alien's
lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of
such approval.''.
(g) Annual Reports.--On or before October 31 of each year,
the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees setting forth, with respect to the
preceding fiscal year, the number, if any, of otherwise
eligible applicants who did not receive visas under section
101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
added by subsection (e), or who were unable to adjust their
status under section 245(l) of such Act, solely on account of
the unavailability of visas due to a limitation imposed by
section 214(n)(1) or 245(l)(4)(A) of such Act.
SEC. 108. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF
TRAFFICKING.
(a) Minimum Standards.--For purposes of this division, the
minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
applicable to the government of a country of origin, transit,
or destination for a significant number of victims of severe
forms of trafficking are the following:
(1) The government of the country should prohibit severe
forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such
trafficking.
(2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex
trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the
victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving
meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or
kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the
country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that
for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.
(3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form
of trafficking in persons, the government of the country
should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to
deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the
offense.
(4) The government of the country should make serious and
sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in
persons.
(b) Criteria.--In determinations under subsection (a)(4),
the following factors should be considered as indicia of
serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of
trafficking in persons:
(1) Whether the government of the country vigorously
investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of
trafficking in persons that take place wholly or partly
within the territory of the country.
(2) Whether the government of the country protects victims
of severe forms of trafficking in persons and encourages
their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such
trafficking, including provisions for legal alternatives to
their removal to countries in which they would face
retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not
inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized
solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being
trafficked.
(3) Whether the government of the country has adopted
measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in persons,
such as measures to inform and educate the public, including
potential victims, about the causes and consequences of
severe forms of trafficking in persons.
(4) Whether the government of the country cooperates with
other governments in the investigation and prosecution of
severe forms of trafficking in persons.
(5) Whether the government of the country extradites
persons charged with acts of severe forms of trafficking in
persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially
the same extent as persons charged with other serious crimes
(or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent
with the laws of such country or with international
agreements to which the country is a party, whether the
government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or
replace such laws and treaties so as to permit such
extradition).
(6) Whether the government of the country monitors
immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of severe
forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement
agencies of the country respond to any such evidence in a
manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and
prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as with the
protection of human rights of victims and the internationally
recognized human right to leave any country, including one's
own, and to return to one's own country.
(7) Whether the government of the country vigorously
investigates and prosecutes public officials who participate
in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, and
takes all appropriate measures against officials who condone
such trafficking.
SEC. 109. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO MEET MINIMUM
STANDARDS.
Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 134. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO MEET MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF TRAFFICKING.
``(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to
provide assistance to foreign countries directly, or through
nongovernmental and multilateral organizations, for programs,
projects, and activities designed to meet the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking (as defined in
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000), including--
``(1) the drafting of laws to prohibit and punish acts of
trafficking;
``(2) the investigation and prosecution of traffickers;
``(3) the creation and maintenance of facilities, programs,
projects, and activities for the protection of victims; and
``(4) the expansion of exchange programs and international
visitor programs for governmental and nongovernmental
personnel to combat trafficking.
``(b) Funding.--Amounts made available to carry out the
other provisions of this part (including chapter 4 of part II
of this Act) and the Support for East European Democracy
(SEED) Act of 1989 shall be made available to carry out this
section.''.
SEC. 110. ACTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS FAILING TO MEET MINIMUM
STANDARDS.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States not to provide nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related
foreign assistance to any government that--
(1) does not comply with minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking; and
(2) is not making significant efforts to bring itself into
compliance with such standards.
(b) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Annual report.--Not later than June 1 of each year, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report with respect to the status
of severe forms of trafficking in persons that shall
include--
(A) a list of those countries, if any, to which the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking are applicable
and whose governments fully comply with such standards;
(B) a list of those countries, if any, to which the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking are applicable
and whose governments do not yet fully comply with such
standards but are making significant efforts to bring
themselves into compliance; and
(C) a list of those countries, if any, to which the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking are applicable
and whose governments do not fully comply with such standards
and are not making significant efforts to bring themselves
into compliance.
(2) Interim reports.--In addition to the annual report
under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State may submit to the
appropriate congressional committees at any time one or more
interim reports with respect to the status of severe forms of
trafficking in persons, including information about countries
whose governments--
(A) have come into or out of compliance with the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking; or
(B) have begun or ceased to make significant efforts to
bring themselves into compliance,
since the transmission of the last annual report.
(3) Significant efforts.--In determinations under paragraph
(1) or (2) as to whether the government of a country is
making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance
with the minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking, the Secretary of State shall consider--
(A) the extent to which the country is a country of origin,
transit, or destination for severe forms of trafficking;
(B) the extent of noncompliance with the minimum standards
by the government and, particularly, the extent to which
officials or employees of the government have participated
in, facilitated, condoned, or are otherwise complicit in
severe forms of trafficking; and
(C) what measures are reasonable to bring the government
into compliance with the minimum standards in light of the
resources and capabilities of the government.
(c) Notification.--Not less than 45 days or more than 90
days after the submission, on or after January 1, 2003, of an
annual report under subsection (b)(1), or an interim report
under subsection (b)(2), the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a notification of one of
the determinations listed in subsection (d) with respect to
each foreign country whose government, according to such
report--
(A) does not comply with the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking; and
[[Page 21061]]
(B) is not making significant efforts to bring itself into
compliance, as described in subsection (b)(1)(C).
(d) Presidential Determinations.--The determinations
referred to in subsection (c) are the following:
(1) Withholding of nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related
assistance.--The President has determined that--
(A)(i) the United States will not provide nonhumanitarian,
nontrade-related foreign assistance to the government of the
country for the subsequent fiscal year until such government
complies with the minimum standards or makes significant
efforts to bring itself into compliance; or
(ii) in the case of a country whose government received no
nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance from the
United States during the previous fiscal year, the United
States will not provide funding for participation by
officials or employees of such governments in educational and
cultural exchange programs for the subsequent fiscal year
until such government complies with the minimum standards or
makes significant efforts to bring itself into compliance;
and
(B) the President will instruct the United States Executive
Director of each multilateral development bank and of the
International Monetary Fund to vote against, and to use the
Executive Director's best efforts to deny, any loan or other
utilization of the funds of the respective institution to
that country (other than for humanitarian assistance, for
trade-related assistance, or for development assistance which
directly addresses basic human needs, is not administered by
the government of the sanctioned country, and confers no
benefit to that government) for the subsequent fiscal year
until such government complies with the minimum standards or
makes significant efforts to bring itself into compliance.
(2) Ongoing, multiple, broad-based restrictions on
assistance in response to human rights violations.--The
President has determined that such country is already subject
to multiple, broad-based restrictions on assistance imposed
in significant part in response to human rights abuses and
such restrictions are ongoing and are comparable to the
restrictions provided in paragraph (1). Such determination
shall be accompanied by a description of the specific
restriction or restrictions that were the basis for making
such determination.
(3) Subsequent compliance.--The Secretary of State has
determined that the government of the country has come into
compliance with the minimum standards or is making
significant efforts to bring itself into compliance.
(4) Continuation of assistance in the national interest.--
Notwithstanding the failure of the government of the country
to comply with minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking and to make significant efforts to bring itself
into compliance, the President has determined that the
provision to the country of nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related
foreign assistance, or the multilateral assistance described
in paragraph (1)(B), or both, would promote the purposes of
this division or is otherwise in the national interest of the
United States.
(5) Exercise of waiver authority.--
(A) In general.--The President may exercise the authority
under paragraph (4) with respect to--
(i) all nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign
assistance to a country;
(ii) all multilateral assistance described in paragraph
(1)(B) to a country; or
(iii) one or more programs, projects, or activities of such
assistance.
(B) Avoidance of significant adverse effects.--The
President shall exercise the authority under paragraph (4)
when necessary to avoid significant adverse effects on
vulnerable populations, including women and children.
(6) Definition of multilateral development bank.--In this
subsection, the term ``multilateral development bank'' refers
to any of the following institutions: the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, the International
Development Association, the International Finance
Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation,
the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund,
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the
Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency.
(e) Certification.--Together with any notification under
subsection (c), the President shall provide a certification
by the Secretary of State that, with respect to any
assistance described in clause (ii), (iii), or (v) of section
103(7)(A), or with respect to any assistance described in
section 103(7)(B), no assistance is intended to be received
or used by any agency or official who has participated in,
facilitated, or condoned a severe form of trafficking in
persons.
SEC. 111. ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT TRAFFICKERS IN PERSONS.
(a) Authority To Sanction Significant Traffickers in
Persons.--
(1) In general.--The President may exercise the authorities
set forth in section 203 of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) without regard to
section 202 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) in the case of any
of the following persons:
(A) Any foreign person that plays a significant role in a
severe form of trafficking in persons, directly or indirectly
in the United States.
(B) Foreign persons that materially assist in, or provide
financial or technological support for or to, or provide
goods or services in support of, activities of a significant
foreign trafficker in persons identified pursuant to
subparagraph (A).
(C) Foreign persons that are owned, controlled, or directed
by, or acting for or on behalf of, a significant foreign
trafficker identified pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) Penalties.--The penalties set forth in section 206 of
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1705) apply to violations of any license, order, or
regulation issued under this section.
(b) Report to Congress on Identification and Sanctioning of
Significant Traffickers in Persons.--
(1) In general.--Upon exercising the authority of
subsection (a), the President shall report to the appropriate
congressional committees--
(A) identifying publicly the foreign persons that the
President determines are appropriate for sanctions pursuant
to this section and the basis for such determination; and
(B) detailing publicly the sanctions imposed pursuant to
this section.
(2) Removal of sanctions.--Upon suspending or terminating
any action imposed under the authority of subsection (a), the
President shall report to the committees described in
paragraph (1) on such suspension or termination.
(3) Submission of classified information.--Reports
submitted under this subsection may include an annex with
classified information regarding the basis for the
determination made by the President under paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Law Enforcement and Intelligence Activities Not
Affected.--Nothing in this section prohibits or otherwise
limits the authorized law enforcement or intelligence
activities of the United States, or the law enforcement
activities of any State or subdivision thereof.
(d) Exclusion of Persons Who Have Benefited From Illicit
Activities of Traffickers in Persons.--Section 212(a)(2) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is
amended by inserting at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) Significant traffickers in persons.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien who is listed in a report
submitted pursuant to section 111(b) of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000, or who the consular officer
or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or
has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or
colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of
trafficking in persons, as defined in the section 103 of such
Act, is inadmissible.
``(ii) Beneficiaries of trafficking.--Except as provided in
clause (iii), any alien who the consular officer or the
Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is the
spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under
clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any
financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that
alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the
financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit
activity, is inadmissible.
``(iii) Exception for certain sons and daughters.--Clause
(ii) shall not apply to a son or daughter who was a child at
the time he or she received the benefit described in such
clause.''.
(e) Implementation.--
(1) Delegation of authority.--The President may delegate
any authority granted by this section, including the
authority to designate foreign persons under paragraphs
(1)(B) and (1)(C) of subsection (a).
(2) Promulgation of rules and regulations.--The head of any
agency, including the Secretary of Treasury, is authorized to
take such actions as may be necessary to carry out any
authority delegated by the President pursuant to paragraph
(1), including promulgating rules and regulations.
(3) Opportunity for review.--Such rules and regulations
shall include procedures affording an opportunity for a
person to be heard in an expeditious manner, either in person
or through a representative, for the purpose of seeking
changes to or termination of any determination, order,
designation or other action associated with the exercise of
the authority in subsection (a).
(f) Definition of Foreign Persons.--In this section, the
term ``foreign person'' means any citizen or national of a
foreign state or any entity not organized under the laws of
the United States, including a foreign government official,
but does not include a foreign state.
(g) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as precluding judicial review of the exercise of
the authority described in subsection (a).
SEC. 112. STRENGTHENING PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
TRAFFICKERS.
(a) Title 18 Amendments.--Chapter 77 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in each of sections 1581(a), 1583, and 1584--
(A) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``If death results
from the violation of this section, or if the violation
includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life,
or both.'';
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 1589. Forced labor
``Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or
services of a person--
``(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint
against, that person or another person;
``(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to
cause the person to believe that, if
[[Page 21062]]
the person did not perform such labor or services, that
person or another person would suffer serious harm or
physical restraint; or
``(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or
the legal process,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of
this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the
defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
any term of years or life, or both.
``Sec. 1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor
``Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, transports,
provides, or obtains by any means, any person for labor or
services in violation of this chapter shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If
death results from the violation of this section, or if the
violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse, or the attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or
life, or both.
``Sec. 1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud
or coercion
``(a) Whoever knowingly--
``(1) in or affecting interstate commerce, recruits,
entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any
means a person; or
``(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of
value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in
an act described in violation of paragraph (1),
knowing that force, fraud, or coercion described in
subsection (c)(2) will be used to cause the person to engage
in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained
the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a
commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (b).
``(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)
is--
``(1) if the offense was effected by force, fraud, or
coercion or if the person transported had not attained the
age of 14 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under
this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life,
or both; or
``(2) if the offense was not so effected, and the person
transported had attained the age of 14 years but had not
attained the age of 18 years at the time of such offense, by
a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20
years, or both.
``(c) In this section:
``(1) The term `commercial sex act' means any sex act, on
account of which anything of value is given to or received by
any person.''
``(2) The term `coercion' means--
``(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint
against any person;
``(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a
person to believe that failure to perform an act would result
in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person;
or
``(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal
process.
``(3) The term `venture' means any group of 2 or more
individuals associated in fact, whether or not a legal
entity.
``Sec. 1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in
furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or forced labor
``(a) Whoever knowingly destroys, conceals, removes,
confiscates, or possesses any actual or purported passport or
other immigration document, or any other actual or purported
government identification document, of another person--
``(1) in the course of a violation of section 1581, 1583,
1584, 1589, 1590, 1591, or 1594(a);
``(2) with intent to violate section 1581, 1583, 1584,
1589, 1590, or 1591; or
``(3) to prevent or restrict or to attempt to prevent or
restrict, without lawful authority, the person's liberty to
move or travel, in order to maintain the labor or services of
that person, when the person is or has been a victim of a
severe form of trafficking in persons, as defined in section
103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both.
``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the conduct of a
person who is or has been a victim of a severe form of
trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, if that conduct
is caused by, or incident to, that trafficking.
``Sec. 1593. Mandatory restitution
``(a) Notwithstanding sections 3663 or 3663A, and in
addition to any other civil or criminal penalties authorized
by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense
under this chapter.
``(b)(1) The order of restitution under this section shall
direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the
appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim's
losses, as determined by the court under paragraph (3) of
this subsection.
``(2) An order of restitution under this section shall be
issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the
same manner as an order under section 3663A.
``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `full amount of
the victim's losses' has the same meaning as provided in
section 2259(b)(3) and shall in addition include the greater
of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim's
services or labor or the value of the victim's labor as
guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.).
``(c) As used in this section, the term `victim' means the
individual harmed as a result of a crime under this chapter,
including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of
age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal
guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim's
estate, or another family member, or any other person
appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the
defendant be named such representative or guardian.
``Sec. 1594. General provisions
``(a) Whoever attempts to violate section 1581, 1583, 1584,
1589, 1590, or 1591 shall be punishable in the same manner as
a completed violation of that section.
``(b) The court, in imposing sentence on any person
convicted of a violation of this chapter, shall order, in
addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of
any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to
the United States--
``(1) such person's interest in any property, real or
personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or
to facilitate the commission of such violation; and
``(2) any property, real or personal, constituting or
derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained,
directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.
``(c)(1) The following shall be subject to forfeiture to
the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
``(A) Any property, real or personal, used or intended to
be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any
violation of this chapter.
``(B) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or
is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this
chapter.
``(2) The provisions of chapter 46 of this title relating
to civil forfeitures shall extend to any seizure or civil
forfeiture under this subsection.
``(d) Witness Protection.--Any violation of this chapter
shall be considered an organized criminal activity or other
serious offense for the purposes of application of chapter
224 (relating to witness protection).''; and
(3) by amending the table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 77 by adding at the end the following new items:
``1589. Forced labor.
``1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or forced labor.
``1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion.
``1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of
trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or
forced labor.
``1593. Mandatory restitution.
``1594. General provisions.''.
(b) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines.--
(1) Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title
28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section,
the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if
appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements applicable to persons convicted of offenses
involving the trafficking of persons including component or
related crimes of peonage, involuntary servitude, slave trade
offenses, and possession, transfer or sale of false
immigration documents in furtherance of trafficking, and the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing
Commission shall--
(A) take all appropriate measures to ensure that these
sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to the
offenses described in paragraph (1) of this subsection are
sufficiently stringent to deter and adequately reflect the
heinous nature of such offenses;
(B) consider conforming the sentencing guidelines
applicable to offenses involving trafficking in persons to
the guidelines applicable to peonage, involuntary servitude,
and slave trade offenses; and
(C) consider providing sentencing enhancements for those
convicted of the offenses described in paragraph (1) of this
subsection that--
(i) involve a large number of victims;
(ii) involve a pattern of continued and flagrant
violations;
(iii) involve the use or threatened use of a dangerous
weapon; or
(iv) result in the death or bodily injury of any person.
(3) The Commission may promulgate the guidelines or
amendments under this subsection in accordance with the
procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act
of 1987, as though the authority under that Act had not
expired.
SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations in Support of the Task
Force.--To carry out the purposes of sections 104, 105, and
110, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of State $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $3,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.--To carry out the purposes of
section 107(b), there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
[[Page 21063]]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations to the Secretary of
State.--
(1) Assistance for victims in other countries.--To carry
out the purposes of section 107(a), there are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of State $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) Voluntary contributions to osce.--To carry out the
purposes of section 109, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of State $300,000 for voluntary
contributions to advance projects aimed at preventing
trafficking, promoting respect for human rights of
trafficking victims, and assisting the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe participating states in
related legal reform for fiscal year 2001.
(3) Preparation of annual country reports on human
rights.--To carry out the purposes of section 104, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State such
sums as may be necessary to include the additional
information required by that section in the annual Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices, including the preparation
and publication of the list described in subsection (a)(1) of
that section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations to Attorney General.--
To carry out the purposes of section 107(b), there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations to President.--
(1) Foreign victim assistance.--To carry out the purposes
of section 106, there are authorized to be appropriated to
the President $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000
for fiscal year 2002.
(2) Assistance to foreign countries to meet minimum
standards.--To carry out the purposes of section 109, there
are authorized to be appropriated to the President $5,000,000
for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations to the Secretary of
Labor.--To carry out the purposes of section 107(b), there
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Labor
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002.
DIVISION B--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Violence Against Women
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 1002. DEFINITIONS.
In this division--
(1) the term ``domestic violence'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2);
and
(2) the term ``sexual assault'' has the meaning given the
term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
SEC. 1003. ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT.
(a) Report by Grant Recipients.--The Attorney General or
Secretary of Health and Human Services, as applicable, shall
require grantees under any program authorized or reauthorized
by this division or an amendment made by this division to
report on the effectiveness of the activities carried out
with amounts made available to carry out that program,
including number of persons served, if applicable, numbers of
persons seeking services who could not be served and such
other information as the Attorney General or Secretary may
prescribe.
(b) Report to Congress.--The Attorney General or Secretary
of Health and Human Services, as applicable, shall report
biennially to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate on the grant programs
described in subsection (a), including the information
contained in any report under that subsection.
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
SEC. 1101. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION
ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by adding ``AND ENFORCEMENT OF
PROTECTION ORDERS'' at the end;
(2) in section 2101(b)--
(A) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``(including juvenile
courts)'' after ``courts''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) To provide technical assistance and computer and
other equipment to police departments, prosecutors, courts,
and tribal jurisdictions to facilitate the widespread
enforcement of protection orders, including interstate
enforcement, enforcement between States and tribal
jurisdictions, and enforcement between tribal
jurisdictions.''; and
(3) in section 2102--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, including the enforcement of protection
orders from other States and jurisdictions (including tribal
jurisdictions);''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) have established cooperative agreements or can
demonstrate effective ongoing collaborative arrangements with
neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate the enforcement of
protection orders from other States and jurisdictions
(including tribal jurisdictions); and
``(4) in applications describing plans to further the
purposes stated in paragraph (4) or (7) of section 2101(b),
will give priority to using the grant to develop and install
data collection and communication systems, including
computerized systems, and training on how to use these
systems effectively to link police, prosecutors, courts, and
tribal jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying and
tracking protection orders and violations of protection
orders, in those jurisdictions where such systems do not
exist or are not fully effective.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General
shall annually compile and broadly disseminate (including
through electronic publication) information about successful
data collection and communication systems that meet the
purposes described in this section. Such dissemination shall
target States, State and local courts, Indian tribal
governments, and units of local government.''.
(b) Protection Orders.--
(1) Filing costs.--Section 2006 of part T of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-5) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``FILING'' and inserting
``AND PROTECTION ORDERS'' after ``CHARGES'';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) certifies that its laws, policies, and practices do
not require, in connection with the prosecution of any
misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, or in
connection with the filing, issuance, registration, or
service of a protection order, or a petition for a protection
order, to protect a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or
sexual assault, that the victim bear the costs associated
with the filing of criminal charges against the offender, or
the costs associated with the filing, issuance, registration,
or service of a warrant, protection order, petition for a
protection order, or witness subpoena, whether issued inside
or outside the State, tribal, or local jurisdiction; or'';
and
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``2 years'' and
inserting ``2 years after the date of enactment of the
Violence Against Women Act of 2000''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `protection
order' has the meaning given the term in section 2266 of
title 18, United States Code.''.
(2) Eligibility for grants to encourage arrest policies.--
Section 2101 of part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (4) and
inserting the following:
``(4) certify that their laws, policies, and practices do
not require, in connection with the prosecution of any
misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, or in
connection with the filing, issuance, registration, or
service of a protection order, or a petition for a protection
order, to protect a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or
sexual assault, that the victim bear the costs associated
with the filing of criminal charges against the offender, or
the costs associated with the filing, issuance, registration,
or service of a warrant, protection order, petition for a
protection order, or witness subpoena, whether issued inside
or outside the State, tribal, or local jurisdiction.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `protection
order' has the meaning given the term in section 2266 of
title 18, United States Code.''.
(3) Application for grants to encourage arrest policies.--
Section 2102(a)(1)(B) of part U of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh-
1(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``or, in the case of the condition set forth in
subsection 2101(c)(4), the expiration of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of the Violence Against
Women Act of 2000''.
(4) Registration for protection orders.--Section 2265 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(d) Notification and Registration.--
``(1) Notification.--A State or Indian tribe according full
faith and credit to an order by a court of another State or
Indian tribe shall not notify or require notification of the
party against whom a protection order has been issued that
the protection order has been registered or filed in that
enforcing State or tribal jurisdiction unless requested to do
so by the party protected under such order.
``(2) No prior registration or filing as prerequisite for
enforcement.--Any protection order that is otherwise
consistent with this section shall be accorded full faith and
credit, notwithstanding failure to comply with any
requirement that the order be registered or filed in the
enforcing State or tribal jurisdiction.
``(e) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this
section, a tribal court shall have full civil jurisdiction to
enforce protection orders, including authority to enforce any
orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of
violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate
mechanisms, in matters arising within the authority of the
tribe.''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3711 et
[[Page 21064]]
seq.) is amended in the item relating to part U, by adding
``and Enforcement of Protection Orders'' at the end.
SEC. 1102. ROLE OF COURTS.
(a) Courts as Eligible STOP Subgrantees.--Part T of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2001--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Indian tribal
governments,'' and inserting ``State and local courts
(including juvenile courts), Indian tribal governments,
tribal courts,''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, judges, other court
personnel,'' after ``law enforcement officers'';
(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, judges, other court
personnel,'' after ``law enforcement officers''; and
(iii) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, court,'' after
``police''; and
(2) in section 2002--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local
courts (including juvenile courts),'' after ``States,'' the
second place it appears;
(B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) of the amount granted--
``(A) not less than 25 percent shall be allocated to police
and not less than 25 percent shall be allocated to
prosecutors;
``(B) not less than 30 percent shall be allocated to victim
services; and
``(C) not less than 5 percent shall be allocated for State
and local courts (including juvenile courts); and''; and
(C) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``court,'' after
``law enforcement,''.
(b) Eligible Grantees; Use of Grants for Education.--
Section 2101 of part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local
courts (including juvenile courts), tribal courts,'' after
``Indian tribal governments,'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``State and local courts (including
juvenile courts),'' after ``Indian tribal governments'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``policies and'' and
inserting ``policies, educational programs, and'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``parole and probation
officers,'' after ``prosecutors,''; and
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``parole and probation
officers,'' after ``prosecutors,'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``State and local
courts (including juvenile courts),'' after ``Indian tribal
governments''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Allotment for Indian Tribes.--Not less than 5 percent
of the total amount made available for grants under this
section for each fiscal year shall be available for grants to
Indian tribal governments.''.
SEC. 1103. REAUTHORIZATION OF STOP GRANTS.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 1001(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (18) and inserting
the following:
``(18) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part T $185,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
(b) Grant Purposes.--Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2001--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``racial, cultural,
ethnic, and language minorities'' and inserting ``underserved
populations'';
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) supporting formal and informal statewide,
multidisciplinary efforts, to the extent not supported by
State funds, to coordinate the response of State law
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, victim services
agencies, and other State agencies and departments, to
violent crimes against women, including the crimes of sexual
assault, domestic violence, and dating violence;
``(9) training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel
examiners in the collection and preservation of evidence,
analysis, prevention, and providing expert testimony and
treatment of trauma related to sexual assault;''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) State Coalition Grants.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
each State domestic violence coalition and sexual assault
coalition for the purposes of coordinating State victim
services activities, and collaborating and coordinating with
Federal, State, and local entities engaged in violence
against women activities.
``(2) Grants to state coalitions.--The Attorney General
shall award grants to--
``(A) each State domestic violence coalition, as determined
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410
et seq.); and
``(B) each State sexual assault coalition, as determined by
the Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention under the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.).
``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award
under this subsection by each State domestic violence and
sexual assault coalition shall not preclude the coalition
from receiving additional grants under this part to carry out
the purposes described in subsection (b).'';
(2) in section 2002(b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively;
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``4 percent'' and
inserting ``5 percent'';
(C) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by striking
``$500,000'' and inserting ``$600,000''; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) 2.5 percent shall be available for grants for State
domestic violence coalitions under section 2001(c), with the
coalition for each State, the coalition for the District of
Columbia, the coalition for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the coalition for the combined Territories of the United
States, each receiving an amount equal to \1/54\ of the total
amount made available under this paragraph for each fiscal
year;
``(3) 2.5 percent shall be available for grants for State
sexual assault coalitions under section 2001(c), with the
coalition for each State, the coalition for the District of
Columbia, the coalition for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the coalition for the combined Territories of the United
States, each receiving an amount equal to \1/54\ of the total
amount made available under this paragraph for each fiscal
year;
``(4) \1/54\ shall be available for the development and
operation of nonprofit tribal domestic violence and sexual
assault coalitions in Indian country;'';
(3) in section 2003, by striking paragraph (7) and
inserting the following:
``(7) the term `underserved populations' includes
populations underserved because of geographic location (such
as rural isolation), underserved racial and ethnic
populations, populations underserved because of special needs
(such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or
age), and any other population determined to be underserved
by the State planning process in consultation with the
Attorney General;'' and
(4) in section 2004(b)(3), by inserting ``, and the
membership of persons served in any underserved population''
before the semicolon.
SEC. 1104. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST
POLICIES.
Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (19) and inserting the following:
``(19) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part U $65,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
SEC. 1105. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
CHILD ABUSE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.
Section 40295(c) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 13971(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Allotment for indian tribes.--Not less than 5 percent
of the total amount made available to carry out this section
for each fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian
tribal governments.''.
SEC. 1106. NATIONAL STALKER AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REDUCTION.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 40603 of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14032) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 40603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 40602(a) of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14031 note) is amended
by inserting ``and implement'' after ``improve''.
SEC. 1107. AMENDMENTS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING
OFFENSES.
(a) Interstate Domestic Violence.--Section 2261 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (a)
and inserting the following:
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels
in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian
country with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or
intimidate a spouse or intimate partner, and who, in the
course of or as a result of such travel, commits or attempts
to commit a crime of violence against that spouse or intimate
partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes a
spouse or intimate partner to travel in interstate or foreign
commerce or to enter or leave Indian country by force,
coercion, duress, or fraud, and who, in the course of, as a
result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, commits
or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse
or intimate partner, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (b).''.
(b) Interstate Stalking.--
(1) In general.--Section 2261A of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2261A. Interstate stalking
``Whoever--
``(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the
intent to kill,
[[Page 21065]]
injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the
course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person
in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury
to, that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined
in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate
partner of that person; or
``(2) with the intent--
``(A) to kill or injure a person in another State or tribal
jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States; or
``(B) to place a person in another State or tribal
jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the
death of, or serious bodily injury to--
``(i) that person;
``(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in
section 115) of that person; or
``(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign
commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places that
person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily
injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i)
through (iii);
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b).''.
(2) Amendment of federal sentencing guidelines.--
(A) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines to reflect the amendment made by this subsection.
(B) Factors for consideration.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Commission shall consider--
(i) whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines relating to
stalking offenses should be modified in light of the
amendment made by this subsection; and
(ii) whether any changes the Commission may make to the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to clause (i) should
also be made with respect to offenses under chapter 110A of
title 18, United States Code.
(c) Interstate Violation of Protection Order.--Section 2262
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels
in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves Indian
country, with the intent to engage in conduct that violates
the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides
protection against violence, threats, or harassment against,
contact or communication with, or physical proximity to,
another person, or that would violate such a portion of a
protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was
issued, and subsequently engages in such conduct, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).
``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes
another person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or
to enter or leave Indian country by force, coercion, duress,
or fraud, and in the course of, as a result of, or to
facilitate such conduct or travel engages in conduct that
violates the portion of a protection order that prohibits or
provides protection against violence, threats, or harassment
against, contact or communication with, or physical proximity
to, another person, or that would violate such a portion of a
protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was
issued, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 2266 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2266. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) Bodily injury.--The term `bodily injury' means any
act, except one done in self-defense, that results in
physical injury or sexual abuse.
``(2) Course of conduct.--The term `course of conduct'
means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts,
evidencing a continuity of purpose.
``(3) Enter or leave indian country.--The term `enter or
leave Indian country' includes leaving the jurisdiction of 1
tribal government and entering the jurisdiction of another
tribal government.
``(4) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the
meaning stated in section 1151 of this title.
``(5) Protection order.--The term `protection order'
includes any injunction or other order issued for the purpose
of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment
against, or contact or communication with or physical
proximity to, another person, including any temporary or
final order issued by a civil and criminal court (other than
a support or child custody order issued pursuant to State
divorce and child custody laws, except to the extent that
such an order is entitled to full faith and credit under
other Federal law) whether obtained by filing an independent
action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding so
long as any civil order was issued in response to a
complaint, petition, or motion filed by or on behalf of a
person seeking protection.
``(6) Serious bodily injury.--The term `serious bodily
injury' has the meaning stated in section 2119(2).
``(7) Spouse or intimate partner.--The term `spouse or
intimate partner' includes--
``(A) for purposes of--
``(i) sections other than 2261A, a spouse or former spouse
of the abuser, a person who shares a child in common with the
abuser, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a
spouse with the abuser; and
``(ii) section 2261A, a spouse or former spouse of the
target of the stalking, a person who shares a child in common
with the target of the stalking, and a person who cohabits or
has cohabited as a spouse with the target of the stalking;
and
``(B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who
is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the
State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or
where the victim resides.
``(8) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and a commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
``(9) Travel in interstate or foreign commerce.--The term
`travel in interstate or foreign commerce' does not include
travel from 1 State to another by an individual who is a
member of an Indian tribe and who remains at all times in the
territory of the Indian tribe of which the individual is a
member.''.
SEC. 1108. SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SECURITY.
(a) Grants To Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on
Campus.--Section 826 of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 (20 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (2), (6), (7), and (9) of subsection (b),
by striking ``and domestic violence'' and inserting
``domestic violence, and dating violence'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``and domestic
violence'' and inserting ``, domestic violence and dating
violence'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (A)) the following:
``(1) the term `dating violence' means violence committed
by a person--
``(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a
romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
``(B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be
determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
``(i) the length of the relationship;
``(ii) the type of relationship; and
``(iii) the frequency of interaction between the persons
involved in the relationship.'';
(C) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by inserting ``, dating'' after ``domestic'' each place the
term appears; and
(D) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) by inserting ``or a public, nonprofit organization
acting in a nongovernmental capacity'' after
``organization'';
(ii) by inserting ``, dating violence'' after ``assists
domestic violence'';
(iii) by striking ``or domestic violence'' and inserting
``, domestic violence or dating violence''; and
(iv) by inserting ``dating violence,'' before
``stalking,''; and
(4) in subsection (g), by striking ``fiscal year 1999 and
such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2001
through 2005''.
(b) Matching Grant Program For School Security.--Title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is
amended by inserting after part Z the following new part:
``PART AA--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY
``SEC. 2701. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to
make grants to States, units of local government, and Indian
tribes to provide improved security, including the placement
and use of metal detectors and other deterrent measures, at
schools and on school grounds.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe, and shall be used to improve
security at schools and on school grounds in the jurisdiction
of the grantee through one or more of the following:
``(1) Placement and use of metal detectors, locks,
lighting, and other deterrent measures.
``(2) Security assessments.
``(3) Security training of personnel and students.
``(4) Coordination with local law enforcement.
``(5) Any other measure that, in the determination of the
Attorney General, may provide a significant improvement in
security.
``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Attorney General shall give preferential
consideration, if feasible, to an application from a
jurisdiction that has a demonstrated need for improved
security, has a demonstrated need for financial assistance,
and has evidenced the ability to make the improvements for
which the grant amounts are sought.
``(d) Matching Funds.--
``(1) The portion of the costs of a program provided by a
grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent.
``(2) Any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities
of any agency of an Indian tribal government or the Bureau of
Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on any
Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of
a matching requirement funded under this subsection.
``(3) The Attorney General may provide, in the guidelines
implementing this section, for the requirement of paragraph
(1) to be waived or altered in the case of a recipient with a
financial need for such a waiver or alteration.
``(e) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Attorney General
[[Page 21066]]
shall ensure, to the extent practicable, an equitable
geographic distribution among the regions of the United
States and among urban, suburban, and rural areas.
``(f) Administrative Costs.--The Attorney General may
reserve not more than 2 percent from amounts appropriated to
carry out this part for administrative costs.
``SEC. 2702. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe shall submit an application to the Attorney
General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Attorney General may require. Each
application shall--
``(1) include a detailed explanation of--
``(A) the intended uses of funds provided under the grant;
and
``(B) how the activities funded under the grant will meet
the purpose of this part; and
``(2) be accompanied by an assurance that the application
was prepared after consultation with individuals not limited
to law enforcement officers (such as school violence
researchers, child psychologists, social workers, teachers,
principals, and other school personnel) to ensure that the
improvements to be funded under the grant are--
``(A) consistent with a comprehensive approach to
preventing school violence; and
``(B) individualized to the needs of each school at which
those improvements are to be made.
``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this part, the Attorney General shall
promulgate guidelines to implement this section (including
the information that must be included and the requirements
that the States, units of local government, and Indian tribes
must meet) in submitting the applications required under this
section.
``SEC. 2703. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
``Not later than November 30th of each year, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to the Congress regarding the
activities carried out under this part. Each such report
shall include, for the preceding fiscal year, the number of
grants funded under this part, the amount of funds provided
under those grants, and the activities for which those funds
were used.
``SEC. 2704. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this part--
``(1) the term `school' means a public elementary or
secondary school;
``(2) the term `unit of local government' means a county,
municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, or
other unit of general government below the State level; and
``(3) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).
``SEC. 2705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2003.''.
SEC. 1109. DATING VIOLENCE.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Section 2003.--Section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg-
2) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the term `dating violence' means violence committed
by a person--
``(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a
romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
``(B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be
determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
``(i) the length of the relationship;
``(ii) the type of relationship; and
``(iii) the frequency of interaction between the persons
involved in the relationship.''.
(2) Section 2105.--Section 2105 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh-
4) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the term `dating violence' means violence committed
by a person--
``(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a
romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
``(B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be
determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
``(i) the length of the relationship;
``(ii) the type of relationship; and
``(iii) the frequency of interaction between the persons
involved in the relationship.''.
(b) STOP Grants.--Section 2001(b) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``sexual assault and
domestic violence'' and inserting ``sexual assault, domestic
violence, and dating violence''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``sexual assault and
domestic violence'' and inserting ``sexual assault, domestic
violence, and dating violence''.
(c) Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.--Section 2101(b)
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and dating violence''
after ``domestic violence''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``and dating violence''
after ``domestic violence''.
(d) Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement.--
Section 40295(a) of the Safe Homes for Women Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13971(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and dating violence
(as defined in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg-2))''
after ``domestic violence''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and dating violence
(as defined in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg-2))''
after ``domestic violence''.
TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
SEC. 1201. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.
(a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to enable
the Attorney General to award grants to increase the
availability of legal assistance necessary to provide
effective aid to victims of domestic violence, stalking, or
sexual assault who are seeking relief in legal matters
arising as a consequence of that abuse or violence, at
minimal or no cost to the victims.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Domestic violence.--The term ``domestic violence'' has
the meaning given the term in section 2003 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-2).
(2) Legal assistance for victims.--The term ``legal
assistance'' includes assistance to victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault in family,
immigration, administrative agency, or housing matters,
protection or stay away order proceedings, and other similar
matters. No funds made available under this section may be
used to provide financial assistance in support of any
litigation described in paragraph (14) of section 504 of
Public Law 104-134.
(3) Sexual assault.--The term ``sexual assault'' has the
meaning given the term in section 2003 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-2).
(c) Legal Assistance for Victims Grants.--The Attorney
General may award grants under this subsection to private
nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and publicly
funded organizations not acting in a governmental capacity
such as law schools, and which shall be used--
(1) to implement, expand, and establish cooperative efforts
and projects between domestic violence and sexual assault
victim services organizations and legal assistance providers
to provide legal assistance for victims of domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault;
(2) to implement, expand, and establish efforts and
projects to provide legal assistance for victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault by organizations with
a demonstrated history of providing direct legal or advocacy
services on behalf of these victims; and
(3) to provide training, technical assistance, and data
collection to improve the capacity of grantees and other
entities to offer legal assistance to victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (c), applicants shall certify in writing that--
(1) any person providing legal assistance through a program
funded under subsection (c) has completed or will complete
training in connection with domestic violence or sexual
assault and related legal issues;
(2) any training program conducted in satisfaction of the
requirement of paragraph (1) has been or will be developed
with input from and in collaboration with a State, local, or
tribal domestic violence or sexual assault program or
coalition, as well as appropriate State and local law
enforcement officials;
(3) any person or organization providing legal assistance
through a program funded under subsection (c) has informed
and will continue to inform State, local, or tribal domestic
violence or sexual assault programs and coalitions, as well
as appropriate State and local law enforcement officials of
their work; and
(4) the grantee's organizational policies do not require
mediation or counseling involving offenders and victims
physically together, in cases where sexual assault, domestic
violence, or child sexual abuse is an issue.
(e) Evaluation.--The Attorney General may evaluate the
grants funded under this section through contracts or other
arrangements with entities expert on domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault, and on evaluation research.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005.
(2) Allocation of funds.--
(A) Tribal programs.--Of the amount made available under
this subsection in each fiscal year, not less than 5 percent
shall be used for grants for programs that assist victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault on lands
within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
(B) Victims of sexual assault.--Of the amount made
available under this subsection in each fiscal year, not less
than 25 percent shall be used for direct services, training,
and technical assistance to support projects focused solely
or primarily on providing legal assistance to victims of
sexual assault.
(3) Nonsupplantation.--Amounts made available under this
section shall be used to supplement and not supplant other
Federal, State, and local funds expended to further the
purpose of this section.
[[Page 21067]]
SEC. 1202. SHELTER SERVICES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 310(a) of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409(a)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title $175,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005.''.
(b) State Minimum; Reallotment.--Section 304 of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10403) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for grants to States
for any fiscal year'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``and available for grants to States under this
subsection for any fiscal year--
``(1) Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
shall each be allotted not less than \1/8\ of 1 percent of
the amounts available for grants under section 303(a) for the
fiscal year for which the allotment is made; and
``(2) each State shall be allotted for payment in a grant
authorized under section 303(a), $600,000, with the remaining
funds to be allotted to each State in an amount that bears
the same ratio to such remaining funds as the population of
such State bears to the population of all States.'';
(2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting
``and available'' before ``for grants''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) In subsection (a)(2), the term ``State'' does not
include any jurisdiction specified in subsection (a)(1).''.
SEC. 1203. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Title III of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 319. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this section to carry out programs to provide assistance to
individuals, and their dependents--
``(1) who are homeless or in need of transitional housing
or other housing assistance, as a result of fleeing a
situation of domestic violence; and
``(2) for whom emergency shelter services are unavailable
or insufficient.
``(b) Assistance Described.--Assistance provided under this
section may include--
``(1) short-term housing assistance, including rental or
utilities payments assistance and assistance with related
expenses, such as payment of security deposits and other
costs incidental to relocation to transitional housing, in
cases in which assistance described in this paragraph is
necessary to prevent homelessness because an individual or
dependent is fleeing a situation of domestic violence; and
``(2) support services designed to enable an individual or
dependent who is fleeing a situation of domestic violence to
locate and secure permanent housing, and to integrate the
individual or dependent into a community, such as
transportation, counseling, child care services, case
management, employment counseling, and other assistance.
``(c) Term of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual
or dependent assisted under this section may not receive
assistance under this section for a total of more than 12
months.
``(2) Waiver.--The recipient of a grant under this section
may waive the restrictions of paragraph (1) for up to an
additional 6-month period with respect to any individual (and
dependents of the individual) who has made a good-faith
effort to acquire permanent housing and has been unable to
acquire the housing.
``(d) Reports.--
``(1) Report to secretary.--
``(A) In general.--An entity that receives a grant under
this section shall annually prepare and submit to the
Secretary a report describing the number of individuals and
dependents assisted, and the types of housing assistance and
support services provided, under this section.
``(B) Contents.--Each report shall include information on--
``(i) the purpose and amount of housing assistance provided
to each individual or dependent assisted under this section;
``(ii) the number of months each individual or dependent
received the assistance;
``(iii) the number of individuals and dependents who were
eligible to receive the assistance, and to whom the entity
could not provide the assistance solely due to a lack of
available housing; and
``(iv) the type of support services provided to each
individual or dependent assisted under this section.
``(2) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall annually
prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate a report that contains a compilation of the
information contained in reports submitted under paragraph
(1).
``(e) Evaluation, Monitoring, and Administration.--Of the
amount appropriated under subsection (f) for each fiscal
year, not more than 1 percent shall be used by the Secretary
for evaluation, monitoring, and administrative costs under
this section.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
SEC. 1204. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE.
Section 316(f) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(f)) is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005.''.
SEC. 1205. FEDERAL VICTIMS COUNSELORS.
Section 40114 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1910)
is amended by striking ``(such as District of Columbia)--''
and all that follows and inserting ``(such as District of
Columbia), $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
SEC. 1206. STUDY OF STATE LAWS REGARDING INSURANCE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall conduct a
national study to identify State laws that address
discrimination against victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault related to issuance or administration of
insurance policies.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report on the findings and recommendations of the
study required by subsection (a).
SEC. 1207. STUDY OF WORKPLACE EFFECTS FROM VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN.
The Attorney General shall--
(1) conduct a national survey of plans, programs, and
practices developed to assist employers and employees on
appropriate responses in the workplace related to victims of
domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault; and
(2) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report describing the results
of that survey, which report shall include the
recommendations of the Attorney General to assist employers
and employees affected in the workplace by incidents of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
SEC. 1208. STUDY OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney
General, shall--
(1) conduct a national study to identify State laws that
address the separation from employment of an employee due to
circumstances directly resulting from the experience of
domestic violence by the employee and circumstances governing
that receipt (or nonreceipt) by the employee of unemployment
compensation based on such separation; and
(2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report describing the results
of that study, together with any recommendations based on
that study.
SEC. 1209. ENHANCING PROTECTIONS FOR OLDER AND DISABLED WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT.
(a) Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation.--The Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1902 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle H--Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Including
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Against Older or Disabled
Individuals
``SEC. 40801. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) In general.--The terms `elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation', and `older individual' have the meanings given
the terms in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3002).
``(2) Domestic violence.--The term `domestic violence' has
the meaning given such term by section 2003 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-2).
``(3) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the
meaning given the term in section 2003 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-2).
``SEC. 40802. TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
``The Attorney General may make grants for training
programs to assist law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and
relevant officers of Federal, State, tribal, and local courts
in recognizing, addressing, investigating, and prosecuting
instances of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and
violence against individuals with disabilities, including
domestic violence and sexual assault, against older or
disabled individuals.
``SEC. 40803. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
(b) Protections for Older and Disabled Individuals From
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Pro-Arrest Grants.--
Section 2101(b) of part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) To develop or strengthen policies and training for
police, prosecutors, and the judiciary in recognizing,
investigating, and prosecuting instances of domestic violence
and sexual assault against older individuals (as defined in
section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002)) and individuals with disabilities (as defined in
section 3(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12102(2))).''.
(c) Protections for Older and Disabled Individuals From
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in STOP Grants.--Section
2001(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 21068]]
3796gg(b)) (as amended by section 1103(b) of this division)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs to
assist law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and others to
address the needs and circumstances of older and disabled
women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault,
including recognizing, investigating, and prosecuting
instances of such violence or assault and targeting outreach
and support, counseling, and other victim services to such
older and disabled individuals; and''.
TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
SEC. 1301. SAFE HAVENS FOR CHILDREN PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General may award grants to
States, units of local government, and Indian tribal
governments that propose to enter into or expand the scope of
existing contracts and cooperative agreements with public or
private nonprofit entities to provide supervised visitation
and safe visitation exchange of children by and between
parents in situations involving domestic violence, child
abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(b) Considerations.--In awarding grants under subsection
(a), the Attorney General shall take into account--
(1) the number of families to be served by the proposed
visitation programs and services;
(2) the extent to which the proposed supervised visitation
programs and services serve underserved populations (as
defined in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2));
(3) with respect to an applicant for a contract or
cooperative agreement, the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates cooperation and collaboration with nonprofit,
nongovernmental entities in the local community served,
including the State or tribal domestic violence coalition,
State or tribal sexual assault coalition, local shelters, and
programs for domestic violence and sexual assault victims;
and
(4) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates
coordination and collaboration with State and local court
systems, including mechanisms for communication and referral.
(c) Applicant Requirements.--The Attorney General shall
award grants for contracts and cooperative agreements to
applicants that--
(1) demonstrate expertise in the area of family violence,
including the areas of domestic violence or sexual assault,
as appropriate;
(2) ensure that any fees charged to individuals for use of
programs and services are based on the income of those
individuals, unless otherwise provided by court order;
(3) demonstrate that adequate security measures, including
adequate facilities, procedures, and personnel capable of
preventing violence, are in place for the operation of
supervised visitation programs and services or safe
visitation exchange; and
(4) prescribe standards by which the supervised visitation
or safe visitation exchange will occur.
(d) Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the last day
of the first fiscal year commencing on or after the date of
enactment of this Act, and not later than 180 days after the
last day of each fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General
shall submit to Congress a report that includes information
concerning--
(A) the number of--
(i) individuals served and the number of individuals turned
away from visitation programs and services and safe
visitation exchange (categorized by State);
(ii) the number of individuals from underserved populations
served and turned away from services; and
(iii) the type of problems that underlie the need for
supervised visitation or safe visitation exchange, such as
domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, other
physical abuse, or a combination of such factors;
(B) the numbers of supervised visitations or safe
visitation exchanges ordered under this section during
custody determinations under a separation or divorce decree
or protection order, through child protection services or
other social services agencies, or by any other order of a
civil, criminal, juvenile, or family court;
(C) the process by which children or abused partners are
protected during visitations, temporary custody transfers,
and other activities for which supervised visitation is
established under this section;
(D) safety and security problems occurring during the
reporting period during supervised visitation under this
section, including the number of parental abduction cases;
and
(E) the number of parental abduction cases in a judicial
district using supervised visitation programs and services
under this section, both as identified in criminal
prosecution and custody violations.
(2) Guidelines.--The Attorney General shall establish
guidelines for the collection and reporting of data under
this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
(f) Allotment for Indian Tribes.--Not less than 5 percent
of the total amount made available for each fiscal year to
carry out this section shall be available for grants to
Indian tribal governments.
SEC. 1302. REAUTHORIZATION OF VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE
PROGRAMS.
(a) Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program.--Section 218
of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13014)
is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subtitle $12,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
(b) Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel
and Practitioners.--Section 224 of the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024) is amended by striking
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subtitle $2,300,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
(c) Grants for Televised Testimony.--Section 1001(a) of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (7)
and inserting the following:
``(7) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part N $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2005.''.
(d) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General
shall--
(1) annually compile and disseminate information (including
through electronic publication) about the use of amounts
expended and the projects funded under section 218(a) of the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13014(a)),
section 224(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 13024(a)), and section 1007(a)(7) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(7)), including any evaluations of the projects and
information to enable replication and adoption of the
strategies identified in the projects; and
(2) focus dissemination of the information described in
paragraph (1) toward community-based programs, including
domestic violence and sexual assault programs.
SEC. 1303. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF PARENTAL KIDNAPPING LAWS IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) conduct a study of Federal and State laws relating to
child custody, including custody provisions in protection
orders, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act adopted by the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in July 1997, the
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 and the amendments
made by that Act, and the effect of those laws on child
custody cases in which domestic violence is a factor; and
(2) submit to Congress a report describing the results of
that study, including the effects of implementing or applying
model State laws, and the recommendations of the Attorney
General to reduce the incidence or pattern of violence
against women or of sexual assault of the child.
(b) Sufficiency of Defenses.--In carrying out subsection
(a) with respect to the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of
1980 and the amendments made by that Act, the Attorney
General shall examine the sufficiency of defenses to parental
abduction charges available in cases involving domestic
violence, and the burdens and risks encountered by victims of
domestic violence arising from jurisdictional requirements of
that Act and the amendments made by that Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
(d) Condition for Custody Determination.--Section
1738A(c)(2)(C)(ii) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the child, a
sibling, or parent of the child''.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
SEC. 1401. RAPE PREVENTION AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--Part J of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 393A the following:
``SEC. 393B. USE OF ALLOTMENTS FOR RAPE PREVENTION EDUCATION.
``(a) Permitted Use.--The Secretary, acting through the
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall award
targeted grants to States to be used for rape prevention and
education programs conducted by rape crisis centers, State
sexual assault coalitions, and other public and private
nonprofit entities for--
``(1) educational seminars;
``(2) the operation of hotlines;
``(3) training programs for professionals;
``(4) the preparation of informational material;
``(5) education and training programs for students and
campus personnel designed to reduce the incidence of sexual
assault at colleges and universities;
``(6) education to increase awareness about drugs used to
facilitate rapes or sexual assaults; and
``(7) other efforts to increase awareness of the facts
about, or to help prevent, sexual assault, including efforts
to increase awareness in underserved communities and
awareness among individuals with disabilities (as defined in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12102)).
``(b) Collection and Dissemination of Information on Sexual
Assault.--The Secretary shall, through the National Resource
Center on Sexual Assault established under the National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, provide resource information,
policy, training,
[[Page 21069]]
and technical assistance to Federal, State, local, and Indian
tribal agencies, as well as to State sexual assault
coalitions and local sexual assault programs and to other
professionals and interested parties on issues relating to
sexual assault, including maintenance of a central resource
library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and
disseminate information and statistics and analyses thereof
relating to the incidence and prevention of sexual assault.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $80,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
``(2) National resource center allotment.--Of the total
amount made available under this subsection in each fiscal
year, not more than the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percent of
such amount shall be available for allotment under subsection
(b).
``(d) Limitations.--
``(1) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts provided to States
under this section shall be used to supplement and not
supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds
expended to provide services of the type described in
subsection (a).
``(2) Studies.--A State may not use more than 2 percent of
the amount received by the State under this section for each
fiscal year for surveillance studies or prevalence studies.
``(3) Administration.--A State may not use more than 5
percent of the amount received by the State under this
section for each fiscal year for administrative expenses.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 40151 of the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1920), and the amendment made by such
section, is repealed.
SEC. 1402. EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST AND
ABUSE OF WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may award grants
to States, units of local government, Indian tribal
governments, and nongovernmental private entities to provide
education and technical assistance for the purpose of
providing training, consultation, and information on domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault against women who are
individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)).
(b) Priorities.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to applications designed
to provide education and technical assistance on--
(1) the nature, definition, and characteristics of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault experienced by women
who are individuals with disabilities;
(2) outreach activities to ensure that women who are
individuals with disabilities who are victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault receive appropriate
assistance;
(3) the requirements of shelters and victim services
organizations under Federal anti-discrimination laws,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
(4) cost-effective ways that shelters and victim services
may accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(c) Uses of Grants.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall provide information and training to
organizations and programs that provide services to
individuals with disabilities, including independent living
centers, disability-related service organizations, and
domestic violence programs providing shelter or related
assistance.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
SEC. 1403. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES.
Section 318 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10418) is amended by striking subsection (h)
and inserting the following:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
SEC. 1404. DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AGENDA IDENTIFIED BY THE
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) direct the National Institute of Justice, in
consultation and coordination with the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the National Academy of Sciences, through its
National Research Council, to develop a research agenda based
on the recommendations contained in the report entitled
``Understanding Violence Against Women'' of the National
Academy of Sciences; and
(2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, submit to Congress a
report which shall include--
(A) a description of the research agenda developed under
paragraph (1) and a plan to implement that agenda;
(B) recommendations for priorities in carrying out that
agenda to most effectively advance knowledge about and means
by which to prevent or reduce violence against women.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 1405. STANDARDS, PRACTICE, AND TRAINING FOR SEXUAL
ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) evaluate existing standards of training and practice
for licensed health care professionals performing sexual
assault forensic examinations and develop a national
recommended standard for training;
(2) recommend sexual assault forensic examination training
for all health care students to improve the recognition of
injuries suggestive of rape and sexual assault and baseline
knowledge of appropriate referrals in victim treatment and
evidence collection; and
(3) review existing national, State, tribal, and local
protocols on sexual assault forensic examinations, and based
on this review, develop a recommended national protocol and
establish a mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.
(b) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with
national, State, tribal, and local experts in the area of
rape and sexual assault, including rape crisis centers, State
and tribal sexual assault and domestic violence coalitions
and programs, and programs for criminal justice, forensic
nursing, forensic science, emergency room medicine, law,
social services, and sex crimes in underserved communities
(as defined in section 2003(7) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
2(7)), as amended by this division).
(c) Report.--The Attorney General shall ensure that not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a
report of the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) is
submitted to Congress.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
SEC. 1406. EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR JUDGES AND COURT
PERSONNEL.
(a) Grants for Education and Training for Judges and Court
Personnel in State Courts.--
(1) Section 40412.--Section 40412 of the Equal Justice for
Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13992) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (18);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following:
``(20) the issues raised by domestic violence in
determining custody and visitation, including how to protect
the safety of the child and of a parent who is not a
predominant aggressor of domestic violence, the legitimate
reasons parents may report domestic violence, the ways
domestic violence may relate to an abuser's desire to seek
custody, and evaluating expert testimony in custody and
visitation determinations involving domestic violence;
``(21) the issues raised by child sexual assault in
determining custody and visitation, including how to protect
the safety of the child, the legitimate reasons parents may
report child sexual assault, and evaluating expert testimony
in custody and visitation determinations involving child
sexual assault, including the current scientifically-accepted
and empirically valid research on child sexual assault;
``(22) the extent to which addressing domestic violence and
victim safety contributes to the efficient administration of
justice;''.
(2) Section 40414.--Section 40414(a) of the Equal Justice
for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13994(a)) is
amended by inserting ``and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2001 through 2005'' after ``1996''.
(b) Grants for Education and Training for Judges and Court
Personnel in Federal Courts.--
(1) Section 40421.--Section 40421(d) of the Equal Justice
for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14001(d)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(d) Continuing Education and Training Programs.--The
Federal Judicial Center, in carrying out section 620(b)(3) of
title 28, United States Code, shall include in the
educational programs it prepares, including the training
programs for newly appointed judges, information on the
aspects of the topics listed in section 40412 that pertain to
issues within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and
shall prepare materials necessary to implement this
subsection.''.
(2) Section 40422.--Section 40422(2) of the Equal Justice
for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14002(2)) is
amended by inserting ``and $500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2001 through 2005'' after ``1996''.
(c) Technical Amendments to the Equal Justice for Women in
the Courts Act of 1994.--
(1) Ensuring collaboration with domestic violence and
sexual assault programs.--Section 40413 of the Equal Justice
for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13993) is
amended by adding ``, including national, State, tribal, and
local domestic violence and sexual assault programs and
coalitions'' after ``victim advocates''.
(2) Participation of tribal courts in state training and
education programs.--Section 40411 of the Equal Justice for
Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13991) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing shall preclude
the attendance of tribal judges and court personnel at
programs funded under this section for States to train judges
and court personnel on the laws of the States.''.
(3) Use of funds for dissemination of model programs.--
Section 40414 of the Equal
[[Page 21070]]
Justice for Women in the Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13994)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) State Justice Institute.--The State Justice Institute
may use up to 5 percent of the funds appropriated under this
section for annually compiling and broadly disseminating
(including through electronic publication) information about
the use of funds and about the projects funded under this
section, including any evaluations of the projects and
information to enable the replication and adoption of the
projects.''.
(d) Dating Violence.--
(1) Section 40411.--Section 40411 of the Equal Justice for
Women in Courts Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C 13991) is amended by
inserting ``dating violence,'' after ``domestic violence,''.
(2) Section 40412.--Section 40412 of such Act (42 U.S.C
13992) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``and dating violence
(as defined in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3996gg-2))''
before the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (11), by inserting ``and dating violence''
after ``domestic violence'';
(C) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``and dating violence''
after ``domestic violence'' in both places that it appears;
(D) in paragraph (17), by inserting ``or dating violence''
after ``domestic violence'' in both places that it appears;
and
(E) in paragraph (18), by inserting ``and dating violence''
after ``domestic violence''.
SEC. 1407. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TASK FORCE
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1902 et
seq.) (as amended by section 1209(a) of this division) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle I--Domestic Violence Task Force
``SEC. 40901. TASK FORCE.
``(a) Establish.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with national nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations whose
primary expertise is in domestic violence, shall establish a
task force to coordinate research on domestic violence and to
report to Congress on any overlapping or duplication of
efforts on domestic violence issues. The task force shall be
comprised of representatives from all Federal agencies that
fund such research.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Funds appropriated under this section
shall be used to--
``(1) develop a coordinated strategy to strengthen research
focused on domestic violence education, prevention, and
intervention strategies;
``(2) track and report all Federal research and
expenditures on domestic violence; and
``(3) identify gaps and duplication of efforts in domestic
violence research and governmental expenditures on domestic
violence issues.
``(c) Report.--The Task Force shall report to Congress
annually on its work under subsection (b).
``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`domestic violence' has the meaning given such term by
section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2(1)).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''.
TITLE V--BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Battered Immigrant Women
Protection Act of 2000''.
SEC. 1502. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the goal of the immigration protections for battered
immigrants included in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
was to remove immigration laws as a barrier that kept
battered immigrant women and children locked in abusive
relationships;
(2) providing battered immigrant women and children who
were experiencing domestic violence at home with protection
against deportation allows them to obtain protection orders
against their abusers and frees them to cooperate with law
enforcement and prosecutors in criminal cases brought against
their abusers and the abusers of their children without
fearing that the abuser will retaliate by withdrawing or
threatening withdrawal of access to an immigration benefit
under the abuser's control; and
(3) there are several groups of battered immigrant women
and children who do not have access to the immigration
protections of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which
means that their abusers are virtually immune from
prosecution because their victims can be deported as a result
of action by their abusers and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service cannot offer them protection no matter
how compelling their case under existing law.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to remove barriers to criminal prosecutions of persons
who commit acts of battery or extreme cruelty against
immigrant women and children; and
(2) to offer protection against domestic violence occurring
in family and intimate relationships that are covered in
State and tribal protection orders, domestic violence, and
family law statutes.
SEC. 1503. IMPROVED ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION PROTECTIONS OF THE
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994 FOR BATTERED
IMMIGRANT WOMEN.
(a) Intended Spouse Defined.--Section 101(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(50) The term `intended spouse' means any alien who meets
the criteria set forth in section
204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(BB), 204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(BB),
or 240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(III).''.
(b) Immediate Relative Status for Self-Petitioners Married
to U.S. Citizens.--
(1) Self-petitioning spouses.--
(A) Battery or cruelty to alien or alien's child.--Section
204(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii)(I) An alien who is described in subclause (II) may
file a petition with the Attorney General under this clause
for classification of the alien (and any child of the alien)
if the alien demonstrates to the Attorney General that--
``(aa) the marriage or the intent to marry the United
States citizen was entered into in good faith by the alien;
and
``(bb) during the marriage or relationship intended by the
alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the
alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended spouse.
``(II) For purposes of subclause (I), an alien described in
this subclause is an alien--
``(aa)(AA) who is the spouse of a citizen of the United
States;
``(BB) who believed that he or she had married a citizen of
the United States and with whom a marriage ceremony was
actually performed and who otherwise meets any applicable
requirements under this Act to establish the existence of and
bona fides of a marriage, but whose marriage is not
legitimate solely because of the bigamy of such citizen of
the United States; or
``(CC) who was a bona fide spouse of a United States
citizen within the past 2 years and--
``(aaa) whose spouse died within the past 2 years;
``(bbb) whose spouse lost or renounced citizenship status
within the past 2 years related to an incident of domestic
violence; or
``(ccc) who demonstrates a connection between the legal
termination of the marriage within the past 2 years and
battering or extreme cruelty by the United States citizen
spouse;
``(bb) who is a person of good moral character;
``(cc) who is eligible to be classified as an immediate
relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) or who would have been
so classified but for the bigamy of the citizen of the United
States that the alien intended to marry; and
``(dd) who has resided with the alien's spouse or intended
spouse.''.
(2) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) An alien who is the child of a citizen of the United
States, or who was a child of a United States citizen parent
who within the past 2 years lost or renounced citizenship
status related to an incident of domestic violence, and who
is a person of good moral character, who is eligible to be
classified as an immediate relative under section
201(b)(2)(A)(i), and who resides, or has resided in the past,
with the citizen parent may file a petition with the Attorney
General under this subparagraph for classification of the
alien (and any child of the alien) under such section if the
alien demonstrates to the Attorney General that the alien has
been battered by or has been the subject of extreme cruelty
perpetrated by the alien's citizen parent. For purposes of
this clause, residence includes any period of visitation.''.
(3) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) An alien who--
``(I) is the spouse, intended spouse, or child living
abroad of a citizen who--
``(aa) is an employee of the United States Government;
``(bb) is a member of the uniformed services (as defined in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code); or
``(cc) has subjected the alien or the alien's child to
battery or extreme cruelty in the United States; and
``(II) is eligible to file a petition under clause (iii) or
(iv);
shall file such petition with the Attorney General under the
procedures that apply to self-petitioners under clause (iii)
or (iv), as applicable.''.
(c) Second Preference Immigration Status for Self-
Petitioners Married to Lawful Permanent Residents.--
(1) Self-petitioning spouses.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii)(I) An alien who is described in subclause (II) may
file a petition with the Attorney General under this clause
for classification of the alien (and any child of the alien)
if such a child has not been classified under clause (iii) of
section 203(a)(2)(A) and if the alien demonstrates to the
Attorney General that--
``(aa) the marriage or the intent to marry the lawful
permanent resident was entered into in good faith by the
alien; and
``(bb) during the marriage or relationship intended by the
alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the
alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended spouse.
``(II) For purposes of subclause (I), an alien described in
this paragraph is an alien--
[[Page 21071]]
``(aa)(AA) who is the spouse of a lawful permanent resident
of the United States; or
``(BB) who believed that he or she had married a lawful
permanent resident of the United States and with whom a
marriage ceremony was actually performed and who otherwise
meets any applicable requirements under this Act to establish
the existence of and bona fides of a marriage, but whose
marriage is not legitimate solely because of the bigamy of
such lawful permanent resident of the United States; or
``(CC) who was a bona fide spouse of a lawful permanent
resident within the past 2 years and--
``(aaa) whose spouse lost status within the past 2 years
due to an incident of domestic violence; or
``(bbb) who demonstrates a connection between the legal
termination of the marriage within the past 2 years and
battering or extreme cruelty by the lawful permanent resident
spouse;
``(bb) who is a person of good moral character;
``(cc) who is eligible to be classified as a spouse of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section
203(a)(2)(A) or who would have been so classified but for the
bigamy of the lawful permanent resident of the United States
that the alien intended to marry; and
``(dd) who has resided with the alien's spouse or intended
spouse.''.
(2) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(iii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) An alien who is the child of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, or who was the child of a
lawful permanent resident who within the past 2 years lost
lawful permanent resident status due to an incident of
domestic violence, and who is a person of good moral
character, who is eligible for classification under section
203(a)(2)(A), and who resides, or has resided in the past,
with the alien's permanent resident alien parent may file a
petition with the Attorney General under this subparagraph
for classification of the alien (and any child of the alien)
under such section if the alien demonstrates to the Attorney
General that the alien has been battered by or has been the
subject of extreme cruelty perpetrated by the alien's
permanent resident parent.''.
(3) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) An alien who--
``(I) is the spouse, intended spouse, or child living
abroad of a lawful permanent resident who--
``(aa) is an employee of the United States Government;
``(bb) is a member of the uniformed services (as defined in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code); or
``(cc) has subjected the alien or the alien's child to
battery or extreme cruelty in the United States; and
``(II) is eligible to file a petition under clause (ii) or
(iii);
shall file such petition with the Attorney General under the
procedures that apply to self-petitioners under clause (ii)
or (iii), as applicable.''.
(d) Good Moral Character Determinations for Self-
Petitioners and Treatment of Child Self-Petitioners and
Petitions Including Derivative Children Attaining 21 Years of
Age.--Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (H) as
subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding section 101(f), an act or conviction
that is waivable with respect to the petitioner for purposes
of a determination of the petitioner's admissibility under
section 212(a) or deportability under section 237(a) shall
not bar the Attorney General from finding the petitioner to
be of good moral character under subparagraph (A)(iii),
(A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) if the Attorney General finds
that the act or conviction was connected to the alien's
having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.
``(D)(i)(I) Any child who attains 21 years of age who has
filed a petition under clause (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A)
that was filed or approved before the date on which the child
attained 21 years of age shall be considered (if the child
has not been admitted or approved for lawful permanent
residence by the date the child attained 21 years of age) a
petitioner for preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of section 203(a), whichever paragraph is applicable,
with the same priority date assigned to the self-petition
filed under clause (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A). No new
petition shall be required to be filed.
``(II) Any individual described in subclause (I) is
eligible for deferred action and work authorization.
``(III) Any derivative child who attains 21 years of age
who is included in a petition described in clause (ii) that
was filed or approved before the date on which the child
attained 21 years of age shall be considered (if the child
has not been admitted or approved for lawful permanent
residence by the date the child attained 21 years of age) a
petitioner for preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of section 203(a), whichever paragraph is applicable,
with the same priority date as that assigned to the
petitioner in any petition described in clause (ii). No new
petition shall be required to be filed.
``(IV) Any individual described in subclause (III) and any
derivative child of a petition described in clause (ii) is
eligible for deferred action and work authorization.
``(ii) The petition referred to in clause (i)(III) is a
petition filed by an alien under subparagraph (A)(iii),
(A)(iv), (B)(ii) or (B)(iii) in which the child is included
as a derivative beneficiary.''; and
(3) in subparagraph (J) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``or in making determinations under subparagraphs (C) and
(D),'' after ``subparagraph (B),''.
(e) Access to Naturalization for Divorced Victims of
Abuse.--Section 319(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, or any person who obtained status as a
lawful permanent resident by reason of his or her status as a
spouse or child of a United States citizen who battered him
or her or subjected him or her to extreme cruelty,'' after
``United States'' the first place such term appears; and
(2) by inserting ``(except in the case of a person who has
been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a United
States citizen spouse or parent)'' after ``has been living in
marital union with the citizen spouse''.
SEC. 1504. IMPROVED ACCESS TO CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND
SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION UNDER THE VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.
(a) Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for
Certain Nonpermanent Residents.--Section 240A(b)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Special rule for battered spouse or child.--
``(A) Authority.--The Attorney General may cancel removal
of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or
deportable from the United States if the alien demonstrates
that--
``(i)(I) the alien has been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent who is or was a United
States citizen (or is the parent of a child of a United
States citizen and the child has been battered or subjected
to extreme cruelty by such citizen parent);
``(II) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty by a spouse or parent who is or was a lawful
permanent resident (or is the parent of a child of an alien
who is or was a lawful permanent resident and the child has
been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by such
permanent resident parent); or
``(III) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty by a United States citizen or lawful permanent
resident whom the alien intended to marry, but whose marriage
is not legitimate because of that United States citizen's or
lawful permanent resident's bigamy;
``(ii) the alien has been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than 3 years
immediately preceding the date of such application, and the
issuance of a charging document for removal proceedings shall
not toll the 3-year period of continuous physical presence in
the United States;
``(iii) the alien has been a person of good moral character
during such period, subject to the provisions of subparagraph
(C);
``(iv) the alien is not inadmissible under paragraph (2) or
(3) of section 212(a), is not deportable under paragraphs
(1)(G) or (2) through (4) of section 237(a) (except in a case
described in section 237(a)(7) where the Attorney General
exercises discretion to grant a waiver), and has not been
convicted of an aggravated felony; and
``(v) the removal would result in extreme hardship to the
alien, the alien's child, or the alien's parent.
``(B) Physical presence.--Notwithstanding subsection
(d)(2), for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(II) or for
purposes of section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title
III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996),
an alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain
continuous physical presence by reason of an absence if the
alien demonstrates a connection between the absence and the
battering or extreme cruelty perpetrated against the alien.
No absence or portion of an absence connected to the
battering or extreme cruelty shall count toward the 90-day or
180-day limits established in subsection (d)(2). If any
absence or aggregate absences exceed 180 days, the absences
or portions of the absences will not be considered to break
the period of continuous presence. Any such period of time
excluded from the 180-day limit shall be excluded in
computing the time during which the alien has been physically
present for purposes of the 3-year requirement set forth in
section 240A(b)(2)(B) and section 244(a)(3) (as in effect
before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996).
``(C) Good moral character.--Notwithstanding section
101(f), an act or conviction that does not bar the Attorney
General from granting relief under this paragraph by reason
of subparagraph (A)(iv) shall not bar the Attorney General
from finding the alien to be of good moral character under
subparagraph (A)(i)(III) or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect
before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996), if the Attorney General finds that the act or
conviction was connected to the alien's having been battered
or subjected to extreme cruelty and determines that a waiver
is otherwise warranted.
[[Page 21072]]
``(D) Credible evidence considered.--In acting on
applications under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall
consider any credible evidence relevant to the application.
The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight
to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion
of the Attorney General.''.
(b) Children of Battered Aliens and Parents of Battered
Alien Children.--Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Children of battered aliens and parents of battered
alien children.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall grant parole
under section 212(d)(5) to any alien who is a--
``(i) child of an alien granted relief under section
240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III-A
effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996); or
``(ii) parent of a child alien granted relief under section
240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III-A
effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).
``(B) Duration of parole.--The grant of parole shall extend
from the time of the grant of relief under section 240A(b)(2)
or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III-A
effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) to the time
the application for adjustment of status filed by aliens
covered under this paragraph has been finally adjudicated.
Applications for adjustment of status filed by aliens covered
under this paragraph shall be treated as if they were
applications filed under section 204(a)(1) (A)(iii), (A)(iv),
(B)(ii), or (B)(iii) for purposes of section 245 (a) and (c).
Failure by the alien granted relief under section 240A(b)(2)
or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III-A
effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) to exercise
due diligence in filing a visa petition on behalf of an alien
described in clause (i) or (ii) may result in revocation of
parole.''.
(c) Effective Date.--Any individual who becomes eligible
for relief by reason of the enactment of the amendments made
by subsections (a) and (b), shall be eligible to file a
motion to reopen pursuant to section 240(c)(6)(C)(iv). The
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of section 304 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 587). Such portions of the
amendments made by subsection (b) that relate to section
244(a)(3) (as in effect before the title III-A effective date
in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) shall take effect as if
included in subtitle G of title IV of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322;
108 Stat. 1953 et seq.).
SEC. 1505. OFFERING EQUAL ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION PROTECTIONS
OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994 FOR
ALL QUALIFIED BATTERED IMMIGRANT SELF-
PETITIONERS.
(a) Battered Immigrant Waiver.--Section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(C)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Attorney General in the Attorney General's
discretion may waive the provisions of section
212(a)(9)(C)(i) in the case of an alien to whom the Attorney
General has granted classification under clause (iii), (iv),
or (v) of section 204(a)(1)(A), or classification under
clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(B), in any
case in which there is a connection between--
``(1) the alien's having been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty; and
``(2) the alien's--
``(A) removal;
``(B) departure from the United States;
``(C) reentry or reentries into the United States; or
``(D) attempted reentry into the United States.''.
(b) Domestic Violence Victim Waiver.--
(1) Waiver for victims of domestic violence.--Section
237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(7) Waiver for victims of domestic violence.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General is not limited by
the criminal court record and may waive the application of
paragraph (2)(E)(i) (with respect to crimes of domestic
violence and crimes of stalking) and (ii) in the case of an
alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty
and who is not and was not the primary perpetrator of
violence in the relationship--
``(i) upon a determination that--
``(I) the alien was acting is self-defense;
``(II) the alien was found to have violated a protection
order intended to protect the alien; or
``(III) the alien committed, was arrested for, was
convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime--
``(aa) that did not result in serious bodily injury; and
``(bb) where there was a connection between the crime and
the alien's having been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty.
``(B) Credible evidence considered.--In acting on
applications under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall
consider any credible evidence relevant to the application.
The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight
to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion
of the Attorney General.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C)) is
amended by inserting ``(except in a case described in section
237(a)(7) where the Attorney General exercises discretion to
grant a waiver)'' after ``237(a)(3)''.
(c) Misrepresentation Waivers for Battered Spouses of
United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents.--
(1) Waiver of inadmissibility.--Section 212(i)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or, in the case of an alien granted
classification under clause (iii) or (iv) of section
204(a)(1)(A) or clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B),
the alien demonstrates extreme hardship to the alien or the
alien's United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or
qualified alien parent or child''.
(2) Waiver of deportability.--Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H)) is
amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(i)'';
(B) by redesignating clause (ii) as subclause (II); and
(C) by adding after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) is an alien who qualifies for classification under
clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or clause (ii)
or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B).''.
(d) Battered Immigrant Waiver.--Section 212(g)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) qualifies for classification under clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or classification under clause
(ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B);''.
(e) Waivers for VAWA Eligible Battered Immigrants.--Section
212(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' and inserting
``or''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) the alien qualifies for classification under clause
(iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or classification under
clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B); and''.
(f) Public Charge.--Section 212 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(p) In determining whether an alien described in
subsection (a)(4)(C)(i) is inadmissible under subsection
(a)(4) or ineligible to receive an immigrant visa or
otherwise to adjust to the status of permanent resident by
reason of subsection (a)(4), the consular officer or the
Attorney General shall not consider any benefits the alien
may have received that were authorized under section 501 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)).''.
(g) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the House of Representatives covering, with respect to fiscal
year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter--
(1) the policy and procedures of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service under which an alien who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty who is eligible for
suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal can
request to be placed, and be placed, in deportation or
removal proceedings so that such alien may apply for
suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal;
(2) the number of requests filed at each district office
under this policy;
(3) the number of these requests granted reported
separately for each district; and
(4) the average length of time at each Immigration and
Naturalization office between the date that an alien who has
been subject to battering or extreme cruelty eligible for
suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal requests
to be placed in deportation or removal proceedings and the
date that the immigrant appears before an immigration judge
to file an application for suspension of deportation or
cancellation of removal.
SEC. 1506. RESTORING IMMIGRATION PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994.
(a) Removing Barriers to Adjustment of Status for Victims
of Domestic Violence.--
(1) Immigration amendments.--Section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or the status of any
other alien having an approved petition for classification
under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of
section 204(a)(1) or'' after ``into the United States.''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``Subsection (a) shall
not be applicable to'' and inserting the following: ``Other
than an alien having an approved petition for classification
under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (A)(vi),
(B)(ii), (B)(iii), or (B)(iv) of section 204(a)(1),
subsection (a) shall not be applicable to''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to applications for adjustment of status pending
on or made on or after January 14, 1998.
(b) Removing Barriers to Cancellation of Removal and
Suspension of Deportation for Victims of Domestic Violence.--
[[Page 21073]]
(1) Not treating service of notice as terminating
continuous period.--Section 240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by striking
``when the alien is served a notice to appear under section
239(a) or'' and inserting ``(A) except in the case of an
alien who applies for cancellation of removal under
subsection (b)(2), when the alien is served a notice to
appear under section 239(a), or (B)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
587).
(3) Modification of certain transition rules for battered
spouse or child.--Section 309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
(A) by striking the subparagraph heading and inserting the
following:
``(C) Special rule for certain aliens granted temporary
protection from deportation and for battered spouses and
children.--''; and
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subclause (V), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(VI) is an alien who was issued an order to show cause or
was in deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997, and who
applied for suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before
the date of the enactment of this Act).''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (3)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
(c) Eliminating Time Limitations on Motions To Reopen
Removal and Deportation Proceedings for Victims of Domestic
Violence.--
(1) Removal proceedings.--
(A) In general.--Section 240(c)(6)(C) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(C)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Special rule for battered spouses and children.--The
deadline specified in subsection (b)(5)(C) for filing a
motion to reopen does not apply--
``(I) if the basis for the motion is to apply for relief
under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A), clause
(ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B), or section 240A(b)(2);
``(II) if the motion is accompanied by a cancellation of
removal application to be filed with the Attorney General or
by a copy of the self-petition that has been or will be filed
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the
granting of the motion to reopen; and
``(III) if the motion to reopen is filed within 1 year of
the entry of the final order of removal, except that the
Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion,
waive this time limitation in the case of an alien who
demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship
to the alien's child.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1229-1229c).
(2) Deportation proceedings.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by
law on motions to reopen or rescind deportation proceedings
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect
before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)), there is no time limit on the
filing of a motion to reopen such proceedings, and the
deadline specified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (as so in effect) (8 U.S.C. 1252b(c)(3))
does not apply--
(i) if the basis of the motion is to apply for relief under
clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)),
clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)), or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as
so in effect) (8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(3)); and
(ii) if the motion is accompanied by a suspension of
deportation application to be filed with the Attorney General
or by a copy of the self-petition that will be filed with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of
the motion to reopen.
(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to motions
filed by aliens who--
(i) are, or were, in deportation proceedings under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the
title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note)); and
(ii) have become eligible to apply for relief under clause
(iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)), clause (ii) or
(iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)), or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as in
effect before the title III-A effective date in section 309
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)) as a result
of the amendments made by--
(I) subtitle G of title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat.
1953 et seq.); or
(II) this title.
SEC. 1507. REMEDYING PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT OF 1994.
(a) Effect of Changes in Abusers' Citizenship Status on
Self-Petition.--
(1) Reclassification.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) (as
amended by section 1503(b)(3) of this title) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(vi) For the purposes of any petition filed under clause
(iii) or (iv), the denaturalization, loss or renunciation of
citizenship, death of the abuser, divorce, or changes to the
abuser's citizenship status after filing of the petition
shall not adversely affect the approval of the petition, and
for approved petitions shall not preclude the classification
of the eligible self-petitioning spouse or child as an
immediate relative or affect the alien's ability to adjust
status under subsections (a) and (c) of section 245 or obtain
status as a lawful permanent resident based on the approved
self-petition under such clauses.''.
(2) Loss of status.--Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)) (as
amended by section 1503(c)(3) of this title) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v)(I) For the purposes of any petition filed or approved
under clause (ii) or (iii), divorce, or the loss of lawful
permanent resident status by a spouse or parent after the
filing of a petition under that clause shall not adversely
affect approval of the petition, and, for an approved
petition, shall not affect the alien's ability to adjust
status under subsections (a) and (c) of section 245 or obtain
status as a lawful permanent resident based on an approved
self-petition under clause (ii) or (iii).
``(II) Upon the lawful permanent resident spouse or parent
becoming or establishing the existence of United States
citizenship through naturalization, acquisition of
citizenship, or other means, any petition filed with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and pending or
approved under clause (ii) or (iii) on behalf of an alien who
has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty shall be
deemed reclassified as a petition filed under subparagraph
(A) even if the acquisition of citizenship occurs after
divorce or termination of parental rights.''.
(3) Definition of immediate relatives.--Section
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1154(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``For purposes of this clause, an alien who has
filed a petition under clause (iii) or (iv) of section
204(a)(1)(A) of this Act remains an immediate relative in the
event that the United States citizen spouse or parent loses
United States citizenship on account of the abuse.''.
(b) Allowing Remarriage of Battered Immigrants.--Section
204(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Remarriage of an alien whose petition was approved under
section 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) or 204(a)(1)(A)(iii) or marriage of
an alien described in clause (iv) or (vi) of section
204(a)(1)(A) or in section 204(a)(1)(B)(iii) shall not be the
basis for revocation of a petition approval under section
205.''.
SEC. 1508. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO QUALIFIED ALIEN DEFINITION
FOR BATTERED IMMIGRANTS.
Section 431(c)(1)(B)(iii) of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1641(c)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before
the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996).''.
SEC. 1509. ACCESS TO CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT FOR BATTERED
IMMIGRANT SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of the first section of
Public Law 89-732 (November 2, 1966; 8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is
amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, except that such spouse or child who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty may adjust to
permanent resident status under this Act without
demonstrating that he or she is residing with the Cuban
spouse or parent in the United States. In acting on
applications under this section with respect to spouses or
children who have been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty, the Attorney General shall apply the provisions of
section 204(a)(1)(H).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in subtitle G of title IV
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1953 et seq.).
SEC. 1510. ACCESS TO THE NICARAGUAN ADJUSTMENT AND CENTRAL
AMERICAN RELIEF ACT FOR BATTERED SPOUSES AND
CHILDREN.
(a) Adjustment of Status of Certain Nicaraguan and Cuban
Battered Spouses.--Section 202(d) of the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1255
note; Public Law 105-100, as amended) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) the alien--
``(i) is the spouse, child, or unmarried son or daughter of
an alien whose status is adjusted to that of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence under subsection
(a), except that in the case of such an unmarried son or
daughter, the son or daughter shall be required to establish
that the son or daughter has been physically present in the
United States for a continuous period beginning not later
than December
[[Page 21074]]
1, 1995, and ending not earlier than the date on which the
application for adjustment under this subsection is filed; or
``(ii) was, at the time at which an alien filed for
adjustment under subsection (a), the spouse or child of an
alien whose status is adjusted to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence under subsection (a), and
the spouse, child, or child of the spouse has been battered
or subjected to extreme cruelty by the alien that filed for
adjustment under subsection (a);''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Procedure.--In acting on an application under this
section with respect to a spouse or child who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, the Attorney
General shall apply section 204(a)(1)(H).''.
(b) Cancellation of Removal and Suspension of Deportation
Transition Rules for Certain Battered Spouses.--Section
309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal Immigration and Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public
Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1101 note) (as amended by section
1506(b)(3) of this title) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking the period at the end of subclause (VI) (as
added by section 1506(b)(3) of this title) and inserting ``;
or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(VII)(aa) was the spouse or child of an alien described
in subclause (I), (II), or (V)--
``(AA) at the time at which a decision is rendered to
suspend the deportation or cancel the removal of the alien;
``(BB) at the time at which the alien filed an application
for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal; or
``(CC) at the time at which the alien registered for
benefits under the settlement agreement in American Baptist
Churches, et. al. v. Thornburgh (ABC), applied for temporary
protected status, or applied for asylum; and
``(bb) the spouse, child, or child of the spouse has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by the alien
described in subclause (I), (II), or (V).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Consideration of petitions.--In acting on a
petition filed under subclause (VII) of clause (i) the
provisions set forth in section 204(a)(1)(H) shall apply.
``(iv) Residence with spouse or parent not required.--For
purposes of the application of clause (i)(VII), a spouse or
child shall not be required to demonstrate that he or she is
residing with the spouse or parent in the United States.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall be effective as if included in the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1255
note; Public Law 105-100, as amended).
SEC. 1511. ACCESS TO THE HAITIAN REFUGEE FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998
FOR BATTERED SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Section 902(d)(1)(B) of the Haitian
Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (division A of
section 101(h) of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-538) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B)(i) the alien is the spouse, child, or unmarried son
or daughter of an alien whose status is adjusted to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under
subsection (a), except that, in the case of such an unmarried
son or daughter, the son or daughter shall be required to
establish that the son or daughter has been physically
present in the United States for a continuous period
beginning not later than December 1, 1995, and ending not
earlier than the date on which the application for such
adjustment is filed;
``(ii) at the time of filing of the application for
adjustment under subsection (a), the alien is the spouse or
child of an alien whose status is adjusted to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under
subsection (a) and the spouse, child, or child of the spouse
has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by the
individual described in subsection (a); and
``(iii) in acting on applications under this section with
respect to spouses or children who have been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty, the Attorney General shall
apply the provisions of section 204(a)(1)(H).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the Haitian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (division A of section
101(h) of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-538).
SEC. 1512. ACCESS TO SERVICES AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR
BATTERED IMMIGRANTS.
(a) Law Enforcement and Prosecution Grants.--Section
2001(b) of part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b)) (as amended by
section 1209(c) of this division) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(11) providing assistance to victims of domestic violence
and sexual assault in immigration matters.''.
(b) Grants To Encourage Arrests.--Section 2101(b)(5) of
part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh(b)(5)) is amended by
inserting before the period the following: ``, including
strengthening assistance to such victims in immigration
matters''.
(c) Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement
Grants.--Section 40295(a)(2) of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat.
1953; 42 U.S.C. 13971(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) to provide treatment, counseling, and assistance to
victims of domestic violence and child abuse, including in
immigration matters; and''.
(d) Campus Domestic Violence Grants.--Section 826(b)(5) of
the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (Public Law 105-244;
20 U.S.C. 1152) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, including assistance to victims in
immigration matters''.
SEC. 1513. PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN CRIME VICTIMS INCLUDING
VICTIMS OF CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN.
(a) Findings and Purpose.--
(1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(A) Immigrant women and children are often targeted to be
victims of crimes committed against them in the United
States, including rape, torture, kidnaping, trafficking,
incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, female genital
mutilation, forced prostitution, involuntary servitude, being
held hostage or being criminally restrained.
(B) All women and children who are victims of these crimes
committed against them in the United States must be able to
report these crimes to law enforcement and fully participate
in the investigation of the crimes committed against them and
the prosecution of the perpetrators of such crimes.
(2) Purpose.--
(A) The purpose of this section is to create a new
nonimmigrant visa classification that will strengthen the
ability of law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate,
and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault,
trafficking of aliens, and other crimes described in section
101(a)(15)(U)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
committed against aliens, while offering protection to
victims of such offenses in keeping with the humanitarian
interests of the United States. This visa will encourage law
enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime victims
and to prosecute crimes committed against aliens.
(B) Creating a new nonimmigrant visa classification will
facilitate the reporting of crimes to law enforcement
officials by trafficked, exploited, victimized, and abused
aliens who are not in lawful immigration status. It also
gives law enforcement officials a means to regularize the
status of cooperating individuals during investigations or
prosecutions. Providing temporary legal status to aliens who
have been severely victimized by criminal activity also
comports with the humanitarian interests of the United
States.
(C) Finally, this section gives the Attorney General
discretion to convert the status of such nonimmigrants to
that of permanent residents when doing so is justified on
humanitarian grounds, for family unity, or is otherwise in
the public interest.
(b) Establishment of Humanitarian/Material Witness
Nonimmigrant Classification.--Section 101(a)(15) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) (as
amended by section 107 of this Act) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (S);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (T)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(U)(i) subject to section 214(o), an alien who files a
petition for status under this subparagraph, if the Attorney
General determines that--
``(I) the alien has suffered substantial physical or mental
abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal
activity described in clause (iii);
``(II) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under
the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the
alien) possesses information concerning criminal activity
described in clause (iii);
``(III) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under
the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the
alien) has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be
helpful to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement
official, to a Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to a
Federal or State judge, to the Service, or to other Federal,
State, or local authorities investigating or prosecuting
criminal activity described in clause (iii); and
``(IV) the criminal activity described in clause (iii)
violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the
United States (including in Indian country and military
installations) or the territories and possessions of the
United States;
``(ii) if the Attorney General considers it necessary to
avoid extreme hardship to the spouse, the child, or, in the
case of an alien child, the parent of the alien described in
clause (i), the Attorney General may also grant status under
this paragraph based upon certification of a government
official listed in clause (i)(III) that an investigation or
prosecution would be harmed without the assistance of the
spouse, the child, or, in the case of an alien child, the
parent of the alien; and
``(iii) the criminal activity referred to in this clause is
that involving one or more of the following or any similar
activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal
law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence;
sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual
exploitation; female genital mutilation; being held hostage;
peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping;
abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment;
blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; felonious
assault; witness tampering; obstruction
[[Page 21075]]
of justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation
to commit any of the above mentioned crimes.''.
(c) Conditions for Admission and Duties of the Attorney
General.--Section 214 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) (as amended
by section 107 of this Act) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(o) Requirements Applicable to Section 101(a)(15)(u)
Visas.--
``(1) Petitioning procedures for section 101(a)(15)(u)
visas.--The petition filed by an alien under section
101(a)(15)(U)(i) shall contain a certification from a
Federal, State, or local law enforcement official,
prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local
authority investigating criminal activity described in
section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii). This certification may also be
provided by an official of the Service whose ability to
provide such certification is not limited to information
concerning immigration violations. This certification shall
state that the alien ``has been helpful, is being helpful, or
is likely to be helpful'' in the investigation or prosecution
of criminal activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii).
``(2) Numerical limitations.--
``(A) The number of aliens who may be issued visas or
otherwise provided status as nonimmigrants under section
101(a)(15)(U) in any fiscal year shall not exceed 10,000.
``(B) The numerical limitations in subparagraph (A) shall
only apply to principal aliens described in section
101(a)(15)(U)(i), and not to spouses, children, or, in the
case of alien children, the alien parents of such children.
``(3) Duties of the attorney general with respect to `u'
visa nonimmigrants.--With respect to nonimmigrant aliens
described in subsection (a)(15)(U)--
``(A) the Attorney General and other government officials,
where appropriate, shall provide those aliens with referrals
to nongovernmental organizations to advise the aliens
regarding their options while in the United States and the
resources available to them; and
``(B) the Attorney General shall, during the period those
aliens are in lawful temporary resident status under that
subsection, provide the aliens with employment authorization.
``(4) Credible evidence considered.--In acting on any
petition filed under this subsection, the consular officer or
the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall consider any
credible evidence relevant to the petition.
``(5) Nonexclusive relief.--Nothing in this subsection
limits the ability of aliens who qualify for status under
section 101(a)(15)(U) to seek any other immigration benefit
or status for which the alien may be eligible.''.
(d) Prohibition on Adverse Determinations of Admissibility
or Deportability.--Section 384(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1)(C);
(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (1)(D)
and inserting ``, or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1)(D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) in the case of an alien applying for status under
section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
the perpetrator of the substantial physical or mental abuse
and the criminal activity,''; and
(4) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``section
101(a)(15)(U),'' after ``section 216(c)(4)(C),''.
(e) Waiver of Grounds of Ineligibility for Admission.--
Section 212(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(13) The Attorney General shall determine whether a
ground of inadmissibility exists with respect to a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(U). The Attorney
General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the
application of subsection (a) (other than paragraph (3)(E))
in the case of a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(U), if the Attorney General considers it to be in
the public or national interest to do so.''.
(f) Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status.--Section 245
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(l)(1) The Attorney General may adjust the status of an
alien admitted into the United States (or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status) under section 101(a)(15)(U) to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the
alien is not described in section 212(a)(3)(E), unless the
Attorney General determines based on affirmative evidence
that the alien unreasonably refused to provide assistance in
a criminal investigation or prosecution, if--
``(A) the alien has been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of at least 3 years since the
date of admission as a nonimmigrant under clause (i) or (ii)
of section 101(a)(15)(U); and
``(B) in the opinion of the Attorney General, the alien's
continued presence in the United States is justified on
humanitarian grounds, to ensure family unity, or is otherwise
in the public interest.
``(2) An alien shall be considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence in the United States
under paragraph (1)(A) if the alien has departed from the
United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for any
periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days unless the
absence is in order to assist in the investigation or
prosecution or unless an official involved in the
investigation or prosecution certifies that the absence was
otherwise justified.
``(3) Upon approval of adjustment of status under paragraph
(1) of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(i) the
Attorney General may adjust the status of or issue an
immigrant visa to a spouse, a child, or, in the case of an
alien child, a parent who did not receive a nonimmigrant visa
under section 101(a)(15)(U)(ii) if the Attorney General
considers the grant of such status or visa necessary to avoid
extreme hardship.
``(4) Upon the approval of adjustment of status under
paragraph (1) or (3), the Attorney General shall record the
alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the
date of such approval.''.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 1601. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEXUALLY VIOLENT
OFFENDERS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Campus
Sex Crimes Prevention Act''.
(b) Notice With Respect to Institutions of Higher
Education.--
(1) In general.--Section 170101 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Notice of Enrollment at or Employment by Institutions
of Higher Education.--
``(1) Notice by offenders.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to any other requirements of
this section, any person who is required to register in a
State shall provide notice as required under State law--
``(i) of each institution of higher education in that State
at which the person is employed, carries on a vocation, or is
a student; and
``(ii) of each change in enrollment or employment status of
such person at an institution of higher education in that
State.
``(B) Change in status.--A change in status under
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be reported by the person in the
manner provided by State law. State procedures shall ensure
that the updated information is promptly made available to a
law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where such
institution is located and entered into the appropriate State
records or data system.
``(2) State reporting.--State procedures shall ensure that
the registration information collected under paragraph (1)--
``(A) is promptly made available to a law enforcement
agency having jurisdiction where such institution is located;
and
``(B) entered into the appropriate State records or data
system.
``(3) Request.--Nothing in this subsection shall require an
educational institution to request such information from any
State.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(c) Disclosures by Institutions of Higher Education.--
(1) In general.--Section 485(f)(1) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(I) A statement advising the campus community where law
enforcement agency information provided by a State under
section 170101(j) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(j)), concerning
registered sex offenders may be obtained, such as the law
enforcement office of the institution, a local law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus, or a
computer network address.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(d) Amendment to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974.--Section 444(b) of the General Education Provisions
Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)), also known as the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7)(A) Nothing in this section may be construed to
prohibit an educational institution from disclosing
information provided to the institution under section 170101
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 14071) concerning registered sex offenders who are
required to register under such section.
``(B) The Secretary shall take appropriate steps to notify
educational institutions that disclosure of information
described in subparagraph (A) is permitted.''.
SEC. 1602. TEEN SUICIDE PREVENTION STUDY.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Teen
Suicide Prevention Act of 2000''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) measures that increase public awareness of suicide as a
preventable public health problem, and target parents and
youth so that suicide risks and warning signs can be
recognized, will help to eliminate the ignorance and stigma
of suicide as barriers to youth and families seeking
preventive care;
(2) suicide prevention efforts in the year 2000 should--
(A) target at-risk youth, particularly youth with mental
health problems, substance abuse problems, or contact with
the juvenile justice system;
(B) involve--
(i) the identification of the characteristics of the at-
risk youth and other youth who are contemplating suicide, and
barriers to treatment of the youth; and
(ii) the development of model treatment programs for the
youth;
(C) include a pilot study of the outcomes of treatment for
juvenile delinquents with mental health or substance abuse
problems;
(D) include a public education approach to combat the
negative effects of the stigma of, and
[[Page 21076]]
discrimination against individuals with, mental health and
substance abuse problems; and
(E) include a nationwide effort to develop, implement, and
evaluate a mental health awareness program for schools,
communities, and families;
(3) although numerous symptoms, diagnoses, traits,
characteristics, and psychosocial stressors of suicide have
been investigated, no single factor or set of factors has
ever come close to predicting suicide with accuracy;
(4) research of United States youth, such as a 1994 study
by Lewinsohn, Rohde, and Seeley, has shown predictors of
suicide, such as a history of suicide attempts, current
suicidal ideation and depression, a recent attempt or
completed suicide by a friend, and low self-esteem; and
(5) epidemiological data illustrate--
(A) the trend of suicide at younger ages as well as
increases in suicidal ideation among youth in the United
States; and
(B) distinct differences in approaches to suicide by
gender, with--
(i) 3 to 5 times as many females as males attempting
suicide; and
(ii) 3 to 5 times as many males as females completing
suicide.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for
a study of predictors of suicide among at-risk and other
youth, and barriers that prevent the youth from receiving
treatment, to facilitate the development of model treatment
programs and public education and awareness efforts.
(d) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall carry out, directly or by grant or contract, a
study that is designed to identify--
(1) the characteristics of at-risk and other youth age 13
through 21 who are contemplating suicide;
(2) the characteristics of at-risk and other youth who are
younger than age 13 and are contemplating suicide; and
(3) the barriers that prevent youth described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) from receiving treatment.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary.
SEC. 1603. DECADE OF PAIN CONTROL AND RESEARCH.
The calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001, is
designated as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research''.
DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 2001. AIMEE'S LAW
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as ``Aimee's
Law''.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Dangerous sexual offense.--The term ``dangerous sexual
offense'' means any offense under State law for conduct that
would constitute an offense under chapter 109A of title 18,
United States Code, had the conduct occurred in the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or
in a Federal prison.
(2) Murder.--The term ``murder'' has the meaning given the
term in part I of the Uniform Crime Reports of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
(3) Rape.--The term ``rape'' has the meaning given the term
in part I of the Uniform Crime Reports of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
(c) Penalty.--
(1) Single state.--In any case in which a State convicts an
individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense,
who has a prior conviction for any one of those offenses in a
State described in paragraph (3), the Attorney General shall
transfer an amount equal to the costs of incarceration,
prosecution, and apprehension of that individual, from
Federal law enforcement assistance funds that have been
allocated to but not distributed to the State that convicted
the individual of the prior offense, to the State account
that collects Federal law enforcement assistance funds of the
State that convicted that individual of the subsequent
offense.
(2) Multiple states.--In any case in which a State convicts
an individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense,
who has a prior conviction for any one or more of those
offenses in more than one other State described in paragraph
(3), the Attorney General shall transfer an amount equal to
the costs of incarceration, prosecution, and apprehension of
that individual, from Federal law enforcement assistance
funds that have been allocated to but not distributed to each
State that convicted such individual of the prior offense, to
the State account that collects Federal law enforcement
assistance funds of the State that convicted that individual
of the subsequent offense.
(3) State described.--A State is described in this
paragraph if--
(A) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State
on individuals convicted of the offense for which the
individual described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable,
was convicted by the State is less than the average term of
imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States; or
(B) with respect to the individual described in paragraph
(1) or (2), as applicable, the individual had served less
than 85 percent of the term of imprisonment to which that
individual was sentenced for the prior offense.
For purposes of subparagraph (B), in a State that has
indeterminate sentencing, the term of imprisonment to which
that individual was sentenced for the prior offense shall be
based on the lower of the range of sentences.
(d) State Applications.--In order to receive an amount
transferred under subsection (c), the chief executive of a
State shall submit to the Attorney General an application, in
such form and containing such information as the Attorney
General may reasonably require, which shall include a
certification that the State has convicted an individual of
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, who has a prior
conviction for one of those offenses in another State.
(e) Source of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Any amount transferred under subsection
(c) shall be derived by reducing the amount of Federal law
enforcement assistance funds received by the State that
convicted such individual of the prior offense before the
distribution of the funds to the State. The Attorney General
shall provide the State with an opportunity to select the
specific Federal law enforcement assistance funds to be so
reduced (other than Federal crime victim assistance funds).
(2) Payment schedule.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the chief executive of the State that
convicted such individual of the prior offense, shall
establish a payment schedule.
(f) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to diminish or otherwise affect any court ordered
restitution.
(g) Exception.--This section does not apply if the
individual convicted of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual
offense has been released from prison upon the reversal of a
conviction for an offense described in subsection (c) and
subsequently been convicted for an offense described in
subsection (c).
(h) Report.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) conduct a study evaluating the implementation of this
section; and
(2) not later than October 1, 2006, submit to Congress a
report on the results of that study.
(i) Collection of Recidivism Data.--
(1) In general.--Beginning with calendar year 2002, and
each calendar year thereafter, the Attorney General shall
collect and maintain information relating to, with respect to
each State--
(A) the number of convictions during that calendar year
for--
(i) any dangerous sexual offense;
(ii) rape; and
(iii) murder; and
(B) the number of convictions described in subparagraph (A)
that constitute second or subsequent convictions of the
defendant of an offense described in that subparagraph.
(2) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2003, and on March 1
of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report, which shall include--
(A) the information collected under paragraph (1) with
respect to each State during the preceding calendar year; and
(B) the percentage of cases in each State in which an
individual convicted of an offense described in paragraph
(1)(A) was previously convicted of another such offense in
another State during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
January 1, 2002.
SEC. 2002. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ANTI-TERRORISM JUDGMENTS.
(a) Payments.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall pay each person described in
paragraph (2), at the person's election--
(A) 110 percent of compensatory damages awarded by judgment
of a court on a claim or claims brought by the person under
section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, plus
amounts necessary to pay post-judgment interest under section
1961 of such title, and, in the case of a claim or claims
against Cuba, amounts awarded as sanctions by judicial order
on April 18, 2000 (as corrected on June 2, 2000), subject to
final appellate review of that order; or
(B) 100 percent of the compensatory damages awarded by
judgment of a court on a claim or claims brought by the
person under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States
Code, plus amounts necessary to pay post-judgment interest,
as provided in section 1961 of such title, and, in the case
of a claim or claims against Cuba, amounts awarded as
sanctions by judicial order on April 18, 2000 (as corrected
June 2, 2000), subject to final appellate review of that
order.
Payments under this subsection shall be made promptly upon
request.
(2) Persons covered.--A person described in this paragraph
is a person who--
(A)(i) as of July 20, 2000, held a final judgment for a
claim or claims brought under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28,
United States Code, against Iran or Cuba, or the right to
payment of an amount awarded as a judicial sanction with
respect to such claim or claims; or
(ii) filed a suit under such section 1605(a)(7) on February
17, 1999, June 7, 1999, January 28, 2000, March 15, 2000, or
July 27, 2000;
(B) relinquishes all claims and rights to compensatory
damages and amounts awarded as judicial sanctions under such
judgments;
(C) in the case of payment under paragraph (1)(A),
relinquishes all rights and claims to punitive damages
awarded in connection with such claim or claims; and
(D) in the case of payment under paragraph (1)(B),
relinquishes all rights to execute against or attach property
that is at issue in claims against the United States before
an international tribunal, that is the subject of awards
rendered by such tribunal, or that is subject to section
1610(f)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code.
[[Page 21077]]
(b) Funding of Amounts.--
(1) Judgments against cuba.--For purposes of funding the
payments under subsection (a) in the case of judgments and
sanctions entered against the Government of Cuba or Cuban
entities, the President shall vest and liquidate up to and
not exceeding the amount of property of the Government of
Cuba and sanctioned entities in the United States or any
commonwealth, territory, or possession thereof that has been
blocked pursuant to section 5(b) of the Trading with the
Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), sections 202 and 203 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-
1702), or any other proclamation, order, or regulation issued
thereunder. For the purposes of paying amounts for judicial
sanctions, payment shall be made from funds or accounts
subject to sanctions as of April 18, 2000, or from blocked
assets of the Government of Cuba.
(2) Judgments against iran.--For purposes of funding
payments under subsection (a) in the case of judgments
against Iran, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make such
payments from amounts paid and liquidated from--
(A) rental proceeds accrued on the date of enactment of
this Act from Iranian diplomatic and consular property
located in the United States; and
(B) funds not otherwise made available in an amount not to
exceed the total of the amount in the Iran Foreign Military
Sales Program account within the Foreign Military Sales Fund
on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Subrogation.--Upon payment under subsection (a) with
respect to payments in connection with a Foreign Military
Sales Program account, the United States shall be fully
subrogated, to the extent of the payments, to all rights of
the person paid under that subsection against the debtor
foreign state. The President shall pursue these subrogated
rights as claims or offsets of the United States in
appropriate ways, including any negotiation process which
precedes the normalization of relations between the foreign
state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and the
United States, except that no funds shall be paid to Iran, or
released to Iran, from property blocked under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act or from the
Foreign Military Sales Fund, until such subrogated claims
have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United
States.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should not normalize relations between the
United States and Iran until the claims subrogated have been
dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.
(e) Reaffirmation of Authority.--Congress reaffirms the
President's statutory authority to manage and, where
appropriate and consistent with the national interest, vest
foreign assets located in the United States for the purposes,
among other things, of assisting and, where appropriate,
making payments to victims of terrorism.
(f) Amendments.--(1) Section 1610(f) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B)(ii), by striking
``shall'' each place it appears and inserting ``should make
every effort to''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Waiver.--The President may waive any provision of
paragraph (1) in the interest of national security.''.
(2) Subsections (b) and (d) of section 117 of the Treasury
Department Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(h) of Public Law 105-277) are repealed.
SEC. 2003. AID FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.
(a) Meeting the Needs of Victims of Terrorism Outside the
United States.--
(1) In general.--Section 1404B(a) of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603b(a)) is amended as follows:
``(a) Victims of Acts of Terrorism Outside United States.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may make supplemental
grants as provided in 1402(d)(5) to States, victim service
organizations, and public agencies (including Federal, State,
or local governments) and nongovernmental organizations that
provide assistance to victims of crime, which shall be used
to provide emergency relief, including crisis response
efforts, assistance, training, and technical assistance, and
ongoing assistance, including during any investigation or
prosecution, to victims of terrorist acts or mass violence
occurring outside the United States who are not persons
eligible for compensation under title VIII of the Omnibus
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.
``(2) Victim defined.--In this subsection, the term
`victim'--
``(A) means a person who is a national of the United States
or an officer or employee of the United States Government who
is injured or killed as a result of a terrorist act or mass
violence occurring outside the United States; and
``(B) in the case of a person described in subparagraph (A)
who is less than 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated,
or deceased, includes a family member or legal guardian of
that person.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to allow the Director to make grants to
any foreign power (as defined by section 101(a) of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801(a)) or to any domestic or foreign organization operated
for the purpose of engaging in any significant political or
lobbying activities.''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to any terrorist act or mass violence occurring
on or after December 21, 1988, with respect to which an
investigation or prosecution was ongoing after April 24,
1996.
(3) Administrative provision.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall
establish guidelines under section 1407(a) of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10604(a)) to specify the
categories of organizations and agencies to which the
Director may make grants under this subsection.
(4) Technical Amendment.--Section 1404B(b) of the Victims
of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603b(b)) is amended by
striking ``1404(d)(4)(B)'' and inserting ``1402(d)(5)''.
(b) Amendments to Emergency Reserve Fund.--
(1) Cap increase.--Section 1402(d)(5)(A) of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)(A)) is amended by
striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting ``$100,000,000''.
(2) Transfer.--Section 1402(e) of the Victims of Crime Act
of 1984 (42 U.S.C 10601(e)) is amended by striking ``in
excess of $500,000'' and all that follows through ``than
$500,000'' and inserting ``shall be available for deposit
into the emergency reserve fund referred to in subsection
(d)(5) at the discretion of the Director. Any remaining
unobligated sums''.
(c) Compensation to Victims of International Terrorism.--
(1) In general.--The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
1404B the following:
``SEC. 1404C. COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) International terrorism.--The term `international
terrorism' has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of
title 18, United States Code.
``(2) National of the united states.--The term `national of
the United States' has the meaning given the term in section
101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)).
``(3) Victim.--
``(A) In general.--The term `victim' means a person who--
``(i) suffered direct physical or emotional injury or death
as a result of international terrorism occurring on or after
December 21, 1988 with respect to which an investigation or
prosecution was ongoing after April 24, 1996; and
``(ii) as of the date on which the international terrorism
occurred, was a national of the United States or an officer
or employee of the United States Government.
``(B) Incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased victims.--In
the case of a victim who is less than 18 years of age,
incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, a family member or
legal guardian of the victim may receive the compensation
under this section on behalf of the victim.
``(C) Exception.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, in no event shall an individual who is
criminally culpable for the terrorist act or mass violence
receive any compensation under this section, either directly
or on behalf of a victim.
``(b) Award of Compensation.--The Director may use the
emergency reserve referred to in section 1402(d)(5)(A) to
carry out a program to compensate victims of acts of
international terrorism that occur outside the United States
for expenses associated with that victimization.
``(c) Annual Report.--The Director shall annually submit to
Congress a report on the status and activities of the program
under this section, which report shall include--
``(1) an explanation of the procedures for filing and
processing of applications for compensation;
``(2) a description of the procedures and policies
instituted to promote public awareness about the program;
``(3) a complete statistical analysis of the victims
assisted under the program, including--
``(A) the number of applications for compensation
submitted;
``(B) the number of applications approved and the amount of
each award;
``(C) the number of applications denied and the reasons for
the denial;
``(D) the average length of time to process an application
for compensation; and
``(E) the number of applications for compensation pending
and the estimated future liability of the program; and
``(4) an analysis of future program needs and suggested
program improvements.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1402(d)(5)(B) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)(B)) is
amended by inserting ``, to provide compensation to victims
of international terrorism under the program under section
1404C,'' after ``section 1404B''.
(d) Amendments to Victims of Crime Fund.--Section 1402(c)
of the Victims of Crime Act 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding
section 1402(d)(5), all sums deposited in the Fund in any
fiscal year that are not made available for obligation by
Congress in the subsequent fiscal year shall remain in the
Fund for obligation in future fiscal years, without fiscal
year limitation.''.
SEC. 2004. TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Shipment of Intoxicating Liquor in Violation of State
Law.--The Act entitled ``An Act divesting intoxicating
liquors of their interstate character in certain cases'',
approved March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the ``Webb-Kenyon
Act'') (27 U.S.C. 122) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
[[Page 21078]]
``(1) the term `attorney general' means the attorney
general or other chief law enforcement officer of a State or
the designee thereof;
``(2) the term `intoxicating liquor' means any spirituous,
vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of
any kind;
``(3) the term `person' means any individual and any
partnership, corporation, company, firm, society,
association, joint stock company, trust, or other entity
capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in
property, but does not include a State or agency thereof; and
``(4) the term `State' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
``(b) Action by State Attorney General.--If the attorney
general has reasonable cause to believe that a person is
engaged in, or has engaged in, any act that would constitute
a violation of a State law regulating the importation or
transportation of any intoxicating liquor, the attorney
general may bring a civil action in accordance with this
section for injunctive relief (including a preliminary or
permanent injunction) against the person, as the attorney
general determines to be necessary to--
``(1) restrain the person from engaging, or continuing to
engage, in the violation; and
``(2) enforce compliance with the State law.
``(c) Federal Jurisdiction.--
``(1) In general.--The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under this
section by an attorney general against any person, except one
licensed or otherwise authorized to produce, sell, or store
intoxicating liquor in such State.
``(2) Venue.--An action under this section may be brought
only in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United
States Code, or in the district in which the recipient of the
intoxicating liquor resides or is found.
``(3) Form of relief.--An action under this section is
limited to actions seeking injunctive relief (a preliminary
and/or permanent injunction).
``(4) No right to jury trial.--An action under this section
shall be tried before the court.
``(d) Requirements for Injunctions and Orders.--
``(1) In general.--In any action brought under this
section, upon a proper showing by the attorney general of the
State, the court may issue a preliminary or permanent
injunction to restrain a violation of this section. A proper
showing under this paragraph shall require that a State prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of State
law as described in subsection (b) has taken place or is
taking place.
``(2) Additional showing for preliminary injunction.--No
preliminary injunction may be granted except upon--
``(A) evidence demonstrating the probability of irreparable
injury if injunctive relief is not granted; and
``(B) evidence supporting the probability of success on the
merits.
``(3) Notice.--No preliminary or permanent injunction may
be issued under paragraph (1) without notice to the adverse
party and an opportunity for a hearing.
``(4) Form and scope of order.--Any preliminary or
permanent injunction entered in an action brought under this
section shall--
``(A) set forth the reasons for the issuance of the order;
``(B) be specific in terms;
``(C) describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference
to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to
be restrained; and
``(D) be binding upon--
``(i) the parties to the action and the officers, agents,
employees, and attorneys of those parties; and
``(ii) persons in active concert or participation with the
parties to the action who receive actual notice of the order
by personal service or otherwise.
``(5) Admissibility of evidence.--In a hearing on an
application for a permanent injunction, any evidence
previously received on an application for a preliminary
injunction in connection with the same civil action and that
would otherwise be admissible, may be made a part of the
record of the hearing on the permanent injunction.
``(e) Rules of Construction.--This section shall be
construed only to extend the jurisdiction of Federal courts
in connection with State law that is a valid exercise of
power vested in the States--
``(1) under the twenty-first article of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as such article of
amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United
States including interpretations in conjunction with other
provisions of the Constitution of the United States; and
``(2) under the first section herein as such section is
interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States; but
shall not be construed to grant to States any additional
power.
``(f) Additional Remedies.--
``(1) In general.--A remedy under this section is in
addition to any other remedies provided by law.
``(2) State court proceedings.--Nothing in this section may
be construed to prohibit an authorized State official from
proceeding in State court on the basis of an alleged
violation of any State law.
``SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
``(a) Effect on Internet Tax Freedom Act.--Nothing in this
section may be construed to modify or supersede the operation
of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note).
``(b) Inapplicability to Service Providers.--Nothing in
this section may be construed to--
``(1) authorize any injunction against an interactive
computer service (as defined in section 230(f) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)) used by another
person to engage in any activity that is subject to this Act;
``(2) authorize any injunction against an electronic
communication service (as defined in section 2510(15) of
title 18, United States Code) used by another person to
engage in any activity that is subject to this Act; or
``(3) authorize an injunction prohibiting the advertising
or marketing of any intoxicating liquor by any person in any
case in which such advertising or marketing is lawful in the
jurisdiction from which the importation, transportation or
other conduct to which this Act applies originates.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall become effective 90 days after the date
of this enactment of this Act.
(c) Study.--The Attorney General shall carry out the study
to determine the impact of this section and shall submit the
results of such study not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to combat
trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade,
slavery, and involuntary servitude, to reauthorize certain
Federal programs to prevent violence against women, and for
other purposes.''.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Benjamin Gilman,
Bill Goodling,
Chris Smith,
Henry J. Hyde,
Nancy L. Johnson,
Sam Gejdenson,
Tom Lantos,
Ben Cardin,
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on the Judiciary:
Orrin Hatch,
Strom Thurmond,
From the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Jesse Helms,
Sam Brownback,
Joe Biden,
Paul Wellstone,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3244) an Act to
combat trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade,
slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States
and countries around the world through prevention, through
prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking, submit
the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
managers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report:
Division A of the conference agreement is the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000, an act to combat trafficking
in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and
involuntary servitude, in the United States and foreign
countries. Division B is the Violence Against Women Act of
2000, an act to reauthorize federal programs that combat
violence against women, to strengthen law enforcement to
reduce violence against women, to strengthen services to
victims of violence, to limit the effects of violence on
children, to strengthen education and training to combat
violence against women, to enact new procedures for the
protection of battered immigrant women, and to extend the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Division C consists of
anti-crime measures including provisions to encourage States
to incarcerate individuals convicted of murder, rape, or
child molestation, to facilitate recovery by victims of
terrorism against the assets of foreign entities that have
been held responsible for such terrorism; and to provide for
injunctive relief in Federal district court to enforce State
laws relating to the interstate transportation of
intoxicating liquor.
Concerning Division A
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3244), an Act to
combat trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade,
slavery, and involuntary servitude, in the United States and
foreign countries, through prevention, through prosecution
and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection
and assistance to victims of trafficking, submit the
following joint statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
managers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report:
Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of contents
Section 1 of the House bill states that this Act may be
cited as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and
lists its contents. Section 1 of the Senate amendment is
substantially identical to the House provision. The
conference agreement provides that this Act may be cited as
the Trafficking Victims
[[Page 21079]]
Protection Act of 2000 and includes a table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes and findings
Section 2 of the House bill states that the purposes of
this Act are to combat trafficking in persons, to ensure just
punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.
Section 2 of the House bill also includes findings to the
effect that every year millions of people, predominantly
women and children, are trafficked within or across
international borders; that many victims are trafficked into
the international sex industry, often through force, fraud,
or coercion; that trafficking in persons is not limited to
sex trafficking, but often involves forced labor and other
violations of human rights; that trafficking is a growing
transnational problem that is increasingly perpetrated by
organized criminal enterprises; that existing legislation and
law enforcement in the United States and abroad are
inadequate to deter trafficking, bring traffickers to
justice, and meet the safe reintegration needs of trafficking
victims; that in some countries, anti-trafficking efforts are
hindered by official indifference, corruption, and sometimes
even official participation in trafficking; that trafficking
in persons is a matter of pressing international concern, and
that the United States must work bilaterally and
multilaterally to abolish trafficking and protect trafficking
victims. The House findings also include references to the
Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and numerous treaties and other international
instruments.
Section 2 of the Senate amendment contains identical
purposes and similar findings, with a more succinct set of
references to international agreements. Section 2 of the
Senate amendment also contains findings to the effect that
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons should not
be inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise
penalized, and that existing United States statutes on
involuntary servitude have been narrowly construed, in the
absence of a definition by Congress, to exclude certain cases
in which persons are held in a condition of servitude by
nonviolent coercion.
Section 2 of the conference agreement is substantially
identical to section 2 of the Senate amendment.
sec. 3. definitions
Section 3 of the House bill defines certain terms used in
this Act. ``Sex trafficking'' is defined as the purchase,
sale, recruitment, harboring, transportation, transfer, or
receipt of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.
``Severe forms of trafficking in persons'' is defined as sex
trafficking induced by force, coercion, fraud, or deception,
or involving a person under the age of 18, as well as
trafficking for the purpose of subjecting the trafficked
person to involuntary servitude, slavery, or slavery-like
practices by force, coercion, fraud, or deception. ``Slavery-
life practices'' means inducement of a person to perform
labor or other services by force, coercion, or by any scheme,
plan, or pattern to cause the person to believe that failure
to perform the work will result in the infliction of serious
harm, debt bondage amounting to involuntary servitude, or
subjection to conditions so harsh or degrading as to provide
a clear indication that the person has been subjected to them
by force, or coercion. In the context of this bill, ``serious
harm'' could include physical restraint that severely limits
freedom of movement. ``Coercion,'' as defined, includes the
use of force, violence, and physical restraint, as well as
acts calculated to have the same effect (such as the credible
threat of serious harm). The House provision also defines
``nonhumanitarian foreign assistance'' to include certain
assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.
Section 3 of the Senate amendment contains definitions
similar to those in the House bill, with several exceptions.
The Senate provision defines ``debt bondage'' as a condition
in which personal services are pledged as security for a debt
but in which either reasonable value of such services is not
in fact applied to the debt or the length and nature of such
services are unlimited or undefined. The Senate definitions
do not use the term ``deception'' in the definition of severe
forms of trafficking. The Senate provision omits the House
definition of ``slavery-like practices'' because this term is
not contained elsewhere in the Senate bill. Instead, the
Senate provision makes clear that ``involuntary servitude''
includes a condition of servitude induced by means of any
act, scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a belief that
serious harm or physical restraint would otherwise occur, or
by the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process and
also includes a definition of ``coercion.'' The Senate
provision also includes definitions of ``State'' and ``United
States'' which include the District of Columbia and United
States territories and possessions. Finally, the Senate omits
the definitions of ``act of a severe form of trafficking''
and ``nonhumanitarian foreign assistance'' contained in the
House bill.
Section 3 of the conference agreement is similar to the
Senate provision, except that it includes a definition of
``nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance''
similar to the definition contained in the House provision,
but excluding assistance under the Export-Import Bank Act of
1945 and under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, relating to the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. The conference agreement also
includes a definition of ``coercion'' corresponding to the
definition included in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1591, added by section
12 of this Act, which provides for a criminal offense of sex
trafficking.
In various sections, the conference agreement uses more
general terms such as ``trafficking'' or ``trafficking in
persons'' rather than the more limited term ``severe forms of
trafficking in persons.'' In such contexts, these terms are
intended to be used in a more general sense, giving the
President and other officials some degree of discretion to
apply the relevant provisions to a broader range of actions
or victims beyond those associated with severe forms of
trafficking in persons. Such discretion is particularly
appropriate in assistance to and protection of victims,
because trafficked women and children may have a compelling
need for such assistance and protection even though they have
not been subjected to severe forms of trafficking. In this
connection, the conference agreement includes a definition of
``victims of trafficking'' that would encompass a broader
class of victims in certain programs. Where, however, this
Act uses the term ``victims of severe forms of trafficking,''
even in provisions related to protection and assistance, the
application of such provisions is limited to such victims.
sec. 4. annual country reports on human rights practices
Section 4 of the House bill requires the Secretary of State
to include in the annual Country Reports a list of foreign
countries that are countries of origin, transit, or
destination for a significant number of victims of severe
forms of trafficking, as well as information such as the
extent to which government officials in such countries are
involved in such trafficking, and an assessment of the steps
governments are taking to combat trafficking and to assist
victims of trafficking and protect their rights. Section 4 of
the Senate amendment is substantially identical to the House
provision, except that it does not require a list of
countries and would therefore effectively require information
about severe forms of trafficking in persons to be provided
in the annual Country Report for each foreign country.
Section 4 of the conference agreement is similar to the
Senate provision except that it amends sections 116(f) and
502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, requiring certain
information on trafficking in persons to be provided in the
Country Reports. The section as amended will limit the
required reporting in the Country Reports to severe forms of
trafficking in persons, but gives the Secretary of State
discretion to include such other information on trafficking
as the Secretary deems appropriate. As with other human
rights violations, the extent to which trafficking in persons
is discussed in the Country Report for a particular country
should be commensurate with the extent of the problem in such
country.
sec. 5. interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking
Section 5 of the House bill provides that the President
shall establish an Inter-Agency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking and authorizes the establishment an Office
in the State Department to provide assistance to the Task
Force. Section 5 of the Senate provision is substantially
identical to the House provision, except that it requires the
Task Force, beginning in 2002, to publish an annual list of
countries which do not meet the minimum standards set forth
in section 8, and authorizes interim reports with respect to
such countries. Section 5 of the conference agreement is
substantially identical to the House provision, although the
conference agreement does provide in section 10 for annual
and interim reports on countries whose governments do not
comply with the minimum standards. It also provides that the
Task Force will have primary responsibility for advising the
Secretary of State on preparation of the reports in section
10.
sec. 6. prevention of trafficking
Section 6 of the House bill charges the President, acting
through the Agency for International Development and other
agencies and in consultation with appropriate non-
governmental organizations, with establishing initiatives to
enhance economic opportunity for potential trafficking
victims as a means of deterring trafficking, such as
microcredit lending programs, training, and education. It
also directs the President to establish programs to increase
public awareness of the dangers of trafficking and the
protections available to victims. Section 6 of the of the
Senate amendment is substantially identical to section 6 of
the House bill. Section 6 of the conference agreement is
identical to the Senate provision.
sec. 7. protection and assistance for victims of trafficking
Subsection 7(a) of the House bill charges the State
Department and the Agency for International Development (AID)
with establishing programs and initiatives in foreign
countries to assist victims of trafficking.
[[Page 21080]]
Subsection 7(a) of the Senate amendment is substantially
identical to the House provision. Subsection 7(a) of the
conference agreement is identical to the Senate provision,
except that all authorities are vested in the President.
Subsection 7(b) of the House bill directs the Attorney
General, the Secretaries of Labor and of Health and Human
Services, and the Board of Directors of the Legal Services
Corporation to expand assistance to victims of severe forms
of tafficking in the United States. The provision makes clear
that for the purpose of receiving benefits, a ``victim of a
severe form of trafficking'' means only a person who has been
subjected to such trafficking and who either has not obtained
the age of 15 years or is the subject of a certification that
he or she (1) is willing to assist in every reasonable way in
the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of
trafficking in persons, and (2) either has made a bona fide
application for a visa under the provisions of immigration
law added by section 7(f), or is a person whose presence in
the United States the Attorney General is ensuring in order
to effectuate prosecution of traffickers. In addition, the
section makes victims of severe forms of trafficking in the
United States eligible for benefits under the Crime Victims
Fund without regard to their immigration status, and allows
the Attorney General to make grants to local governments and
nonprofit organizations to expand services for victims of
trafficking. It also provides trafficking victims a civil
right of action against traffickers for violations of 18
U.S.C. 1589 (trafficking into slavery-like conditions) or
1589A (sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or
coercion).
Subsection 7(b) of the Senate amendment is similar to the
House provision except that it does not contain the
certification requirement as a condition on eligibility for
benefits. It also contains no reference to the Crime Victims
Fund and does not provide a civil right of action.
Subsection 7(b) of the conference agreement contains the
certification requirement for benefit eligibility. The
conference agreement, however, requires a certification only
for victims who have attained the age of 18 years. This
subsection of the conference agreement is similar to the
Senate provision in that it provides no civil right of
action. The conferees emphasize that nothing in this Act will
preclude trafficking victims from availing themselves of
applicable State, local or other Federal laws in seeking
compensatory or other damages and relief in any civil
proceeding. The House provision making victims eligible for
benefits under the Crime Victims Fund has been deleted as
unnecessary, because current law does not bar such victims
from receiving such benefits on account of their immigration
status. The conferees expect that the Office of Victims of
Crimes will provide assistance to these victims, even though
this provision was deleted. In addition, the conferees
believe that in making grants under this section, the
Attorney General and other federal officials should consider
whether the prospective grantee denies services to a
trafficking victim solely on account of conduct incident to
that person's status as a victim.
Subsection 7(c) of the House bill requires the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State to promulgate regulations
to ensure that: (1) victims of severe forms of trafficking
are provided with appropriate shelter and care while in
Federal custody; (2) victims are not jailed or fined merely
because they were trafficked; (3) victims have access to
legal assistance and translation services; (4) victims are
assured continuous presence in the United States to assist in
the prosecution of traffickers; and (5) State and Justice
Department personnel are trained in identifying and
protecting victims of severe forms of trafficking.
Subsection 7(c) of the Senate amendment is similar to the
House provision, with to principal exceptions. First, it does
not require regulations that explicitly prohibit
incarceration, fines, or other penalties against victims on
account of their having been trafficked. Instead, it requires
regulations that prohibit the detention of victims in
facilities inappropriate to their status as crime victims.
Second, it requires regulations under which the Attorney
General ``may'' ensure the continued presence of a person in
the United States in order to effectuate prosecution of
traffickers if the person is both a victim and a potential
witness.
Subsection 7(c) of the Senate conference agreement is
substantially identical to the Senate provision. The
conferees believe that the House provision with respect to
jailing, fining, or otherwise penalizing victims of serious
crimes on account of their status as crime victims or on
account of conduct committed under duress incident to such
status restates existing criminal law and is therefore
unnecessary. The conferees also believe that training
provided to State Department of Justice Department personnel
should include methods for achieving antitrafficking
objectives through nondiscriminatory application of
immigration laws and others laws.
Subsection 7(d) of the House bill makes clear that nothing
in subsection (c) creates a private cause of action against
the United States or its employees. Subsection 7(d) of the
Senate amendment is identical to the House provision.
Subsection 7(d) of the conference agreement is identical to
both provisions.
Subsection 7(e) of the House bill makes funds derived from
the sale of assets seized from and forfeited by traffickers
(pursuant to section 12(e) of the House bill) available for
the victim assistance under subsections (a) and (b). The
Senate amendment contains no corresponding provision. The
conference agreement is identical to the Senate amendment.
Section 7(f) of the House bill creates a new nonimmigrant.
``T'' visa for certain victims of severe forms of
trafficking. Eligibility would be limited to persons who: (1)
are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons, as
defined in section 3 of the act; (2) are in the United States
or at a United States port of entry by reasons of having been
trafficked here; (3) are no older than 14 years of age or
were induced to participate in the sex trade or slavery-like
practices by force, coercion, fraud, or deception, did not
voluntary agree to any arrangement including such
participation, and have complied with any reasonable request
for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of
trafficking acts; and (4) have a well-founded fear of
retribution involving the infliction of severe harm upon
removal from the United States or would suffer extreme
hardship in connection with the trafficking upon removal from
the United States. It also permits the Attorney General to
grant a ``T'' visa if necessary to avoid extreme hardship to
the victim's spouse, sons and daughters (who are not
children), and the parents if the victim is under 21 years
old. A victim's children who are unmarried and under 21 years
old need not establish extreme hardship to receive a ``T''
visa. It precludes anyone in this section from receiving a
``T'' visa if there is substantial reason to believe that the
person has committed an act of a severe form of trafficking
in persons. The House provision permits the Attorney General
to waive grounds of inadmissibility, including health-related
grounds, public charge, and, with the exception of security,
international child abduction, and former citizens who
renounced citizenship to avoid taxation, any other provision
of section 212(a) of the INA if the activities rendering the
alien inadmissible were caused by the trafficking. It states
that the INS is not prohibited from instituting removal
proceedings against an alien admitted with a ``T'' visa for
conduct committed after the alien's admission into the United
States, or for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed
to the Attorney General prior to the alien's admission. The
House provision also places an annual cap of 5,000 on ``T''
visas for trafficking victims. Finally, the House provision
permits the Attorney General to adjust the status of a ``T''
visa holder to that of a permanent resident if the alien: (1)
has been physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of at least 3 years since the date of
admission; (2) has throughout such period been a person of
good moral character; (3) has during such period complied
with any reasonable request for assistance in the
investigation or prosecution of trafficking acts; and (4) has
a well-founded fear of retribution involving the infliction
of severe harm upon removal from the United States, or would
suffer extreme hardship in connection with the trafficking
upon removal from the United States. It also permits the
Attorney General to adjust the status of the victim's spouse,
parents, and married and unmarried sons and daughters, if
admitted with a ``T'' visa, to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence. An annual cap of 5,000 is
placed on adjustments of status for victims. The provision
also permits the Attorney General to waive grounds of
inadmissibility, including health-related grounds, public
charge, and, with the exception of security, international
child abduction, and former citizens who renounced
citizenship to avoid taxation, any other provision of section
212(a) of the INA if the activities rendering the alien
inadmissible caused by the trafficking.
Subsection 7(e) and (f) of the Senate amendment are similar
to section 7(f) of the House bill. The Senate provision
allows victims who meet all other eligibility requirements
for the ``T'' visa to make a showing of ``extreme hardship''
whether or not such hardship is ``in connection with the
victimization.'' The Senate provision also makes a victim's
spouse and minor children eligible for visas only on a
showing that their presence in the United States would be
``necessary to avoid extreme hardship.'' The Senate provision
makes a victim's parents eligible for visas only if the
victim is under the age 21, and provides no eligibility for a
victim's sons and daughters who are not minor children. The
Senate provision contained no annual limitation on the number
of nonimmigrant visas or on the number of persons eligible to
adjust status to permanent residence. The Senate provision
allowing to waive grounds of inadmissibility was broader than
the House provision, allowing waivers of all grounds except
participation in Nazi persecution, genocide, and related
grounds.
Subsection 7(e) and (f) of the conference agreement are
similar to the House bill but incorporate elements of the
Senate amendment. The conferees believe that an applicant who
voluntarily agrees to be smuggled
[[Page 21081]]
into the United States in exchange for working to pay off the
smuggling fee is not eligible for the ``T'' visa, unless the
applicant becomes a victim of a severe form of trafficking in
persons as defined by the Act. The conference provision
requires that a victim would face ``extreme hardship
involving unusual and severe harm'' upon removal as an
element in establishing eligibility for a visa. The conferees
expect that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
the Executive Office for Immigration Review will interpret
the ``extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm'' to
be a higher standard than just ``extreme hardship.'' The
standard shall cover those cases where a victim likely would
face genuine and serious hardship if removed from the United
States, whether or not the severe harm is physical harm or on
account of having been trafficked. The extreme hardship shall
involve more than the normal economic and social disruptions
involved in deportation. The conference provision is also
similar to the Senate provision in requiring a showing of
extreme hardship for the admission of a victim's spouse and
minor children and in containing no provision for admission
of adult sons and daughters. The conference provision is
identical to the House provision with respect to waivers of
grounds of inadmissibility.
The conference agreement limits the number of nonimmigrant
visas to 5000 per year and also contains an annual limit of
5000 on the number of ``T'' visa holders who are eligible to
adjust their status to lawful permanent residence. The
conference provision also adds a new subsection (g),
directing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
report annually on whether any otherwise eligible applicant
has been denied a visa or adjustment of status solely on
account of the annual limitation. The conferees expect that
this report will list the number of visa and adjustment
applications filed, the number of denials for any reason, and
the number denied on account of the annual limitation. The
conferees believe that the annual limitation of 5000 is
sufficient to include all bona fide victims of severe forms
of trafficking in persons who meet all other eligibility
requirements. If experience should indicate that the number
is insufficient to include all such bona fide eligible
victims, it would be appropriate for Congress to consider
enacting legislation to increase the annual limitation.
Sec. 8 Minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
Section 8 of the House bill establishes minimums standards
applicable to governments of countries that are countries of
origin, transit, or destination for a significant number of
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. The
section provides that such governments should enact laws that
prohibit and severely punish such trafficking and should make
serious and sustained efforts to eliminate such trafficking.
The section sets forth a number of indicia of such serious
and sustained efforts, including vigorous prosecution of
offenders, protection of victims, education of the public and
of potential victims, and cooperation with international
efforts to stop trafficking. Section 8 of the Senate
amendment is substantially similar to the House provision.
Section 8 of the conference agreement is substantially
similar to the House and Senate provisions. The conferees do
not expect that a government would be required to fulfill all
the criteria in subsection 8(b) in order to be making
``serious and sustained efforts'' to eliminate severe forms
of trafficking in persons. Rather, the subsection requires
only that the Secretary consider these factors in determining
whether the government is making such efforts.
Sec. 9 Assistance to foreign countries to meeting minimum standards
Section 9 of the House bill authorizes the Agency for
International Development to fund activities designed to help
foreign countries meet the minimum standards outlined in
section 8(a) of this Act. Such activities include, but are
not limited to, assistance in drafting anti-trafficking
legislation, training law enforcement and judicial system
officials in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking
cases, and efforts by foreign governments to assist victims.
Section 9 of the Senate amendment is similar to the House
provision but makes clear that such activities may be
conducted through nongovernmental or multilateral
organizations and may include the expansion of exchange
programs and international visitor programs. Section 9 of the
conference agreement is substantially identical to the Senate
provision.
sec. 10. Actions against governments failing to meet minimum standards
Section 10 of the House bill requires the Secretary of
State to submit to Congress an annual report on the status of
severe forms of trafficking, consisting of a list of
countries that do not meet the minimum standards set forth in
section 8 of the Act, together with such other information as
the Secretary may wish to provide. The section provides that
the Secretary may also file interim reports. Beginning in FY
2002, the section requires that for each government that
fails to meet the minimum standards, the President ``shall''
either (a) withhold nonhumanitarian U.S. foreign assistance
to that government and direct that the U.S. executive
directors of multilateral lending instutions vote against
nonhumanitarian assistance to that government during the
following fiscal year; or (b) waive these requirements if the
President finds that the provision of nonhumanitarian
assistance to that country is in the national interest of the
United States.
Section 10 of the Senate amendment provides that, with
respect to each country that does not meet the minimum
standards set forth in section 8, the President ``may'' take
any of a number of actions, including withholding foreign
assistance, instructing the U.S. executive directors of
multilateral lending institutions to vote against loans or
assistance to such countries, prohibiting arms sales, and
restricting exports to such countries.
Section 10 of the conference agreement is similar to the
Senate provision with respect to countries whose governments
do not comply with the minimum standards but are making
significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance, in
that is contains no provision for actions against such
countries, thereby leaving the President free to take no
action or to take any action that is within the President's
discretion under current law. This section of the conference
agreement is similar to the House provision only with respect
to countries whose governments not only fail to comply with
the minimum standards, but also fail to make significant
efforts to comply with such standards. With respect to this
small number of truly egregious offenders, the conference
agreement contains a provision similar to the House bill, but
with the following additional limitations: (1) The
requirement that the President either withhold assistance to
the foreign government or waive the withholding requirement
is limited to assistance which is ``nonhumanitarian'' and
also ``nontrade-related.'' (2) Similarly, the provision with
respect to international financial institutions is limited to
non-humanitarian, nontrade-related loans and other
utilizations of funds. For the purposes of this provision,
the conferees consider humanitarian assistance to include
debt relief extended by international financial institutions
to governments in order to allow such governments to meet the
basic needs of the people of their countries. (3) The
President may waive these requirements if a waiver would
promote the purposes of this Act, such as in a case in which
the President believes providing assistance will cause the
offending government to attempt to comply with the minimums
standards. (4) The President may also waive the requirements
if for any other reason he believes a waiver to be in the
national interest. (5) The President may use the waiver
authority with respect to all assistance and extensions of
credit to a government or with respect to any subset of such
assistance or extensions of credit. (6) The President must
use the waiver authority as necessary to avoid substantial
adverse impact on vulnerable populations including women and
children. (7) In lieu of notifying Congress that aid will be
withdrawn or that one of the waiver authorities granted by
this section will be used, the President may notify Congress
that the government of a country is already subject to broad-
based reductions in assistance due to human rights violations
and that no additional measures are deemed appropriate.
Finally, (8) the requirement will not go into effect until
2003. The three-year delay in implementation of this
provision is intended to give foreign governments time to
begin making efforts to comply with the minimum standards.
The conferees emphasize that the provisions of this Act
clearly require that in assessing the records of foreign
governments with respect to the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking, the President and other executive
branch officials must not limit their scrutiny to the
governments of countries of origin for victims of severe
forms of trafficking in persons, but must apply equally close
scrutiny to the governments of transit countries and
countries of destination for such victims.
sec. 11. actions against significant traffickers in persons
Section 11 of the House bill authorizes the Secretary of
State to compile and publish a list of foreign persons who
have a significant role in a severe form of trafficking in
persons, directly or indirectly in the United States, who
materially support such persons, or who are owned or
controlled by such persons. It allows the President to impose
International Emergency Economic Power Acts (IEEPA)
sanctions, including the freezing of assets located in the
United States, without regard to section 202 of such Act
against any foreign person on that list, and requires that
the President report to Congress on any such sanctions. It
also allows for the non-disclosure of persons on the list for
intelligence and law enforcement reasons, and requires that
Congress be notified of such exclusions on an annual basis.
Subsection 11(e) excludes significant traffickers, persons
who knowingly assist them, and their spouses, sons, and
daughters who knowingly benefit from the proceeds of their
trafficking activities,
[[Page 21082]]
from entry into the United States. This approach is similar
to that adopted by the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation
Act, enacted in Title VIII of the Intelligence Authorization
Act of 2000, P.L. 106-120.
Section 11 of the Senate amendment is similar to the House
provision in that it provides authority to the President to
block assets and transactions of foreign persons who were
traffickers in persons and foreign persons who materially
assist or are owned, controlled or directed by such persons.
The House bill and the Senate amendment also include similar
provisions for compiling lists of such persons and for
reporting on what persons were subject to the authority to
block assets and transactions. Finally, the Senate section
also includes a provision similar to the House amendment to
the Immigration and Nationality Act making inadmissible
persons subject to blocking under section 11 as well as
spouses, sons and daughters who had obtained financial
benefit from such persons and who knew or should have known
that the financial benefit was the product of trafficking in
persons.
Section 11 of the conference agreement is similar in
substance to the House and Senate provisions. The conferees
determined that in light of the discretionary character of
both proposals, a streamlined provision for designating and
reporting on persons subject to the section was warranted,
with all authority vested in the President rather than in
other executive branch officials. A provision was added
explicitly providing the President authority to delegate any
responsibility. While the provision explicitly refers to the
authority to make derivative designations, the conferees
intend that any authority or responsibility in this section
may be delegated. The conferees expect that a substantial
part of this authority will be delegated to the Secretary of
the Treasury, since the Office of Foreign Assets Control
within the Department of the Treasury is responsible for
administering other blocking programs. However, the conferees
also expect that the delegation of authority under section 11
or regulations promulgated to implement this section will
ensure that appropriate agencies such as the Departments of
State and Justice are involved in the designation process
contemplated under this section.
The conferees remain concerned regarding administrative
actions that may seriously affect the livelihood of persons
subject to such actions but that are not subject to a hearing
prior to their application. The conferees have been assured
that blocking authority of this type is generally exercised
only on persons who have most of their assets abroad, and the
chief effect of blocking orders is to prohibit U.S. persons
from engaging in transactions with such persons. While this
assurance decreases the concern of the conferees that the
provisions may inadvertently be used against an innocent
person who would then be unable to use any of his or her
assets to live during a challenge to a determination, the
conferees included a provision requiring the agency
administering this section to provide an expedited process
for hearing from any person subject to this section,
including any designation made directly by the President. It
also provides that nothing in this section precludes judicial
review of determinations under this section. The conferees
recognize, however, that courts will give significant
deference to a foreign policy determination of the President,
which would be basis for making determinations under this
section.
Finally, several of the conferees raised concerns regarding
the provision making certain spouses and children of
traffickers inadmissible. In order to address these concerns,
the conference agreement contains an exception for sons and
daughters who were minor children at the time they received a
benefit from trafficking enterprises.
sec. 12. strengthening prosecution and punishment of traffickers
Section 12 of the House bill amends chapter 77 of title 18
of the United States Code to increase penalties for
involuntary servitude and other existing crimes, adds several
new criminal violations in the areas of trafficking in
persons, and amends the sentencing guidelines related to
these crimes. Subsection (a) increases the penalties for
involuntary servitude, peonage and other existing crimes from
10 years to 20 years and provides for life imprisonment if
the violation includes kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or
an attempt to kill. Subsection (a) also adds several new
crimes to title 18. Section 1589 creates a new crime of
forced labor for persons who knowingly provide or obtain the
labor or services of a person by threats of serious harm to,
or physical restraint against that person or another; by use
of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation if the person is a
minor, mentally disabled, or otherwise particularly
susceptible to undue influence; by the means of any scheme,
plan or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that
if the person did not perform such labor or services, serious
harm or physical restraint would be inflicted on that person
or another; or by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of
law or the legal process. New section 1590 would criminalize
trafficking of any person in violation of Chapter 77 of title
18, including by those who benefit financially or otherwise
by such trafficking. New Section 1591 creates a crime for
trafficking persons into a criminal sex act by coercion,
fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or other abusive practices,
as defined in this section. Subsection (a) also establishes a
crime for unlawful conduct with respect to documents in
furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude or forced labor, and provides for mandatory
restitution to victims of offenses under chapter 77 of title
18. A new subsection 1594 provides general provisions
ensuring that attempts and conspiracy of certain crimes in
chapter 77 are treated in the same manner as a completed
violation and provides for asset forfeiture and witness
protection. Finally, section 12(b) provides amendments to
U.S. sentencing guidelines regarding crimes contained in the
amended chapter 77 of title 18.
Section 12 of the Senate amendment is similar to the House
bill, but with certain important differences. Rather than add
a new section 1589, the Senate amendment provides a
definition of involuntary servitude in section 1584 to
include a condition of servitude induced by means of any act,
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to
believe that the person or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint or the abuse or threatened
abuse of the legal process. The Senate amendment also
provides for new crimes for trafficking with respect to
peonage, slavery or involuntary servitude, but does not
extend the criminal misconduct to persons who benefit
financially or otherwise from trafficking. The Senate
amendment provides for a new section of title 18 of the
United States Code for sex trafficking, but limits it to
cases of force, fraud, or coercion, as defined in that
section. The Senate amendment also includes new sections
relating to unlawful conduct with respect to documents in
furtherance of trafficking and other crimes, and likewise has
provisions identical to the House bill on mandatory
restitution. Finally, the Senate amendment provides general
provisions regarding asset forfeiture, witness protection and
amendments to U.S. sentencing guidelines.
Section 12 of the conference agreement is substantially
similar to the House provision, but incorporates a number of
provisions contained in the Senate amendment. In order to
address issues raised by the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931
(1988), the agreement creates a new section 1589 on forced
labor in form similar to the House bill. The agreement does
not contain a provision included in the House bill addressing
fraud or deception to obtain labor or services of minors,
mentally incompetent persons, or persons otherwise
particularly susceptible. In deleting these provisions, the
conferees addressed the concerns of some members of the
conference that the similar House bill provision might have
criminalized conduct that is currently regulated by labor
law. However, the conferees are aware that the Department of
Justice may seek additional statutory changes in future years
to further address the issues raised in Kozminski, as courts
and prosecutors develop experience with the new crimes
created by this Act.
Section 1589 is intended to address the increasingly subtle
methods of traffickers who place their victims in modern-day
slavery, such as where traffickers threaten harm to third
persons, restrain their victims without physical violence or
injury, or threaten dire consequences by means other than
overt violence. Section 1589 will provide federal prosecutors
with the tools to combat severe forms of worker exploitation
that do not rise to the level of involuntary servitude as
defined in Kozminski. Because provisions within section 1589
only require a showing of a threat of ``serious harm,'' or of
a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to
believe that such harm would occur, federal prosecutors will
not have to demonstrate physical harm or threats of force
against victims. The term ``serious harm'' as used in this
Act refers to a broad array of harms, including both physical
and nonphysical, and section 1589's terms and provisions are
intended to be construed with respect to the individual
circumstances of victims that are relevant in determining
whether a particular type or certain degree of harm or
coercion is sufficient to maintain or obtain a victim's labor
or services, including the age and background of the victims.
For example, it is intended that prosecutors will be able
to bring more cases in which individuals have been trafficked
into domestic service, an increasingly common occurrence, not
only where such victims are kept in service through overt
beatings, but also where the traffickers use more subtle
means designed to cause their victims to believe that serious
harm will result to themselves or others if they leave, as
when a nanny is led to believe that children in her care will
be harmed if she leaves the home. In other cases, a scheme,
plan, or pattern intended to cause a belief of serious harm
may refer to intentionally causing the victim to believe that
her family will face harms such as banishment, starvation, or
bankruptcy in their home country. Section 1589 will in
certain instances permit prosecutions where children are
brought to the United States and face extreme nonviolent and
psychological coercion (e.g. isolation, denial of sleep, and
other punishments). A claim by an adult of a
[[Page 21083]]
false legal relationship with a child in order to put the
child in a condition of servitude may constitute a scheme,
plan or pattern that violates the statute, if there is a
showing that such a scheme was intended to create the belief
that the victim or some other person would suffer serious
harm.
The conference agreement also includes new section 1590 for
the crime of trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor. The conferees adopted
the approach of the Senate bill with respect to this new
crime and agreed not to extend it to persons who benefit
financially or otherwise from the trafficking out of a
concern that such a provision might include within its scope
persons, such as stockholders in large companies, who have an
attenuated financial interest in a legitimate business where
a few employees might act in violation of the new statute.
The conference agreement also creates new section 1591
punishing sex trafficking, which is similar to comparable
provisions in both the House bill and the Senate amendment.
Also, the conference agreement creates new section 1592,
which punishes wrongful conduct with respect to immigration
and identification documents in the course of a violation of
one of several provisions of chapter 77 of title 18, when
such conduct is engaged in with the intent to violate one of
the sections, or when such conduct is for the purpose of
preventing or restricting, without lawful authority, a
person's liberty to move or travel in interstate or foreign
commerce, or to maintain the labor or services of another,
knowing that such person is a victim of severe forms of
trafficking, as defined by section 3 of this Act. This
revision is intended to address, in part, cases where one of
the other crimes of chapter 77 is not completed, but where
there is evidence that a trafficker intended to commit such a
crime and withheld or destroyed immigration or identification
documents for the purpose of preventing the trafficking
victim from escaping. Finally, the conference agreement
contains provisions similar to the Senate bill regarding
mandatory restitution, general provisions, and sentencing
guidelines.
sec. 13. authorization of appropriations
Section 13 of the House bill authorizes a total of $94.5
million ($31.5 million for FY2000, $63 million for FY01) in
the following categories: (a) Interagency Task Force: $1.5
million for fiscal year 2000, $3 million for fiscal year
2001; (b) Health and Human Services for victim assistance in
the United States: $5 million for fiscal year 2000, $10
million for fiscal year 2001; (c) Department of State for
foreign victim assistance: $5 million for fiscal year 2000,
$10 million for fiscal year 2001; (d) The Attorney General
for victim assistance in the United States: $5 million for
fiscal year 2000, $10 million for fiscal year 2001; (e) The
President for (1) foreign victim assistance: $5 million for
fiscal year 2000, $10 million for fiscal year 2001, and (2)
assistance to help countries meet minimum trafficking
standards: $5 million for fiscal year 2000, $10 million for
fiscal year 2001; and (f) Department of Labor for victim
assistance in the United States: $5 million for fiscal year
2000, $10 million for fiscal year 2001.
Section 13 of the Senate bill is similar to the House
provision, except that it authorizes funding for fiscal years
2001 and 2002. It also authorizes $300,000 in fiscal year
2001 for a voluntary contribution to the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe and such sums as may be
necessary to include the additional information required by
section 4 in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices.
Section 13 of the conference agreement is substantially
identical to the Senate provision.
Concerning Division B, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 accomplishes two
basic things:
First, the bill reauthorizes through Fiscal Year 2005 the
key programs included in the original Violence Against Women
Act, such as the STOP, Pro-Arrest, Rural Domestic Violence
and Child Abuse Enforcement, and campus grants; battered
women's shelters; the National Domestic Violence Hotline;
rape prevention and education grant programs; and three
victims of child abuse programs, including the court-
appointed special advocate program (CASA).
Second, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 makes some
targeted improvements that our experience with the original
Act has shown to be necessary, such as--
(1) Authorizing grants for legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
(2) Providing funding for transitional housing assistance;
(3) Improving full faith and credit enforcement and
computerized tracking of protection orders;
(4) Strengthening and refining the protections for battered
immigrant women;
(5) Authorizing grants for supervised visitation and safe
visitation exchange of children between parents in situations
involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking; and
(6) Expanding several of the key grant programs to cover
violence that arises in dating relationships.
We append to this joint statement a section by section
analysis of the bill and a more detailed section by section
analysis of the provisions contained in Title V, which
addresses the plight of battered immigrant women.
Division B--The Violence Against Women Act of 2000
section-by-section summary
Sec. 1001. Short Title
Names this division the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
Sec. 1002. Definitions
Restates the definitions ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual
assault'' as currently defined in the STOP grant program.
Sec. 1003. Accountability and Oversight
Requires the Attorney General or Secretary of Health and
Human Services, as applicable, to require grantees under any
program authorized or reauthorized by this division to report
on the effectiveness of the activities carried out. Requires
the Attorney General or Secretary, as applicable, to report
biennially to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on
these grant programs.
Title I--Strengthening Law Enforcement To Reduce Violence Against Women
Sec. 1101. Improving Full Faith and Credit Enforcement of
Protection Orders
Helps states and tribal courts improve interstate
enforcement of protection orders as required by the original
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Renames Pro-Arrest Grants
to expressly include enforcement of protection orders as a
focus for grant program funds, adds as a grant purpose
technical assistance and use of computer and other equipment
for enforcing orders; instructs the Department of Justice to
identify and make available information on promising order
enforcement practices; adds as a funding priority the
development and enhancement of data collection and sharing
systems to promote enforcement of protection orders.
Amends the full faith and credit provision in the original
Act to prohibit requiring registration as a prerequisite to
enforcement of out-of-state orders and to prohibit
notification of a batterer without the victim's consent when
an out-of-state order is registered in a new jurisdiction.
Requires recipients of STOP and Pro-Arrest grant funds, as a
condition of funding, to facilitate filing and service of
protection orders without cost to the victim in both civil
and criminal cases.
Clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction
to enforce protection orders in matters arising within the
authority of the tribe.
Sec. 1102. Enhancing the Role of Courts in Combating Violence
Against Women
Engages state courts in fighting violence against women by
targeting funds to be used by the courts for the training and
education of court personnel, technical assistance, and
technological improvements. Amends STOP and Pro-Arrest grants
to make state and local courts expressly eligible for funding
and dedicates 5 percent of states' STOP grants for courts.
Sec. 1103. STOP Grants Reauthorization
Reauthorizes through 2005 this vital state formula grant
program that has succeeded in bringing police and prosecutors
in close collaboration with victim services providers into
the fight to end violence against women. (``STOP'' means
``Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors.'')
Preserves the original Act's allocations of states' STOP
grant funds of 25 percent to police and 25 percent to
prosecutors, but increases grants to victim services to 30
percent (from 25 percent), in addition to the 5 percent
allocated to state, tribal, and local courts.
Sets aside five percent of total funds available for State
and tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions
and increases the allocation for Indian tribes to 5 percent
(up from 4 percent in the original Act).
Amends the definition of ``underserved populations'' and
adds additional purpose areas for which grants may be used.
Authorization level is $185 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $206.75 million (including a $28 million
earmark for civil legal assistance)).
Sec. 1104. Pro-Arrest Grants Reauthorization
Extends this discretionary grant program through 2005 to
develop and strengthen programs and policies that mandate and
encourage police officers to arrest abusers who commit acts
of violence or violate protection orders.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $65 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $34 million).
Sec. 1105. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 these direct grant programs that help
states and local governments focus on problems particular to
rural areas.
Sets aside 5 percent of total amounts available for grants
to Indian tribal governments.
Authorization level is $40 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $25 million.
[[Page 21084]]
Sec. 1106. National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction
Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this grant program to assist states
and local governments in improving databases for stalking and
domestic violence.
Authorization level is $3 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $2.75 million).
Sec. 1107. Clarify Enforcement to End Interstate Battery/
Stalking
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to persons
crossing United States borders as well as crossing state
lines by use of ``interstate or foreign commerce language.''
Clarifies federal jurisdiction to ensure reach to battery or
violation of specified portions of a protection order before
travel to facilitate the interstate movement of the victim.
Makes the nature of the ``harm'' required for domestic
violence, stalking, and interstate travel offenses consistent
by removing the requirement that the victim suffer actual
physical harm from those offenses that previously had
required such injury.
Resolves several inconsistencies between the protection
order offense involving interstate travel of the offender,
and the protection order offense involving interstate travel
of the victim.
Revises the definition of ``protection order'' to clarify
that support or child custody orders are entitled to full
faith and credit to the extent provided under other Federal
law--namely, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980,
as amended.
Extends the interstate stalking prohibition to cover
interstate ``cyber-stalking'' that occurs by use of the mail
or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, such as by
telephone or by computer connected to the Internet.
Sec. 1108. School and Campus Security
Extends the authorization through 2005 for the grant
program established in the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 and administered by the Justice Department for grants
for on-campus security, education, training, and victim
services to combat violence against women on college
campuses. Incorporates ``dating violence'' into purpose areas
for which grants may be used. Amends the definition of
``victim services'' to include public, nonprofit
organizations acting in a nongovernmental capacity, such as
victim services organizations at public universities.
Authorization level is $10 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $10 million earmark for this use).
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants through 2003
to states, units of local government, and Indian tribes to
provide improved security, including the placement and use of
metal detectors and other deterrent measures, at schools and
on school grounds.
Authorization level is $30 million/year.
Sec. 1109. Dating Violence
Incorporates ``dating violence'' into certain purpose areas
for which grants may be used under the STOP, Pro-Arrest, and
Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grant
programs. Defines ``dating violence'' as violence committed
by a person: (A) who is or has been in a social relationship
of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and (B)
where the existence of such a relationship shall be
determined based on consideration of the following factors:
(i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the type of
relationship; and (iii) the frequency of interaction between
the persons involved in the relationship.
Title II--Strengthening Services to Victims of Violence
Sec. 1201. Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
Building on set-asides in past STOP grant appropriations
since fiscal year 1998 for civil legal assistance, this
section authorizes a separate grant program for those
purposes through 2005. Helps victims of domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault who need legal assistance as a
consequence of that violence to obtain access to trained
attorneys and lay advocacy services, particularly pro bono
legal services. Grants support training, technical
assistance, data collection, and support for cooperative
efforts between victim advocacy groups and legal assistance
providers.
Defines the term ``legal assistance'' to include assistance
to victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault
in family, immigration, administrative agency, or housing
matters, protection or stay away order proceedings, and other
similar matters. For purposes of this section,
``administrative agency'' refers to a federal, state, or
local governmental agency that provides financial benefits.
Sets aside 5 percent of the amounts made available for
programs assisting victims of domestic violence, stalking,
and sexual assault in Indian country; sets aside 25 percent
of the funds used for direct services, training, and
technical assistance for the use of victims of sexual
assault.
Appropriation is $40 million/year (FY 2000 STOP grant
appropriation included a $28 million earmark for this use).
Sec. 1202. Expanded Shelter for Battered Women and Their
Children
Reauthorizes through 2005 current programs administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services to help
communities provide shelter to battered women and their
children, with increased funding to provide more shelter
space to assist the tens of thousands who are now being
turned away.
Authorization level is $175 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $101.5 million).
Sec. 1203. Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of
Domestic Violence
Authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to
make grants to provide short-term housing assistance and
support services to individuals and their dependents who are
homeless or in need of transitional housing or other housing
assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of domestic
violence, and for whom emergency shelter services are
unavailable or insufficient.
Authorization level is $25 million for FY 2001.
Sec. 1204. National Domestic Violence Hotline
Extends through 2005 this grant to meet the growing demands
on the National Domestic Violence Hotline established under
the original Violence Against Women Act due to increased call
volume since its inception. Requires annual reports on the
Hotline's operation.
Authorization level is $2 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $2 million).
Sec. 1205. Federal Victims Counselors Grants Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this program under which U.S. Attorney
offices can hire counselors to assist victims and witnesses
in prosecution of sex crimes and domestic violence crimes.
Authorization level is $1 million/year (FY 1998
appropriation was $1 million).
Sec. 1206. Study of State Laws Regarding Insurance
Discrimination Against Victims of Violence Against Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify state laws that address insurance discrimination
against victims of domestic violence and submit
recommendations based on that study to Congress.
Sec. 1207. Study of Workplace Effects from Violence Against
Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national survey
of programs to assist employers on appropriate responses in
the workplace to victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault and submit recommendations based on that study to
Congress.
Sec. 1208. Study of Unemployment Compensation For Victims of
Violence Against Women
Requires the Attorney General to conduct a national study
to identify the impact of state unemployment compensation
laws on victims of domestic violence when the victim's
separation from employment is a direct result of the domestic
violence, and to submit recommendations based on that study
to Congress.
Sec. 1209. Enhancing Protections for Older and Disabled Women
from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Adds as new purposes areas to STOP grants and Pro-Arrest
grants the development of policies and initiatives that help
in identifying and addressing the needs of older and disabled
women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants for training
programs through 2005 to assist law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, and relevant court officers in recognizing,
addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder
abuse, neglect, and exploitation and violence against
individuals with disabilities, including domestic violence
and sexual assault, against older or disabled individuals.
Authorization is $5 million/year.
Title III--Limiting the Effects of Violence on Children
Sec. 1301. Safe Havens for Children Pilot Program
Establishes through 2002 a pilot Justice Department grant
program aimed at reducing the opportunity for domestic
violence to occur during the transfer of children for
visitation purposes by expanding the availability of
supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange for the
children of victims of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual
assault, or stalking.
Authorization level is $15 million for each year.
Sec. 1302. Reauthorization of Victims of Child Abuse Act
Grants
Extends through 2005 three grant programs geared to assist
children who are victims of abuse. These are the court-
appointed special advocate program, child abuse training for
judicial personnel and practitioners, and grants for
televised testimony of children.
Authorization levels are $12 million/year for the special
advocate program, $2.3 million/year for the judicial
personnel training program, and $1 million/year for televised
testimony (FY 2000 appropriations were $10 million, $2.3
million, and $1 million respectively).
Sec. 1303. Report on Parental Kidnaping Laws
Requires the Attorney General to study and submit
recommendations on federal and state child custody laws,
including custody
[[Page 21085]]
provisions in protection orders, the Parental Kidnaping
Prevention Act of 1980, and the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act adopted by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in July
1997, and the effect of those laws on child custody cases in
which domestic violence is a factor. Amends emergency
jurisdiction to cover domestic violence.
Authorization levels is $200,000.
Title IV--Strengthening Education and Training To Combat Violence
Against Women
Sec. 1401. Rape Prevention and Education Program
Reauthorization
Extends through 2005 this Sexual Assault Education and
Prevention Grant program; includes education for college
students; provides funding to continue the National Resource
Center on Sexual Assault at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Authorization level is $80 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $45 million).
Sec. 1402. Education and Training to End Violence Against and
Abuse of Women with Disabilities
Establishes a new Justice Department grant program through
2005 to educate and provide technical assistance to providers
on effective ways to meet the needs of disabled women who are
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Authorization level is $7.5 million/year.
Sec. 1403. Reauthorization of Community Initiatives to
Prevent Domestic Violence
Reauthorizes through 2005 this grant program to fund
collaborative community projects targeted for the
intervention and prevention of domestic violence.
Authorization level is $6 million/year (FY 2000
appropriation was $6 million).
Sec. 1404. Development of Research Agenda Identified under
the Violence Against Women Act.
Requires the Attorney General to direct the National
Institute of Justice,in consultation with the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the National Academy of Sciences,
through its National Research Council, to develop a plan to
implement a research agenda based on the recommendations in
the National Academy of Science report ``Understanding
Violence Against Women,'' which was produced under a grant
awarded under the original Violence Against Women Act.
Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section.
Sec. 1405. Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual
Assault Forensic Examinations
Requires the Attorney General to evaluate existing
standards of training and practice for licensed health care
professionals performing sexual assault forensic examinations
and develop a national recommended standard for training; to
recommend sexual assault forensic examination training for
all health care students; and to review existing protocols on
sexual assault forensic examinations and, based on this
review, develop a recommended national protocol and establish
a mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.
Authorization level is $200,000 for FY 2001.
Sec. 1406. Education and Training for Judges and Court
Personnel.
Amends the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act of
1994, authorizing $1,500,000 each year through 2005 for
grants for education and training for judges and court
personnel in state courts, and $500,000 each year through
2005 for grants for education and training for judges and
court personnel in federal courts. Adds three areas of
training eligible for grant use.
Sec. 1407. Domestic Violence Task Force
Requires the Attorney General to establish a task force to
coordinate research on domestic violence and to report to
Congress on any overlapping or duplication of efforts among
the federal agencies that address domestic violence.
Authorization level is $500,000.
Title V--Battered Immigrant Women
Strengthens and refines the protections for battered
immigrant women in the original Violence Against Women Act.
Eliminates a number of ``catch-22'' policies and unintended
consequences of subsequent changes in immigration law to
ensure that domestic abusers with immigrant victims are
brought to justice and that the battered immigrants Congress
sought to help in the original Act are able to escape the
abuse.
Title VI--Miscellaneous
Sec. 1601. Notice Requirements for Sexually Violent Offenders
Amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require sex
offenders already required to register in a State to provide
notice, as required under State law, or each institution of
higher education in that State at which the person is
employed, carried on a vocation, or is a student. Requires
that state procedures ensure that this registration
information is promptly made available to law enforcement
agencies with jurisdiction where the institutions of higher
education are located and that it is entered into appropriate
State records or data systems. These changes take effect 2
years after enactment.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require
institutions of higher education to issue a statement, in
addition to other disclosures required under that Act,
advising the campus community where law enforcement agency
information provided by a State concerning registered sex
offenders may be obtained. This change takes effect 2 years
after enactment.
Amends the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 to clarify that nothing in that Act may be construed to
prohibit an educational institution from disclosing
information provided to the institution concerning registered
sex offenders; requires the Secretary of Education to take
appropriate steps to notify educational institutions that
disclosure of this information is permitted.
Sec. 1602. Teen Suicide Prevention Study
Authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services of predictors of suicide among at-risk and other
youth, and barriers that prevent the youth from receiving
treatment, to facilitate the development of model treatment
programs and public education and awareness efforts.
Authorization is for such sums as may be necessary.
Sec. 1603. Decade of Pain Control and Research
Designates the calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001,
as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research.''
Division B--The Violence Against Women Act of 2000
Title V--The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
section-by-section analysis
Generally designed to improve on efforts made in VAWA 1994
to prevent immigration law from being used by an abusive
citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse as a tool to
prevent an abused immigrant spouse from reporting abuse or
leaving the abusive relationship. This could happen because
generally speaking, U.S. immigration law gives citizens and
lawful permanent residents the right to petition for their
spouses to be granted a permanent resident visa, which is the
necessary prerequisite for immigrating to the United States.
In the vast majority of cases, granting the right to seek the
visa to the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse makes
sense, since the purpose of family immigration visas is to
allow U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to live
here with their spouses and children. But in the unusual case
of the abusive relationship, an abusive citizen or lawful
permanent resident can use control over his or her spouse's
visa as a means to blackmail and control the spouse. The
abusive spouse would do this by withholding a promised visa
petition and then threatening to turn the abused spouse in to
the immigration authorities if the abused spouse sought to
leave the abuser or report the abuse.
VAWA 1994 changed this by allowing immigrants who
demonstrate that they have been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouses to file their own petitions for visas
without the cooperation of their abusive spouse. VAWA 1994
also allowed abused spouses placed in removal proceedings to
seek ``cancellation of removal,'' a form of discretionary
relief from removal available to individuals in unlawful
immigration status with strong equities, after three years
rather than the seven ordinarily required. Finally, VAWA 1994
granted similar rights to minor children abused by their
citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, whose
immigration status, like that of the abused spouse, would
otherwise be dependent on the abusive parent. VAWA 2000
addresses residual immigration law obstacles standing in the
path of battered immigrant spouses and children seeking to
free themselves from abusive relationships that either had
not come to the attention of the drafters of VAWA 1994 or
have arisen since as a result of 1996 changes to immigration
law.
Sec. 1501. Short Title
Names this tile the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act
of 2000.
Sec. 1502. Findings and Purposes
Lays out as the purpose of the title building on VAWA
1994's efforts to enable battered immigrant spouses and
children to free themselves of abusive relationships and
report abuse without fear of immigration law consequences
controlled by their abusive citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouse or parent.
Sec. 1503. Improved Access to Immigration Protections of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for Battered Immigrant
Women
Allows abused spouses and children who have already
demonstrated to the INS that they have been the victims of
battery or extreme cruelty by their spouse or parent to file
their own petition for a lawful permanent resident visa
without also having to show they will suffer ``extreme
hardship'' if forced to leave the U.S., a showing that is not
required if their citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse
or parent files the visa petition on their behalf. Eliminates
U.S. residency as a prerequisite for a spouse or child of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been battered in
the U.S. or whose spouse is a member of the uniformed
services or a U.S. government employee to
[[Page 21086]]
file for his or her own visa, since there is no U.S.
residency prerequisite for non-battered spouses' or
children's visas. Retains current law's special requirement
that abused spouses and children filing their own petitions
(unlike spouses and children for whom their citizen or lawful
permanent resident spouse or parent petitions) demonstrate
good moral character, but modifies it to give the Attorney
General authority to find good moral character despite
certain otherwise disqualifying acts if those acts were
connected to the abuse.
Allows a victim of battery or extreme cruelty who believed
himself or herself to be a citizen's or lawful permanent
resident's spouse and went through a marriage ceremony to
file a visa petition as a battered spouse if the marriage was
not valid solely on account of the citizen's or lawful
permanent resident's bigamy. Allows a battered spouse whose
citizen spouse died, whose spouse lost citizenship, whose
spouse lost lawful permanent residency, or from whom the
battered spouse was divorced to file a visa petition as an
abused spouse within two years of the death, loss of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency, or divorce,
provided that the loss of citizenship, status or divorce was
connected to the abuse suffered by the spouse. Allows a
battered spouse to naturalize after three years residency as
other spouses may do, but without requiring the battered
spouse to live in marital union with the abusive spouse
during that period.
Allows abused children or children of abused spouses whose
petitions were filed when they were minors to maintain their
petitions after they attain age 21, as their citizen or
lawful permanent resident parent would be entitled to do on
their behalf had the original petition been filed during the
child's minority, treating the petition as filed on the date
of the filing of the original petition for purposes of
determining its priority date.
Sec. 1504. Improved Access to Cancellation of Removal and
Suspension of Deportation under the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994
Clarifies that with respect to battered immigrants,
IIRIRA's rule, enacted in 1996, that provides that with
respect to any applicant for cancellation of removal, any
absence that exceeds 90 days, or any series of absences that
exceed 180 days, interrupts continuous physical presence,
does not apply to any absence or portion of an absence
connected to the abuse. Makes this change retroactive to date
of enactment of IIRIRA. Directs Attorney General to parole
children of battered immigrants granted cancellation until
their adjustment of status application has been acted on,
provided the battered immigrant exercises due diligence in
filing such an application.
Sec. 1505. Offering Equal Access to Immigration Protections
of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 for All
Qualified Battered Immigrant Self-Petitioners
Grants the Attorney General the authority to waive certain
bars to admissibility or grounds of deportability with
respect to battered spouses and children. New Attorney
General waiver authority granted (1) for crimes of domestic
violence or stalking where the spouse or child was not the
primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship, the
crime did not result in serious bodily injury, and there was
a connection between the crime and the abuse suffered by the
spouse or child; (2) for misrepresentations connected with
seeking an immigration benefit in cases of extreme hardship
to the alien (paralleling the AG's waiver authority for
spouses and children petitioned for by their citizen or
lawful permanent resident spouse or parent in cases of
extreme hardship to the spouse or parent); (3) for crimes of
moral turpitude not constituting aggravated felonies where
the crime was connected to the abuse (similarly paralleling
the AG's waiver authority for spouses and children petitioned
for by their spouse or parent); (4) for health related
grounds of inadmissibility (also paralleling the AG's waiver
authority for spouses and children petitioned for by their
spouse or parent); and (5) for unlawful presence after a
prior immigration violation, if there is a connection between
the abuse and the alien's removal, departure, reentry, or
attempted reentry. Clarifies that a battered immigrant's use
of public benefits specifically made available to battered
immigrants in PRWORA does not make the immigrant inadmissible
on public charge ground.
Sec. 1506. Restoring Immigration Protections under the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Establishes mechanism paralleling mechanism available to
spouses and children petitioned for by their spouse or parent
to enable VAWA-qualified battered spouse or child to obtain
status as lawful permanent resident in the United States
rather than having to go abroad to get a visa.
Addresses problem created in 1996 for battered immigrants'
access to cancellation of removal by IIRIRA's new stop-time
rule. That rule was aimed at individuals gaming the system to
gain access to cancellation of removal. To prevent this,
IIRIRA stopped the clock on accruing any time toward
continuous physical presence at the times INS initiates
removal proceedings against an individual. This section
eliminates application of this rule to battered immigrant
spouses and children, who, if they are sophisticated enough
about immigration law and had sufficient freedom of movement
to ``game the system'', presumably would have filed self-
petitions, and more likely do not even know that INS has
initiated proceedings against them because their abusive
spouse or parent has withheld their mail. To implement this
change, allows a battered immigrant spouse or child to file a
motion to reopen removal proceedings within 1 year of the
entry of an order of removal (which deadline may be waived in
the Attorney General's discretion if the Attorney General
finds extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the
alien's child) provided the alien files a complete
application to be classified as VAWA-eligible at the time the
alien files the reopening motion.
Sec. 1507. Remedying Problems with Implementation of the
Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994
Clarifies that negative changes of immigration status of
abuser or divorce after abused spouse or child files petition
under VAWA have no effect on status of abused spouse or
child. Reclassifies abused spouse or child as spouse or child
of citizen if abuser becomes citizen notwithstanding divorce
or termination of parental rights (so as not to create
incentive for abuse victim to delay leaving abusive situation
on account of potential future improved immigration status of
abuser). Clarifies that remarriage has no effect on pending
VAWA immigration petition.
Sec. 1508. Technical Correction to Qualified Alien Definition
for Battered Immigrants
Makes technical change of description of battered aliens
allowed to access certain public benefits so as to use
correct pre-IIRIRA name for equitable relief from
deportation/removal (``suspension of deportation'' rather
than ``cancellation of removal'') for pre-IIRIRA cases.
Sec. 1509. Access to Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered
Immigrant Spouses and Children
Allows battered spouses and children to access special
immigration benefits available under Cuban Adjustment Act to
other spouses and children of Cubans on the basis of the same
showing of battery or extreme cruelty they would have to make
as VAWA self-petitioners; relieves them of Cuban Adjustment
Act showing that they are residing with their spouse/parent.
Sec. 1510. Access to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under
NACARA to battered spouses and children similarly to the way
section 509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1511. Access to the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998
for Battered Spouses and Children
Provides access to special immigration benefits under HRIFA
to battered spouses and children similarly to the way section
509 does with respect to Cuban Adjustment Act.
Sec. 1512. Access to Services and Legal Representation for
Battered Immigrants
Clarifies that Stop grants, Grants to Encourage Arrest,
Rural VAWA grants, Civil Legal Assistance grants, and Campus
grants can be used to provide assistance to battered
immigrants. Allows local battered women's advocacy
organizations, law enforcement or other eligible Stop grant
applicants to apply for Stop funding to train INS officers
and immigration judges as well as other law enforcement
officers on the special needs of battered immigrants.
Sec. 1513. Protection for Certain Crime Victims Including
Victims of Crimes Against Women
Creates new nonimmigrant visa for victims of certain
serious crimes that tend to target vulnerable foreign
individuals without immigration status if the victim has
suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of
the crime, the victim has information about the crime, and a
law enforcement official or a judge certifies that the victim
has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be
helpful in investigating or prosecuting the crime. The crime
must involve rape, torture, trafficking, incest, sexual
assault, domestic violence, abusive sexual contact,
prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation,
being held hostage, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave
trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint,
false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter,
murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of
justice, perjury, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
above, or other similar conduct in violation of Federal,
State, or local criminal law. Caps visas at 10,000 per fiscal
year. Allows Attorney General to adjust these individuals to
lawful permanent resident status if the alien has been
present for 3 years and the Attorney General determines this
is justified on humanitarian grounds, to promote family
unity, or is otherwise in the public interest.
aimee's law
This bill penalizes States that fail to incarcerate
criminals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous sexual
offenses for long prison terms. In cases in which a State
convicts a
[[Page 21087]]
person of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, and
that person has a prior conviction for any one of those
offenses in a designated State, the designated State must
pay, from federal law enforcement assistance funds, the
incarceration and prosecution cost of the latter State. (The
Attorney General would transfer the federal law enforcement
funds from the prior State to the subsequent State.)
A State is a designated State and is subject to penalty
under this section if (1) the average term of imprisonment
imposed by the State on persons convicted of the offense for
which that person was convicted is less than the average term
of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all states; or
(2) that person had served less than 85 percent of the prison
term to which he was sentenced for the prior offense. (In
making this calculation, if the State has an indeterminate
sentencing system, the prison term shall be considered the
lower range of the sentence. For example, if a person is
sentenced 10-to-12 years, then the calculation is whether the
person served 85 percent of 10 years.)
Concerning Sec. 2002 and 2003 of Division C.
Sections 2002 and 2003, which may be referred to as the
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, helps American victims
of terrorism abroad collect court-awarded compensation and
ensures that the responsible state sponsors of terrorism pay
a price for their crimes.
In March 1985, Terry Anderson, an American journalist
working in Beirut, was kidnapped by agents of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. He was held captive by his kidnappers in
deplorable conditions until early December 1991.
During the 1980's three other individuals working in
Lebanon, David Jacobsen, an administrator of the American
University hospital in Beirut, Joseph Ciccippio, a
comptroller of the American University school and hospital
and Frank Reed, a principal of a private secondary school in
Beirut, were also held captive by agents of the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
In April 1995, Alisa Flatow, a 20-year-old college student
from New Jersey, was on a bus on the Gaza strip going to a
Passover holiday celebration. A terrorist from the Iranian
backed Islamic Jihad rammed his car loaded with explosives
into the bus, killing Ms. Flatow and seven others.
Two Americans studying in Israel, Matthew Eisenfeld and
Sara Duker were killed in a suicide bombing of a bus in
Jerusalem in February 1996. Those responsible were provided
training, money, and resources by Iran.
Also in February 1996, Cuban MiG aircraft shot down two
aircraft flown by the ``Brothers to the Rescue'' humanitarian
organization in international airspace over the Florida
Straits. Three American citizens were killed in the attack by
the Cuban government.
Antiterrorism Act of 1996 gave these and other American
citizens injured in acts of terrorism their survivors to
bring a lawsuit against the terrorist state responsible for
that act. Congress and the President deliberately created an
exception to the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity and
to the statutory protections of the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, limited to victims' cases against countries
on the State Department's list of state sponsors of
terrorism.
Following enactment of the Antiterrorism Act of 1996,
numerous American victims filed suit against terrorist
states. Each of the victims described above, or surviving
family members, has been awarded judgements by U.S. courts.
However, the victims were not able to collect on their
judgements. Iran and Cuba have few, if any, assets in the
United States not blocked by the Treasury Department under
sanctions laws or otherwise held by the U.S. Government. The
President did not exercise existing authorities to make those
assets available.
After the Brothers to the Rescue incident, at a February
26, 1996, White House press briefing President Clinton stated
``I am asking that Congress pass legislation that will
provide immediate compensation to the families, something to
which they are entitled under international law, out of
Cuba's blocked assets here in the United States. If Congress
passes this legislation, we can provide the compensation
immediately,'' The President did vest funds from blocked
Cuban accounts to make modest payments to the Brothers to the
Rescue families as a ``humanitarian gesture.''
Section 117 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, explicitly made the
assets of foreign terrorist states blocked by the Treasury
Department under sanctions laws available for attachment by
U.S. courts for the very limited purpose of satisfying
Antiterrorism Act judgements.
That legislation authorized the President to waive the
requirements of that provision in the interest of national
security, but the scope of that waiver authority remains in
dispute. Presidential Determination 99-1 asserted broad
authority to waive the entirety of the provision. But the
District Court of the Southern District of Florida, in
Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, rejected the Administration's
view and held, instead, that the President's authority
applied only to section 117's requirement that the
Secretaries of State and Treasury assist a judgement creditor
in identifying, locating, and executing against non-blocked
property of a foreign terrorist state.
Subsection 1(f) of this bill repeals the waiver authority
granted in Section 117 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, replacing it will a
clearer but narrower waiver authority in the underlying
statute. The Committee hopes clarity in the legislative
history and intent of subsection 1(f), in the context of the
section as a whole, will ensure appropriate application of
the new waiver authority.
This is a key issue for American victims of state-sponsored
terrorism who have sued or who will in the future sue the
responsible terrorism-list state, as they are entitled to do
under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996. Victims who already
hold U.S. court judgements, and a few whose related cases
will soon be decided, will receive their compensatory damages
as a result of this legislation.
The Committee intends that this legislation will similarly
help other pending and future Antiterrorism Act plaintiffs as
and when U.S. courts issue judgements against the foreign
state sponsors of specific terrorist acts. The Committee
shares the particular interest of the sponsors of this
legislation in ensuring that the families of the victims of
Pan Am flight 103 should be able to collect damages promptly
if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a U.S. court
that Libya is indeed responsible for that heinous bombing.
The Committee is similarly interested in pending suits
against Iraq.
In replacing the waiver, the conferees accept that the
President should have the authority to waive the court's
authority to attach blocked assets. But to understand the
view of the committee with respect to the use of the waiver,
it must be read within the context of other provisions of the
legislation.
A waiver of the attachment provision would seem appropriate
for final and pending Anti-Terrorism Act cases identified in
subsection (a)(2) of this bill. In these cases, judicial
attachment is not necessary because the executive branch will
appropriately pay compensatory damages to the victims and use
blocked assets to collect the funds from terrorist states.
Of particular significance, this section reaffirms the
President's statutory authority, inter alia, to vest blocked
foreign government assets and where appropriate make payments
to victims of terrorism. The President has the authority to
assist victims with pending and future cases.
The Committee's intent is that the President will review
each case when the court issues a final judgement to
determine whether to use the national security waiver,
whether to help the plaintiffs collect from a foreign state's
non-blocked assets in the United States whether to allow the
courts to attach and execute against blocked assets, or
whether to use existing authorities to vest and pay those
assets as damages to the victims of terrorism.
When a future President does make a decision whether to
invoke the waiver, he should consider seriously whether the
national security standard for a waiver has been met. In
enacting this legislation, Congress is expressing the view
that the attachment and execution of frozen assets to enforce
judgements in cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 is
not by itself contrary to the national security interest.
Indeed, in the view of the Committee, it is generally in the
national security interest of the United States to make
foreign state sponsors of terrorism pay court-awarded damages
to American victims, so neither the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act nor any other law will stand in the way of
justice. Thus, in the view of the committee the waiver
authority should not be exercised in a routine or blanket
manner, but only where U.S. national security interests would
be implicated in taking action against particular blocked
assets or where alternative recourse--such as vesting and
paying those assets--may be preferable to court attachment.
Future Presidents should follow the precedent set by this
legislation, and find the best way to help victims of
terrorism collect on their judgements and make terrorist
states pay for their crimes.
The conference report also includes a section, Section
2003, dealing with support for victims of international
terrorism. This section will enable the Office for Victims of
Crime (OVC) to provide more immediate and effective
assistance to Americans who are victims of terrorism abroad--
Americans like those killed or injured in the embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the Pan Am 103 bombing
over Lockerbie, Scotland. These victims deserve help, but
existing programs are failing to meet their needs.
Section 2003(a) of the conference report will permit OVC to
serve these victims better by expanding the types of
assistance for which the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
emergency reserve fund may be used, and the range of
organizations to which assistance may be provided. These
changes will not require new or appropriated funds: They
simply allow OVC greater flexibility in using existing
reserve funds to assist victims of terrorism abroad,
including the victims of the Lockerbie and embassy bombings.
[[Page 21088]]
Section 2003(b) will authorize OVC to raise the cap on the
VOCA emergency reserve fund from $50 million to $100 million,
so that the fund is large enough to cover the extraordinary
costs that would be incurred if a terrorist act caused
massive casualties, and to replenish the reserve fund with
unobligated funds from its other grant programs.
Section 2003(c) will simplify the presently-authorized
system of using VOCA funds to provide victim compensation to
American victims of terrorism abroad, by permitting OVC to
establish and operate an international crime victim
compensation program. This program will, in addition, cover
foreign nationals who are employees of any American
government institution targeted for terrorist attack. The
source of funding is the VOCA emergency reserve fund, which
Congress authorized in an amendment to the 1996 Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Section 2003(d) clarifies that deposits into the Crime
Victims Fund remain available for intended uses under VOCA
when not expended immediately. This should quell concerns
raised regarding the effect of spending caps included in
appropriations bills last year and this. The appropriations'
actions were meant to defer spending, not to remove deposits
from the Fund. This provision makes that explicit.
Summary of S. 577--Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act
The purpose of S. 577 is to provide a mechanism to enable
States to effectively enforce their laws against the illegal
interstate shipment of alcoholic beverages. While Federal law
already prohibits the interstate shipment of alcohol in
violation of state law, unfortunately, that general
prohibition lacks any enforcement mechanism. S. 577 provides
that mechanism by permitting the Attorney General of a State,
who has reasonable cause to believe that his or her State
laws regulating the importation and transportation of alcohol
are being violated, to file an action in federal court for an
injunction to stop those illegal shipments.
S. 577 only reaches those that violate the law. It only
allows actions for an injunction if a person is ``engaged
in'' or ``has engaged in'' an act that would constitute a
violation of a State law, but prohibits injunctions to
restrain otherwise lawful advertising. Additionally, S. 577
provides that no preliminary injunctions could be obtained
without: (1) proving irreparable injury, and (2) a
probability of success on the merits. S. 577 also includes a
provision on the ``Rules of Construction,'' which states that
the power conveyed by this act is limited to the valid
exercise of power vested in the states under the 21st
Amendment in accordance with Supreme Court precedent and
interpretation, and shall not be interpreted to grant to
states any additional power.
Benjamin Gilman,
Bill Goodling,
Chris Smith,
Henry Hyde,
Nancy L. Johnson,
Sam Gejdenson,
Tom Lantos,
Ben Cardin,
Managers of the Part of the House.
From the Committee on the Judiciary:
Orrin Hatch,
Strom Thurmond,
From the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Jesse Helms,
Sam Brownback,
Joe Biden,
Paul Wellstone,
Managers of the Part of the Senate.
____________________
MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RELIANCE AND INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT
OF 2000
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1143) to establish a program to provide
assistance for programs of credit and other financial services for
microenterprises in developing countries, and for other purposes, with
a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Microenterprise for Self-
Reliance and International Anti-Corruption Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RELIANCE ACT OF 2000
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings and declarations of policy.
Sec. 103. Purposes.
Sec. 104. Definitions.
Sec. 105. Microenterprise development grant assistance.
Sec. 106. Micro- and small enterprise development credits.
Sec. 107. United States Microfinance Loan Facility.
Sec. 108. Report relating to future development of microenterprise
institutions.
Sec. 109. United States Agency for International Development as global
leader and coordinator of bilateral and multilateral
microenterprise assistance activities.
Sec. 110. Sense of Congress on consideration of Mexico as a key
priority in microenterprise funding allocations.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE ACT OF 2000
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 203. Development assistance policy.
Sec. 204. Department of the Treasury technical assistance program for
developing countries.
Sec. 205. Authorization of good governance programs.
TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 303. Establishment of grant program for foreign study by American
college students of limited financial means.
Sec. 304. Report to Congress.
Sec. 305. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 306. Effective date.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Support for Overseas Cooperative Development Act.
Sec. 402. Funding of certain environmental assistance activities of
USAID.
Sec. 403. Processing of applications for transportation of humanitarian
assistance abroad by the Department of Defense.
Sec. 404. Working capital fund.
Sec. 405. Increase in authorized number of employees and
representatives of the United States mission to the
United Nations provided living quarters in New York.
Sec. 406. Availability of VOA and Radio Marti multilingual computer
readable text and voice recordings.
Sec. 407. Availability of certain materials of the Voice of America.
Sec. 408. Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program Act of 2000.
TITLE I--MICROENTERPRISE FOR SELF-RELIANCE ACT OF 2000
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Microenterprise for Self-
Reliance Act of 2000''.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.
Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
(1) According to the World Bank, more than 1,200,000,000
people in the developing world, or one-fifth of the world's
population, subsist on less than $1 a day.
(2) Over 32,000 of their children die each day from largely
preventable malnutrition and disease.
(3)(A) Women in poverty generally have larger work loads
and less access to educational and economic opportunities
than their male counterparts.
(B) Directly aiding the poorest of the poor, especially
women, in the developing world has a positive effect not only
on family incomes, but also on child nutrition, health and
education, as women in particular reinvest income in their
families.
(4)(A) The poor in the developing world, particularly
women, generally lack stable employment and social safety
nets.
(B) Many turn to self-employment to generate a substantial
portion of their livelihood. In Africa, over 80 percent of
employment is generated in the informal sector of the self-
employed poor.
(C) These poor entrepreneurs are often trapped in poverty
because they cannot obtain credit at reasonable rates to
build their asset base or expand their otherwise viable self-
employment activities.
(D) Many of the poor are forced to pay interest rates as
high as 10 percent per day to money lenders.
(5)(A) The poor are able to expand their incomes and their
businesses dramatically when they can access loans at
reasonable interest rates.
(B) Through the development of self-sustaining microfinance
programs, poor people themselves can lead the fight against
hunger and poverty.
(6)(A) On February 2-4, 1997, a global Microcredit Summit
was held in Washington, District of Columbia, to launch a
plan to expand access to credit for self-employment and other
financial and business services to 100,000,000 of the world's
poorest families, especially the women of those families, by
2005. While this scale of outreach may not be achievable in
this short time-period, the realization of this goal could
dramatically alter the face of global poverty.
(B) With an average family size of five, achieving this
goal will mean that the benefits of microfinance will thereby
reach nearly half of the world's more than 1,000,000,000
absolute poor people.
(7)(A) Nongovernmental organizations, such as those that
comprise the Microenterprise Coalition (such as the Grameen
Bank (Bangladesh,) K-REP (Kenya), and networks such as Accion
International, the Foundation for International Community
Assistance (FINCA), and the credit union movement) are
successful in lending directly to the very poor.
[[Page 21089]]
(B) Microfinance institutions such as BRAC (Bangladesh),
BancoSol (Bolivia), SEWA Bank (India), and ACEP (Senegal) are
regulated financial institutions that can raise funds
directly from the local and international capital markets.
(8)(A) Microenterprise institutions not only reduce
poverty, but also reduce the dependency on foreign
assistance.
(B) Interest income on the credit portfolio is used to pay
recurring institutional costs, assuring the long-term
sustainability of development assistance.
(9) Microfinance institutions leverage foreign assistance
resources because loans are recycled, generating new benefits
to program participants.
(10)(A) The development of sustainable microfinance
institutions that provide credit and training, and mobilize
domestic savings, is a critical component to a global
strategy of poverty reduction and broad-based economic
development.
(B) In the efforts of the United States to lead the
development of a new global financial architecture,
microenterprise should play a vital role. The recent shocks
to international financial markets demonstrate how the
financial sector can shape the destiny of nations.
Microfinance can serve as a powerful tool for building a more
inclusive financial sector which serves the broad majority of
the world's population including the very poor and women and
thus generate more social stability and prosperity.
(C) Over the last two decades, the United States has been a
global leader in promoting the global microenterprise sector,
primarily through its development assistance programs at the
United States Agency for International Development.
Additionally, the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of State have used their authority to promote
microenterprise in the development programs of international
financial institutions and the United Nations.
(11)(A) In 1994, the United States Agency for International
Development launched the ``Microenterprise Initiative'' in
partnership with the Congress.
(B) The initiative committed to expanding funding for the
microenterprise programs of the Agency, and set a goal that,
by the end of fiscal year 1996, one-half of all
microenterprise resources would support programs and
institutions that provide credit to the poorest, with loans
under $300.
(C) In order to achieve the goal of the microcredit summit,
increased investment in microfinance institutions serving the
poorest will be critical.
(12) Providing the United States share of the global
investment needed to achieve the goal of the microcredit
summit will require only a small increase in United States
funding for international microcredit programs, with an
increased focus on institutions serving the poorest.
(13)(A) In order to reach tens of millions of the poorest
with microcredit, it is crucial to expand and replicate
successful microfinance institutions.
(B) These institutions need assistance in developing their
institutional capacity to expand their services and tap
commercial sources of capital.
(14) Nongovernmental organizations have demonstrated
competence in developing networks of local microfinance
institutions and other assistance delivery mechanisms so that
they reach large numbers of the very poor, and achieve
financial sustainability.
(15) Recognizing that the United States Agency for
International Development has developed very effective
partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, and that the
Agency will have fewer missions overseas to carry out its
work, the Agency should place priority on investing in those
nongovernmental network institutions that meet performance
criteria through the central funding mechanisms of the
Agency.
(16) By expanding and replicating successful microfinance
institutions, it should be possible to create a global
infrastructure to provide financial services to the world's
poorest families.
(17)(A) The United States can provide leadership to other
bilateral and multilateral development agencies as such
agencies expand their support to the microenterprise sector.
(B) The United States should seek to improve coordination
among G-7 countries in the support of the microenterprise
sector in order to leverage the investment of the United
States with that of other donor nations.
(18) Through increased support for microenterprise,
especially credit for the poorest, the United States can
continue to play a leadership role in the global effort to
expand financial services and opportunity to 100,000,000 of
the poorest families on the planet.
SEC. 103. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to make microenterprise development an important
element of United States foreign economic policy and
assistance;
(2) to provide for the continuation and expansion of the
commitment of the United States Agency for International
Development to the development of microenterprise
institutions as outlined in its 1994 Microenterprise
Initiative;
(3) to support and develop the capacity of United States
and indigenous nongovernmental organization intermediaries to
provide credit, savings, training, technical assistance, and
business development services to microentrepreneurs;
(4) to emphasize financial services and substantially
increase the amount of assistance devoted to both financial
services and complementary business development services
designed to reach the poorest people in developing countries,
particularly women; and
(5) to encourage the United States Agency for International
Development to coordinate microfinance policy, in
consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of State, and to provide global leadership among
bilateral and multilateral donors in promoting
microenterprise for the poorest of the poor.
SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Business development services.--The term ``business
development services'' means support for the growth of
microenterprises through training, technical assistance,
marketing assistance, improved production technologies, and
other services.
(2) Microenterprise institution.--The term
``microenterprise institution'' means an institution that
provides services, including microfinance, training, or
business development services, for microentrepreneurs.
(3) Microfinance institution.--The term ``microfinance
institution'' means an institution that directly provides, or
works to expand, the availability of credit, savings, and
other financial services to microentrepreneurs.
(4) Practitioner institution.--The term ``practitioner
institution'' means any institution that provides services,
including microfinance, training, or business development
services, for microentrepreneurs, or provides assistance to
microenterprise institutions.
SEC. 105. MICROENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT GRANT ASSISTANCE.
Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 131. MICROENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT GRANT ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Findings and Policy.--Congress finds and declares
that--
``(1) the development of microenterprise is a vital factor
in the stable growth of developing countries and in the
development of free, open, and equitable international
economic systems;
``(2) it is therefore in the best interest of the United
States to assist the development of microenterprises in
developing countries; and
``(3) the support of microenterprise can be served by
programs providing credit, savings, training, technical
assistance, and business development services.
``(b) Authorization.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this part, the President
is authorized to provide grant assistance for programs to
increase the availability of credit and other services to
microenterprises lacking full access to capital training,
technical assistance, and business development services,
through--
``(A) grants to microfinance institutions for the purpose
of expanding the availability of credit, savings, and other
financial services to microentrepreneurs;
``(B) grants to microenterprise institutions for the
purpose of training, technical assistance, and business
development services for microenterprises to enable them to
make better use of credit, to better manage their
enterprises, and to increase their income and build their
assets;
``(C) capacity-building for microenterprise institutions in
order to enable them to better meet the credit and training
needs of microentrepreneurs; and
``(D) policy and regulatory programs at the country level
that improve the environment for microentrepreneurs and
microenterprise institutions that serve the poor and very
poor.
``(2) Implementation.--Assistance authorized under
paragraph (1) (A) and (B) shall be provided through
organizations that have a capacity to develop and implement
microenterprise programs, including particularly--
``(A) United States and indigenous private and voluntary
organizations;
``(B) United States and indigenous credit unions and
cooperative organizations; or
``(C) other indigenous governmental and nongovernmental
organizations.
``(3) Targeted assistance.--In carrying out sustainable
poverty-focused programs under paragraph (1), 50 percent of
all microenterprise resources shall be targeted to very poor
entrepreneurs, defined as those living in the bottom 50
percent below the poverty line as established by the national
government of the country. Specifically, such resources shall
be used for--
``(A) direct support of programs under this subsection
through practitioner institutions that--
``(i) provide credit and other financial services to
entrepreneurs who are very poor, with loans in 1995 United
States dollars of--
``(I) $1,000 or less in the Europe and Eurasia region;
``(II) $400 or less in the Latin America region; and
``(III) $300 or less in the rest of the world; and
``(ii) can cover their costs in a reasonable time period;
or
``(B) demand-driven business development programs that
achieve reasonable cost recovery that are provided to clients
holding poverty loans (as defined by the regional poverty
loan limitations in subparagraph (A)(i)), whether they are
provided by microfinance institutions or by specialized
business development services providers.
``(4) Support for central mechanisms.--The President should
continue support for central mechanisms and missions, as
appropriate, that--
``(A) provide technical support for field missions;
``(B) strengthen the institutional development of the
intermediary organizations described in paragraph (2);
[[Page 21090]]
``(C) share information relating to the provision of
assistance authorized under paragraph (1) between such field
missions and intermediary organizations; and
``(D) support the development of nonprofit global
microfinance networks, including credit union systems, that--
``(i) are able to deliver very small loans through a
significant grassroots infrastructure based on market
principles; and
``(ii) act as wholesale intermediaries providing a range of
services to microfinance retail institutions, including
financing, technical assistance, capacity-building, and
safety and soundness accreditation.
``(5) Limitation.--Assistance provided under this
subsection may only be used to support microenterprise
programs and may not be used to support programs not directly
related to the purposes described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Monitoring System.--In order to maximize the
sustainable development impact of the assistance authorized
under subsection (b)(1), the Administrator of the agency
primarily responsible for administering this part shall
establish a monitoring system that--
``(1) establishes performance goals for such assistance and
expresses such goals in an objective and quantifiable form,
to the extent feasible;
``(2) establishes performance indicators to be used in
measuring or assessing the achievement of the goals and
objectives of such assistance;
``(3) provides a basis for recommendations for adjustments
to such assistance to enhance the sustainable development
impact of such assistance, particularly the impact of such
assistance on the very poor, particularly poor women; and
``(4) provides a basis for recommendations for adjustments
to measures for reaching the poorest of the poor, including
proposed legislation containing amendments to enhance the
sustainable development impact of such assistance, as
described in paragraph (3).
``(d) Level of Assistance.--Of the funds made available
under this part, the FREEDOM Support Act, and the Support for
East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, including local
currencies derived from such funds, there are authorized to
be available $155,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001
and 2002, to carry out this section.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Business development services.--The term `business
development services' means support for the growth of
microenterprises through training, technical assistance,
marketing assistance, improved production technologies, and
other services.
``(2) Microenterprise institution.--The term
`microenterprise institution' means an institution that
provides services, including microfinance, training, or
business development services, for microentrepreneurs.
``(3) Microfinance institution.--The term `microfinance
institution' means an institution that directly provides, or
works to expand, the availability of credit, savings, and
other financial services to microentrepreneurs.
``(4) Practitioner institution.--The term `practitioner
institution' means any institution that provides services,
including microfinance, training, or business development
services, for microentrepreneurs, or provides assistance to
microenterprise institutions.''.
SEC. 106. MICRO- AND SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT CREDITS.
Section 108 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151f) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 108. MICRO- AND SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT CREDITS.
``(a) Findings and Policy.--Congress finds and declares
that--
``(1) the development of micro- and small enterprises is a
vital factor in the stable growth of developing countries and
in the development and stability of a free, open, and
equitable international economic system; and
``(2) it is, therefore, in the best interests of the United
States to assist the development of the enterprises of the
poor in developing countries and to engage the United States
private sector in that process.
``(b) Program.--To carry out the policy set forth in
subsection (a), the President is authorized to provide
assistance to increase the availability of credit to micro-
and small enterprises lacking full access to credit,
including through--
``(1) loans and guarantees to credit institutions for the
purpose of expanding the availability of credit to micro- and
small enterprises;
``(2) training programs for lenders in order to enable them
to better meet the credit needs of microentrepreneurs; and
``(3) training programs for microentrepreneurs in order to
enable them to make better use of credit and to better manage
their enterprises.
``(c) Eligibility Criteria.--The Administrator of the
agency primarily responsible for administering this part
shall establish criteria for determining which credit
institutions described in subsection (b)(1) are eligible to
carry out activities, with respect to micro- and small
enterprises, assisted under this section. Such criteria may
include the following:
``(1) The extent to which the recipients of credit from the
entity do not have access to the local formal financial
sector.
``(2) The extent to which the recipients of credit from the
entity are among the poorest people in the country.
``(3) The extent to which the entity is oriented toward
working directly with poor women.
``(4) The extent to which the entity recovers its cost of
lending.
``(5) The extent to which the entity implements a plan to
become financially sustainable.
``(d) Additional Requirement.--Assistance provided under
this section may only be used to support micro- and small
enterprise programs and may not be used to support programs
not directly related to the purposes described in subsection
(b).
``(e) Procurement provision.--Assistance may be provided
under this section without regard to section 604(a).
``(f) Availability of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to be
available to carry out section 131, there are authorized to
be available $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and
2002 to carry out this section.
``(2) Coverage of subsidy costs.--Amounts authorized to be
available under paragraph (1) shall be made available to
cover the subsidy cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, for activities under this
section.''.
SEC. 107. UNITED STATES MICROFINANCE LOAN FACILITY.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), as amended
by section 105 of this Act, is further amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 132. UNITED STATES MICROFINANCE LOAN FACILITY.
``(a) Establishment.--The Administrator is authorized to
establish a United States Microfinance Loan Facility (in this
section referred to as the `Facility') to pool and manage the
risk from natural disasters, war or civil conflict, national
financial crisis, or short-term financial movements that
threaten the long-term development of United States-supported
microfinance institutions.
``(b) Disbursements.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make
disbursements from the Facility to United States-supported
microfinance institutions to prevent the bankruptcy of such
institutions caused by--
``(A) natural disasters;
``(B) national wars or civil conflict; or
``(C) national financial crisis or other short-term
financial movements that threaten the long-term development
of United States-supported microfinance institutions.
``(2) Form of assistance.--Assistance under this section
shall be in the form of loans or loan guarantees for
microfinance institutions that demonstrate the capacity to
resume self-sustained operations within a reasonable time
period.
``(3) Congressional notification procedures.--During each
of the fiscal years 2001 and 2002, funds may not be made
available from the Facility until 15 days after notification
of the proposed availability of the funds has been provided
to the congressional committees specified in section 634A in
accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming
notifications under that section.
``(c) General Provisions.--
``(1) Policy provisions.--In providing the credit
assistance authorized by this section, the Administrator
should apply, as appropriate, the policy provisions in this
part that are applicable to development assistance
activities.
``(2) Default and procurement provisions.--
``(A) Default provision.--The provisions of section 620(q),
or any comparable provision of law, shall not be construed to
prohibit assistance to a country in the event that a private
sector recipient of assistance furnished under this section
is in default in its payment to the United States for the
period specified in such section.
``(B) Procurement provision.--Assistance may be provided
under this section without regard to section 604(a).
``(3) Terms and conditions of credit assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Credit assistance provided under this
section shall be offered on such terms and conditions,
including fees charged, as the Administrator may determine.
``(B) Limitation on principal amount of financing.--The
principal amount of loans made or guaranteed under this
section in any fiscal year, with respect to any single event,
may not exceed $30,000,000.
``(C) Exception.--No payment may be made under any
guarantee issued under this section for any loss arising out
of fraud or misrepresentation for which the party seeking
payment is responsible.
``(4) Full faith and credit.--All guarantees issued under
this section shall constitute obligations, in accordance with
the terms of such guarantees, of the United States of
America, and the full faith and credit of the United States
of America is hereby pledged for the full payment and
performance of such obligations to the extent of the
guarantee.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available
to carry out this part for the fiscal year 2001, up to
$5,000,000 may be made available for--
``(A) the subsidy cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, to carry out this section;
and
``(B) the administrative costs to carry out this section.
``(2) Relation to other funding.--Amounts made available
under paragraph (1) are in addition to amounts available
under any other provision of law to carry out this section.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the agency
[[Page 21091]]
primarily responsible for administering this part.
``(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
``(3) United states-supported microfinance institution.--
The term `United States-supported microfinance institution'
means a financial intermediary that has received funds made
available under part I of this Act for fiscal year 1980 or
any subsequent fiscal year.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives a report on the policies, rules, and
regulations of the United States Microfinance Loan Facility
established under section 132 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as added by subsection (a).
SEC. 108. REPORT RELATING TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF
MICROENTERPRISE INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the most
cost-effective methods and measurements for increasing the
access of poor people overseas to credit, other financial
services, and related training.
(b) Contents.--The report described in subsection (a)--
(1) shall include how the President, in consultation with
the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, the Secretary of State, and the
Secretary of the Treasury, will develop a comprehensive
strategy for advancing the global microenterprise sector in a
way that maintains market principles while ensuring that the
very poor overseas, particularly women, obtain access to
financial services overseas;
(2) shall provide guidelines and recommendations for--
(A) instruments to assist microenterprise networks to
develop multi-country and regional microlending programs;
(B) technical assistance to foreign governments, foreign
central banks, and regulatory entities to improve the policy
environment for microfinance institutions, and to strengthen
the capacity of supervisory bodies to supervise microfinance
institutions;
(C) the potential for Federal chartering of United States-
based international microfinance network institutions,
including proposed legislation;
(D) instruments to increase investor confidence in
microfinance institutions which would strengthen the long-
term financial position of the microfinance institutions and
attract capital from private sector entities and individuals,
such as a rating system for microfinance institutions and
local credit bureaus;
(E) an agenda for integrating microfinance into United
States foreign policy initiatives seeking to develop and
strengthen the global finance sector; and
(F) innovative instruments to attract funds from the
capital markets, such as instruments for leveraging funds
from the local commercial banking sector, and the
securitization of microloan portfolios; and
(3) shall include a section that assesses the need for a
microenterprise accelerated growth fund and that includes--
(A) a description of the benefits of such a fund;
(B) an identification of which microenterprise institutions
might become eligible for assistance from such fund;
(C) a description of how such a fund could be administered;
(D) a recommendation on which agency or agencies of the
United States Government should administer the fund and
within which such agency the fund should be located; and
(E) a recommendation on how soon it might be necessary to
establish such a fund in order to provide the support
necessary for microenterprise institutions involved in
microenterprise development.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Committee on International Relations of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate.
SEC. 109. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AS GLOBAL LEADER AND COORDINATOR OF BILATERAL
AND MULTILATERAL MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Findings and Policy.--Congress finds and declares
that--
(1) the United States can provide leadership to other
bilateral and multilateral development agencies as such
agencies expand their support to the microenterprise sector;
and
(2) the United States should seek to improve coordination
among G-7 countries in the support of the microenterprise
sector in order to leverage the investment of the United
States with that of other donor nations.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development and the Secretary of State should
seek to support and strengthen the effectiveness of
microfinance activities in United Nations agencies, such as
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), which have
provided key leadership in developing the microenterprise
sector; and
(2) the Secretary of the Treasury should instruct each
United States Executive Director of the multilateral
development banks (MDBs) to advocate the development of a
coherent and coordinated strategy to support the
microenterprise sector and an increase of multilateral
resource flows for the purposes of building microenterprise
retail and wholesale intermediaries.
SEC. 110. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDERATION OF MEXICO AS A
KEY PRIORITY IN MICROENTERPRISE FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) An estimated 45,000,000 of Mexico's 100,000,000
population currently lives below the poverty line, accounting
for 20 percent of all poor in Latin America.
(2) Mexico cannot create enough salaried jobs to absorb new
workers entering the labor force.
(3) While many poor families depend on microenterprise
initiatives to generate a livelihood, the United States
Agency for International Development currently has 2
microcredit projects in Mexico, receiving less than one
percent of overall microenterprise funding in Latin America
and the Caribbean during the last decade.
(4) Mexico's microenterprise activity has been constrained
because its financial institutions cannot expand financial
services to a larger clientele due to a lack of capital,
inefficient financial and administrative management, and a
lack of institutional support for microfinance institutions'
particular needs.
(5) Mexican nongovernmental organizations, such as
Compartamos, have demonstrated competence in developing local
microfinance programs.
(6) On July 2, 2000, Vicente Fox Quesada of the Alliance
for Change was elected President of the United Mexican
States.
(7) The President-elect of Mexico has identified
entrepreneurship and the start-up of new microcredit
institutions as key economic priorities.
(8) Microenterprise and entrepreneurial initiatives have
proven to be successful components of free market development
and economic stability.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) providing Mexico's poor with economic opportunity and
microfinance services is fundamental to Mexico's economic
development;
(2) microenterprise can have a positive impact on Mexico's
free market development; and
(3) the United States Agency for International Development
should consider Mexico as a key priority in its
microenterprise funding allocations.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE ACT OF 2000
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``International Anti-
Corruption and Good Governance Act of 2000''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Widespread corruption endangers the stability and
security of societies, undermines democracy, and jeopardizes
the social, political, and economic development of a society.
(2) Corruption facilitates criminal activities, such as
money laundering, hinders economic development, inflates the
costs of doing business, and undermines the legitimacy of the
government and public trust.
(3) In January 1997 the United Nations General Assembly
adopted a resolution urging member states to carefully
consider the problems posed by the international aspects of
corrupt practices and to study appropriate legislative and
regulatory measures to ensure the transparency and integrity
of financial systems.
(4) The United States was the first country to criminalize
international bribery through the enactment of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and United States leadership
was instrumental in the passage of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on
Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in
International Business Transactions.
(5) The Vice President, at the Global Forum on Fighting
Corruption in 1999, declared corruption to be a direct threat
to the rule of law and the Secretary of State declared
corruption to be a matter of profound political and social
consequence for our efforts to strengthen democratic
governments.
(6) The Secretary of State, at the Inter-American
Development Bank's annual meeting in March 2000, declared
that despite certain economic achievements, democracy is
being threatened as citizens grow weary of the corruption and
favoritism of their official institutions and that efforts
must be made to improve governance if respect for democratic
institutions is to be regained.
(7) In May 1996 the Organization of American States (OAS)
adopted the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
requiring countries to provide various forms of international
cooperation and assistance to facilitate the prevention,
investigation, and prosecution of acts of corruption.
(8) Independent media, committed to fighting corruption and
trained in investigative journalism techniques, can both
educate the public on the costs of corruption and act as a
deterrent against corrupt officials.
(9) Competent and independent judiciary, founded on a
merit-based selection process and trained to enforce
contracts and protect property rights, is critical for
creating a predictable
[[Page 21092]]
and consistent environment for transparency in legal
procedures.
(10) Independent and accountable legislatures, responsive
political parties, and transparent electoral processes, in
conjunction with professional, accountable, and transparent
financial management and procurement policies and procedures,
are essential to the promotion of good governance and to the
combat of corruption.
(11) Transparent business frameworks, including modern
commercial codes and intellectual property rights, are vital
to enhancing economic growth and decreasing corruption at all
levels of society.
(12) The United States should attempt to improve
accountability in foreign countries, including by--
(A) promoting transparency and accountability through
support for independent media, promoting financial disclosure
by public officials, political parties, and candidates for
public office, open budgeting processes, adequate and
effective internal control systems, suitable financial
management systems, and financial and compliance reporting;
(B) supporting the establishment of audit offices,
inspectors general offices, third party monitoring of
government procurement processes, and anti-corruption
agencies;
(C) promoting responsive, transparent, and accountable
legislatures that ensure legislative oversight and whistle-
blower protection;
(D) promoting judicial reforms that criminalize corruption
and promoting law enforcement that prosecutes corruption;
(E) fostering business practices that promote transparent,
ethical, and competitive behavior in the private sector
through the development of an effective legal framework for
commerce, including anti-bribery laws, commercial codes that
incorporate international standards for business practices,
and protection of intellectual property rights; and
(F) promoting free and fair national, state, and local
elections.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to ensure that
United States assistance programs promote good governance by
assisting other countries to combat corruption throughout
society and to improve transparency and accountability at all
levels of government and throughout the private sector.
SEC. 203. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE POLICY.
(a) General Policy.--Section 101(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151(a)) is amended in the
fifth sentence--
(1) by striking ``four'' and inserting ``five'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the promotion of good governance through combating
corruption and improving transparency and accountability.''.
(b) Development Assistance Policy.--Section 102(b) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151-1(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) progress in combating corruption and improving
transparency and accountability in the public and private
sector.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Economic reform and development of effective
institutions of democratic governance are mutually
reinforcing. The successful transition of a developing
country is dependent upon the quality of its economic and
governance institutions. Rule of law, mechanisms of
accountability and transparency, security of person,
property, and investments, are but a few of the critical
governance and economic reforms that underpin the
sustainability of broad-based economic growth. Programs in
support of such reforms strengthen the capacity of people to
hold their governments accountable and to create economic
opportunity.''.
SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
Section 129(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151aa(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Emphasis on anti-corruption.--Such technical
assistance shall include elements designed to combat anti-
competitive, unethical, and corrupt activities, including
protection against actions that may distort or inhibit
transparency in market mechanisms and, to the extent
applicable, privatization procedures.''.
SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF GOOD GOVERNANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), as amended
by sections 105 and 107, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 133. PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD GOVERNANCE.
``(a) Establishment of Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The President is authorized to establish
programs that combat corruption, improve transparency and
accountability, and promote other forms of good governance in
countries described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Countries described.--A country described in this
paragraph is a country that is eligible to receive assistance
under this part (including chapter 4 of part II of this Act)
or the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of
1989.
``(3) Priority.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
President shall give priority to establishing programs in
countries that received a significant amount of United States
foreign assistance for the prior fiscal year, or in which the
United States has a significant economic interest, and that
continue to have the most persistent problems with public and
private corruption. In determining which countries have the
most persistent problems with public and private corruption
under the preceding sentence, the President shall take into
account criteria such as the Transparency International
Annual Corruption Perceptions Index, standards and codes set
forth by the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development and the International Monetary Fund, and other
relevant criteria.
``(4) Relation to other laws.--
``(A) In general.--Assistance provided for countries under
programs established pursuant to paragraph (1) may be made
available notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries. Assistance
provided under a program established pursuant to paragraph
(1) for a country that would otherwise be restricted from
receiving such assistance but for the preceding sentence may
not be provided directly to the government of the country.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply with
respect to--
``(i) section 620A of this Act or any comparable provision
of law prohibiting assistance to countries that support
international terrorism; or
``(ii) section 907 of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging
Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992.
``(b) Specific Projects and Activities.--The programs
established pursuant to subsection (a) shall include, to the
extent appropriate, projects and activities that--
``(1) support responsible independent media to promote
oversight of public and private institutions;
``(2) implement financial disclosure among public
officials, political parties, and candidates for public
office, open budgeting processes, and transparent financial
management systems;
``(3) support the establishment of audit offices,
inspectors general offices, third party monitoring of
government procurement processes, and anti-corruption
agencies;
``(4) promote responsive, transparent, and accountable
legislatures and local governments that ensure legislative
and local oversight and whistle-blower protection;
``(5) promote legal and judicial reforms that criminalize
corruption and law enforcement reforms and development that
encourage prosecutions of criminal corruption;
``(6) assist in the development of a legal framework for
commercial transactions that fosters business practices that
promote transparent, ethical, and competitive behavior in the
economic sector, such as commercial codes that incorporate
international standards and protection of intellectual
property rights;
``(7) promote free and fair national, state, and local
elections;
``(8) foster public participation in the legislative
process and public access to government information; and
``(9) engage civil society in the fight against corruption.
``(c) Conduct of Projects and Activities.--Projects and
activities under the programs established pursuant to
subsection (a) may include, among other things, training and
technical assistance (including drafting of anti-corruption,
privatization, and competitive statutory and administrative
codes), drafting of anti-corruption, privatization, and
competitive statutory and administrative codes, support for
independent media and publications, financing of the program
and operating costs of nongovernmental organizations that
carry out such projects or activities, and assistance for
travel of individuals to the United States and other
countries for such projects and activities.
``(d) Annual Report.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development, shall
prepare and transmit to the Committee on International
Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate an annual
report on--
``(A) projects and activities carried out under programs
established under subsection (a) for the prior year in
priority countries identified pursuant to subsection (a)(3);
and
``(B) projects and activities carried out under programs to
combat corruption, improve transparency and accountability,
and promote other forms of good governance established under
other provisions of law for the prior year in such countries.
``(2) Required contents.--The report required by paragraph
(1) shall contain the following information with respect to
each country described in paragraph (1):
``(A) A description of all United States Government-funded
programs and initiatives to combat corruption and improve
transparency and accountability in the country.
``(B) A description of United States diplomatic efforts to
combat corruption and improve transparency and accountability
in the country.
``(C) An analysis of major actions taken by the government
of the country to combat corruption and improve transparency
and accountability in the country.
[[Page 21093]]
``(e) Funding.--Amounts made available to carry out the
other provisions of this part (including chapter 4 of part II
of this Act) and the Support for East European Democracy
(SEED) Act of 1989 shall be made available to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Deadline for Initial Report.--The initial annual report
required by section 133(d)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as added by subsection (a), shall be transmitted not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``International Academic
Opportunity Act of 2000''.
SEC. 302. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to establish an
undergraduate grant program for students of limited financial
means from the United States to enable such students to study
abroad. Such foreign study is intended to broaden the outlook
and better prepare such students of demonstrated financial
need to assume significant roles in the increasingly global
economy.
SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN STUDY BY
AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS OF LIMITED FINANCIAL
MEANS.
(a) Establishment.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations and under the authorities of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, the Secretary
of State shall establish and carry out a program in each
fiscal year to award grants of up to $5,000, to individuals
who meet the requirements of subsection (b), toward the cost
of up to one academic year of undergraduate study abroad.
Grants under this Act shall be known as the ``Benjamin A.
Gilman International Scholarships''.
(b) Eligibility.--An individual referred to in subsection
(a) is an individual who--
(1) is a student in good standing at an institution of
higher education in the United States (as defined in section
101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965);
(2) has been accepted for up to one academic year of study
on a program of study abroad approved for credit by the
student's home institution;
(3) is receiving any need-based student assistance under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
(4) is a citizen or national of the United States.
(c) Application and Selection.--
(1) Grant application and selection shall be carried out
through accredited institutions of higher education in the
United States or a combination of such institutions under
such procedures as are established by the Secretary of State.
(2) In considering applications for grants under this
section--
(A) consideration of financial need shall include the
increased costs of study abroad; and
(B) priority consideration shall be given to applicants who
are receiving Federal Pell Grants under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965.
SEC. 304. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
The Secretary of State shall report annually to the
Congress concerning the grant program established under this
title. Each such report shall include the following
information for the preceding year:
(1) The number of participants.
(2) The institutions of higher education in the United
States that participants attended.
(3) The institutions of higher education outside the United
States participants attended during their study abroad.
(4) The areas of study of participants.
SEC. 305. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for each
fiscal year to carry out this title.
SEC. 306. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect October 1, 2000.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. SUPPORT FOR OVERSEAS COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Support for Overseas Cooperative Development Act''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the mutual economic interest of the United
States and peoples in developing and transitional countries
to promote cooperatives and credit unions.
(2) Self-help institutions, including cooperatives and
credit unions, provide enhanced opportunities for people to
participate directly in democratic decision-making for their
economic and social benefit through ownership and control of
business enterprises and through the mobilization of local
capital and savings and such organizations should be fully
utilized in fostering free market principles and the adoption
of self-help approaches to development.
(3) The United States seeks to encourage broad-based
economic and social development by creating and supporting--
(A) agricultural cooperatives that provide a means to lift
low income farmers and rural people out of poverty and to
better integrate them into national economies;
(B) credit union networks that serve people of limited
means through safe savings and by extending credit to
families and microenterprises;
(C) electric and telephone cooperatives that provide rural
customers with power and telecommunications services
essential to economic development;
(D) housing and community-based cooperatives that provide
low income shelter and work opportunities for the urban poor;
and
(E) mutual and cooperative insurance companies that provide
risk protection for life and property to under-served
populations often through group policies.
(c) General Provisions.--
(1) Declarations of policy.--The Congress supports the
development and expansion of economic assistance programs
that fully utilize cooperatives and credit unions,
particularly those programs committed to--
(A) international cooperative principles, democratic
governance and involvement of women and ethnic minorities for
economic and social development;
(B) self-help mobilization of member savings and equity and
retention of profits in the community, except for those
programs that are dependent on donor financing;
(C) market-oriented and value-added activities with the
potential to reach large numbers of low income people and
help them enter into the mainstream economy;
(D) strengthening the participation of rural and urban poor
to contribute to their country's economic development; and
(E) utilization of technical assistance and training to
better serve the member-owners.
(2) Development priorities.--Section 111 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``In meeting the requirement of the
preceding sentence, specific priority shall be given to the
following:
``(1) Agriculture.--Technical assistance to low income
farmers who form and develop member-owned cooperatives for
farm supplies, marketing and value-added processing.
``(2) Financial systems.--The promotion of national credit
union systems through credit union-to-credit union technical
assistance that strengthens the ability of low income people
and micro-entrepreneurs to save and to have access to credit
for their own economic advancement.
``(3) Infrastructure.--The support of rural electric and
telecommunication cooperatives for access for rural people
and villages that lack reliable electric and
telecommunications services.
``(4) Housing and community services.--The promotion of
community-based cooperatives which provide employment
opportunities and important services such as health clinics,
self-help shelter, environmental improvements, group-owned
businesses, and other activities.''.
(d) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, in consultation with
the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report on the implementation of section
111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i),
as amended by subsection (c).
SEC. 402. FUNDING OF CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITIES OF USAID.
(a) Allocation of Funds for Certain Environmental
Activities.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for
the fiscal year 2001 to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.;
relating to development assistance), there is authorized to
be available at least $60,200,000 to carry out activities of
the type carried out by the Global Environment Center of the
United States Agency for International Development during
fiscal year 2000.
(b) Allocation for Water and Coastal Resources.--Of the
amounts made available under subsection (a), at least
$2,500,000 shall be available for water and coastal resources
activities under the natural resources management function
specified in that subsection.
SEC. 403. PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ABROAD BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Priority for Disaster Relief Assistance.--In processing
applications for the transportation of humanitarian
assistance abroad under section 402 of title 10, United
States Code, the Administrator of the United States Agency
for International Development shall afford a priority to
applications for the transportation of disaster relief
assistance.
(b) Modification of Applications.--The Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development shall take
all possible actions to assist applicants for the
transportation of humanitarian assistance abroad under such
section 402 in modifying or completing applications submitted
under such section in order to meet applicable requirements
under such section. The actions shall include efforts to
contact such applicants for purposes of the modification or
completion of such applications.
SEC. 404. WORKING CAPITAL FUND.
Section 635 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2395) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(m)(1) There is established a working capital fund (in
this subsection referred to as the `fund') for the United
States Agency for International Development (in this
subsection referred to as the `Agency') which shall be
available without fiscal year limitation for the expenses of
personal and nonpersonal services, equipment, and supplies
for--
``(A) International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services; and
``(B) rebates from the use of United States Government
credit cards.
[[Page 21094]]
``(2) The capital of the fund shall consist of--
``(A) the fair and reasonable value of such supplies,
equipment, and other assets pertaining to the functions of
the fund as the Administrator determines,
``(B) rebates from the use of United States Government
credit cards, and
``(C) any appropriations made available for the purpose of
providing capital,
minus related liabilities.
``(3) The fund shall be reimbursed or credited with advance
payments for services, equipment, or supplies provided from
the fund from applicable appropriations and funds of the
Agency, other Federal agencies and other sources authorized
by section 607 at rates that will recover total expenses of
operation, including accrual of annual leave and
depreciation. Receipts from the disposal of, or payments for
the loss or damage to, property held in the fund, rebates,
reimbursements, refunds and other credits applicable to the
operation of the fund may be deposited in the fund.
``(4) At the close of each fiscal year the Administrator of
the Agency shall transfer out of the fund to the
miscellaneous receipts account of the Treasury of the United
States such amounts as the Administrator determines to be in
excess of the needs of the fund.
``(5) The fund may be charged with the current value of
supplies and equipment returned to the working capital of the
fund by a post, activity, or agency, and the proceeds shall
he credited to current applicable appropriations.''.
SEC. 405. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES MISSION TO
THE UNITED NATIONS PROVIDED LIVING QUARTERS IN
NEW YORK.
Section 9(2) of the United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287e-1(2)) is amended by striking ``18'' and
inserting ``30''.
SEC. 406. AVAILABILITY OF VOA AND RADIO MARTI MULTILINGUAL
COMPUTER READABLE TEXT AND VOICE RECORDINGS.
Section 1(b) of Public Law 104-269 (110 Stat. 3300) is
amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
SEC. 407. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN MATERIALS OF THE VOICE OF
AMERICA.
(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this section,
the Broadcasting Board of Governors (in this section referred
to as the ``Board'') is authorized to make available to the
Institute for Media Development (in this section referred to
as the ``Institute''), at the request of the Institute,
previously broadcast audio and video materials produced by
the Africa Division of the Voice of America.
(2) Deposit of materials.--Upon the request of the
Institute and the approval of the Board, materials made
available under paragraph (1) may be deposited with the
University of California, Los Angeles, or such other
appropriate institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)) that is approved by the Board for such purpose.
(3) Supersedes existing law.--Materials made available
under paragraph (1) may be provided notwithstanding section
501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange
Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) and section 208 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22
U.S.C. 1461-1a).
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Authorized purposes.--Materials made available under
this section shall be used only for academic and research
purposes and may not be used for public or commercial
broadcast purposes.
(2) Prior agreement required.--Before making available
materials under subsection (a)(1), the Board shall enter into
an agreement with the Institute providing for--
(A) reimbursement of the Board for any expenses involved in
making such materials available;
(B) the establishment of guidelines by the Institute for
the archiving and use of the materials to ensure that
copyrighted works contained in those materials will not be
used in a manner that would violate the copyright laws of the
United States (including international copyright conventions
to which the United States is a party);
(C) the indemnification of the United States by the
Institute in the event that any use of the materials results
in violation of the copyright laws of the United States
(including international copyright conventions to which the
United States is a party);
(D) the authority of the Board to terminate the agreement
if the provisions of paragraph (1) are violated; and
(E) any other terms and conditions relating to the
materials that the Board considers appropriate.
(c) Crediting of Reimbursements to Board Appropriations
Account.--Any reimbursement of the Board under subsection (b)
shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to the
currently applicable appropriation account of the Board.
(d) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided under
this section shall cease to have effect on the date that is 5
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 408. PAUL D. COVERDELL FELLOWS PROGRAM ACT OF 2000.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Paul
D. Coverdell Fellows Program Act of 2000''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Paul D. Coverdell was elected to the George State
Senate in 1970 and later became Minority Leader of the
Georgia State Senate, a post he held for 15 years.
(2) Paul D. Coverdell served with distinction as the 11th
Director of the Peace Corps from 1989 to 1991, where he
promoted a fellowship program that was composed of returning
Peace Corps volunteers who agreed to work in underserved
American communities while they pursued educational degrees.
(3) Paul D. Coverdell served in the United States Senate
from the State of Georgia from 1993 until his sudden death on
July 18, 2000.
(4) Senator Paul D. Coverdell was beloved by his colleagues
for his civility, bipartisan efforts, and his dedication to
public service.
(c) Designation of Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program.--
(1) In general.--Effective on the date of enactment of this
Act, the program under section 18 of the Peace Corps Act (22
U.S.C. 2517) referred to before such date as the ``Peace
Corps Fellows/USA Program'' is redesignated as the ``Paul D.
Coverdell Fellows Program''.
(2) References.--Any reference before the date of enactment
of this Act in any law, regulation, order, document, record,
or other paper of the United States to the Peace Corps
Fellows/USA Program shall, on and after such date, be
considered to refer to the Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program.
Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from New York?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Speaker, I will not object. I just take the time to spend one
moment to commend the chairman and the conferees on this important
piece of legislation. It was not long ago that the chairman and I and
the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined together to continue
this effort to make microenterprise a central element of our foreign
assistance. I want to say that the chairman has done an outstanding job
in continuing that effort.
I yield to the gentleman from New York for any comments he might
make.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
thank the gentleman from Connecticut who has been a cosponsor of this
measure for being so supportive of this measure.
I am pleased today to ask our colleagues to support H.R. 1143, the
Microenterprise for Self-Reliance and International Anti-Corruption Act
of 2000.
Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 1143, the Microenterprise of Self-
Reliance Act, in 1999 to increase support for the very important work
of microenterprise institutions the world over who produce tangible
results and change the lives of thousands of poor people in developing
societies.
This landmark bill not only honors the fine organizations and leaders
who promote private enterprise and development efforts throughout the
world in furtherance of our country's objective of helping those who
help themselves, but also serves to place a higher priority on
microenterprise programs as an essential component of our development
assistance.
This bill is designed to provide a framework for the delivery of seed
capital to poor entrepreneurs who are the backbone of the informal
economies in developing countries. By strengthening micro enterprises,
more income is generated and jobs are created at the grassroots level.
Hence, poor economies grow and the need for foreign development
assistance declines.
In Africa, more than 80 percent of employment is generated in the
informal sector by the self-employed poor. However, many poor
entrepreneurs are trapped in poverty because they cannot obtain credit
at reasonable rates to build their asset base or expand their otherwise
viable self-employment activities.
The microenterprise community has clearly demonstrated that the poor
are capable of expanding their incomes and their businesses
dramatically when they can access micro-loans at reasonable rates. H.R.
1143, authorizes programs that can reach these poor people who want to
help themselves and thereby help to build their societies.
To date, many fine organizations such as the Foundation for
International Community Assistance, Action International, and
Opportunities International have built fine records that illustrate
that lending directly to the poor is a good investment and that poor
people can do repay their loans and build successful businesses.
Mr. Speaker, Microenterprise institutions not only reduce poverty,
but they also reduce dependency and enhance self-worth. These are
[[Page 21095]]
ultimately the objectives that we all wish to achieve in the developing
world.
I am pleased to highlight that microenterprise institutions are very
successful in raising private funds in conjunction with those provided
by our government. These efforts are commendable and should be
replicated in other foreign assistance programs as well. It is
precisely this approach of having the private and public sectors
working together that will yield the results and genuine development
that we all seek for the less fortunate of the globe.
By providing access to micro credit to the world's poor, our country
stimulates the entrepreneurial spirit and helps to develop and
stimulate the informal economies of some of the world's poorest
countries. This investment, rather than a hand out, makes good sense
and makes a true difference in the lives of the less fortunate.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the microenterprise community,
especially the Microenterprise Coalition, including FINCA, Action
International, and Results for their constructive suggestions and
assistance. I am also grateful for the assistance provided by the
Administration and the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time under my reservation, if I could
just add, also, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the
chairman, as well, for their work on the anti-corruption portions of
this conference report. This is an important piece of legislation.
America has lost as much as $26 billion to foreign bribes. We have now
got our G-8 partners joining with us to fight corruption and bribery.
This legislation will help build strong democracies globally.
Over the past five years, U.S. firms overseas lost nearly $26 billion
in business opportunities to foreign competitors offering bribes.
Unethical business practices continue to jeopardize our ability to
compete effectively in the international market.
Bribery and other forms of corruption impede governments in their
efforts to deliver basic services to their citizens; they undermine the
confidence of people in democracy; and they are all too often linked
with trans-border criminal activity, including drug-trafficking,
organized crime, and money laundering.
In 1999, the Vice President convened a Global Conference on Fighting
Corruption where he declared corruption to be a direct threat to the
rule of law and a matter of profound political and social consequence
for our efforts to strengthen democratic governments.
It is inarguably in the U.S. national interest to fight corruption
and promote transparency and good governance.
My bill will make anti-corruption measures a key principle of our
foreign aid program.
By helping these countries root out corruption, bribery and unethical
business practices, we can also help create a level playing field for
U.S. companies doing business abroad.
When Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, the
United States became the first industrialized country to criminalize
corruption. It took us nearly two decades to get all the other
industrialized nations to do the same. But American leadership and
perseverance succeeded in getting countries which once offered tax
write-offs for bribes to pass laws that criminalized bribery.
This bill extends our leadership in fighting corruption to the
developing countries.
The International Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Act of 2000
requires that foreign assistance be used to fight corruption at all
levels of government and in the private sector in countries that have
persistent problems with corruption, particularly where the United
States has a significant economic interest.
The bill would also require an annual report on U.S. efforts in
fighting corruption in those countries which have the most persistent
problems. My intent in requiring this report is to get from the
Administration a comprehensive look at all U.S. efforts--diplomatic as
well as through our foreign aid program--in those 15-20 countries where
we have a significant economic interest or a substantial foreign aid
program and where there is a persistent problem with corruption.
This bill makes an important contribution to pro-actively preventing
crises that would result from stifled economic growth, lack of foreign
investment, and erosion of the public's trust in government.
Among other things, the act establishes anti-corruption and good
governance programs as priorities within our foreign assistance
programs. The act underscores the importance of our efforts to combat
corruption and promote good governance overseas.
It will also allow administrations some flexibility in those
relatively rare circumstances where developments on the ground, such as
a coup or an economic crisis, would otherwise restrict it from acting
through nongovernmental organizations.
Thus, provisions of law that would otherwise restrict assistance to
foreign countries are made inapplicable, with certain exceptions, to
assistance provided in furtherance of this act. Assistance that would
have been prohibited except for this authority cannot be provided
directly to the government of such a country, but can be provided to
the government through grants and contracts with nongovernmental
organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Without prejudice to the
possible resumption of legislative business and under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 1999, and under a previous order of the
House, the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that U.S. citizens would be
furious if they realized that each person pays $100 each year to the
Federal Reserve to rent the paper money we use. Why do we each pay $100
for the privilege of using Federal Reserve notes when we could use
United States Treasury currency with no cost at all? If we issued our
paper money the same way that we issue our coins, we could reduce the
national debt by $600 billion and eliminate $30 billion out of annual
payments, interest payments on the Treasury bonds, interest on the U.S.
Treasury bonds held by the Federal Reserve supposedly to back the
currency.
The Federal Reserve notes we use are technically liabilities of the
Fed. It would be easy to fix this badly broken system. Congress need
only pass a law declaring that all Federal Reserve notes are officially
United States Treasury currency. This would relieve the Fed of all
liability for our paper money, and they would then be required to
return the bonds that they have held as backing for our currency
presently.
We owe it to the citizens of our country to make every effort to
reduce this foolish and costly burden.
____________________
COMMENDING IDAHO STUDENTS FOR TAKING THE PLEDGE TO SAVE OUR SCHOOLS
FROM VIOLENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, tragic events often imprint on our minds
vivid memories. Most Americans remember exactly where they were when
President John F. Kennedy was killed or when the Challenger spaceship
exploded. I believe Americans will remember where they were when two
high school students in Littleton, Colorado, killed 13 innocent people.
As the Representative for Idaho's Second Congressional District, I
clearly remember when I learned of the Columbine massacre. I was voting
on a series of bills when a member of my staff pulled me to the
television. I watched as students ran out of the school accompanied by
SWAT teams. I witnessed a young man breaking a second store library
window and falling into a fireman's arms in order to escape the
rampage. These images will haunt America forever.
Unfortunately, school violence is too common today. In 1940, public
school teachers ranked the top seven disciplinary problems in public
schools. They were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise,
running in the hall, cutting in line, dress code violations and
littering. In 1990, the problems had
[[Page 21096]]
changed to drug and alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery
and assault. In the last 12 months alone the number of children
bringing weapons to schools in Idaho is up more than 25 percent. Our
problems have changed significantly and so must our solutions.
After the Columbine tragedy, I decided a dialogue must begin on the
local level to bring about positive change rather than focusing on
Federal legislation. I organized three town hall meetings in my
district called Saving Our Schools, or SOS meetings. I invited the
student body presidents to participate in a panel about school
violence. Each president from the surrounding schools also signed an
antiviolence pledge that they took back to their high schools.
Today, it is my pleasure to report that more than 5,000 students from
over 40 Idaho high schools in my district took the pledge. The pledge
reads: ``I pledge to keep my school and community safe by never using
violence to solve my disagreements and taking personal responsibility
for my actions.'' Some of those Idaho high schools include Aberdeen
High School, Blackfoot High School from which I graduated, Buhl,
Burley, Butte, Castleford, Firth, and on and on.
The maturity and perception of the students during the town hall
meetings and assemblies impressed me. Idaho holds top-notch students
who care about their schools. School violence is not going away, and
there is not just one answer. But my hope is that schools and
communities will look for answers tailored to their needs to ensure
schools are places of learning, not of fear.
I encourage my colleagues to initiate similar dialogues with the
students, parents and school officials in the communities of their
districts before tragedy strikes, not after. As we begin another school
year, I hope my House colleagues will urge the students in their
districts to take the pledge against violence in our Nation's schools.
____________________
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, on April 12, I led an hour of debate of
prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. I read three letters
from around the state from seniors who shared their personal stories.
On the 12th, I made a commitment to continue to read a different letter
every week until the House enacts reform. That was six months ago.
Although the House passed a prescription drug bill this summer, I
believe it will not help most seniors. So, I will continue to read
letters until Congress enacts a real Medicare prescription drug
benefit. This week, I will read a letter from Harriet Simmons of
Detroit, Michigan.
Text of the letter:
Dear Congresswoman Stabenow: I am writing to express my
concern over the escalating cost of prescription drugs for
seniors. As a senior myself, I must take the medicines
prescribed by my doctor to maintain my health. The cost of
these drugs can rise from month to month. Sometimes, I have
had to purchase half of my medicine or take less so it will
last longer.
The Michigan Emergency Pharmaceutical Program for Seniors
provides temporary help for 3 months out of the year if you
qualify. But, what are we to do the remaining 9 months? Many
seniors are too young or just above the income guidelines to
qualify. We need help in obtaining our prescriptions for the
above cited reasons. I support your efforts to lower the cost
of drugs for seniors.
I would like to add: We are senior citizens today but
yesterday we were active, tax paying citizens. Don't mistreat
us now. We need protection.
Sincerely,
Harriett Simmons.
Harriet deserves a genuine Medicare prescription drug benefit. Time
is running out to do something in this Congress. We must enact real
prescription drug reform before we adjourn.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is good news, I think, for
people that are concerned with Social Security. Social Security is one
of America's most important programs. I think we have missed a great
opportunity in the last 8 years not to develop the kind of policy
changes in Social Security that will for sure keep it solvent. Now it
is part of the great debate, and I think it is important that we all
understand a little better how the Social Security program works.
Social Security benefits are a guaranteed act; and the fact is, is that
there is going not to be enough money coming in from the payroll tax to
pay benefits without some changes. The big change is a better return on
the investments.
When Franklin Roosevelt created the Social Security program over 6
decades ago, he wanted it to feature a private sector component to
build retirement income. Social Security was supposed to be one leg of
a three-legged stool to support retirees. It was supposed to go hand in
hand with personal savings and private pension plans. Of course, when
it passed through the Senate, it is interesting. The Senate on two
votes back in 1935 said that it had to be optional investments so
individuals could invest their own money. Provisions were put into that
law so that certain States and counties would be allowed to have
alternative private investment plans, and now we are seeing counties in
Texas and around the country that opted out of Social Security getting
four or five, six, 10 times as much benefits from their pension
retirement plans that they own as opposed to what Social Security would
pay.
The biggest risk is doing nothing at all in Social Security. One
thing I am concerned about is President Clinton and Vice President Gore
have suggested that we simply add huge, giant IOUs to the Social
Security trust fund. The problem with that is that the full faith and
credit of this country is good, but the way we pay back Treasury notes
now is simply to borrow more money. If we are going to borrow $20
trillion, it is going to tremendously change the economics of this
country.
{time} 1315
Social Security has a total unfunded liability of over $20 trillion.
The Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs. That means
you have to either borrow the money to pay it back, increase taxes to
pay it back, or you have to reduce benefits. We have to have two things
very clear: No increase in taxes, and no reduction in benefits for
existing or near-term retirees.
To keep paying the promised Social Security benefits, the payroll tax
will have to be increased at least 50 percent of total income or
benefits will have to be cut by one-third. Neither of those options are
good.
In conclusion, this is the demonstrated problem of Social Security.
We are in a short range up to for the next 12 to 15 years of a little
more money coming in in the Social Security payroll tax than is needed
to pay benefits. But then look what happens in the out years. Twenty
trillion, in today's dollars, but in those dollars that are going to
have to be paid out over and above what is coming in from the Social
Security tax 50 or 60 years from now, it is going to be 120 trillion of
those inflated future year dollars. Huge problems. It needs to be dealt
with now. We have to get a better return on the investment.
The six principles of saving Social Security that I and Senator Rod
Grams have come up with are: Protect the current and future
beneficiaries; allow freedom of choice; preserve the safety net; make
Americans better off, not worse off; create a fully funded system; and
no increase in taxes.
Right now the average American worker pays more in the payroll FICA
tax than in the income tax. Seventy-eight percent of American workers
pay more in the FICA tax than they do the income tax. Let us not
increase taxes on them again. Let us do something now, so we do not
pass this burden on to our kids and grandkids.
____________________
[[Page 21097]]
RYAN WHITE CARE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able
to rise and support S. 2311, the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE
Act. This legislation needed to come to the floor before the end of the
106th Congress. It is imperative that we continue the fight for
treatment dollars to deal with those who are HIV infected and those who
are affected.
Thanks to the efforts of collaboration, this legislation provides a
funding formula that will actually ensure that all Americans suffering
from this devastating disease are properly covered. In particular, it
will work to enhance some of the devastated areas in African-American
areas and Hispanic areas to provide resources for those communities.
The legislation maintains the integrity of the multi-structure of the
CARE Act, allowing funds to be targeted to the areas hardest hit by the
HIV and AIDS epidemic. In addition, I am pleased that the legislation
maintains and, in fact, strengthens the decision-making authority of
local planning councils and allows resources to be used to locate and
bring more individuals into the health care system.
I am also delighted to learn that the bill will provide more
individuals with early intervention services, such as counseling and
testing. This is particularly important in the 18th Congressional
District, where many faith-based organizations, nonprofits, are now
realizing the importance of education and prevention and speaking the
cultural language of the different unique communities that need to
understand the dangers of not having knowledge about HIV and AIDS.
This bill, that I have supported in years past and am delighted to
extend my support, extends Medicare coverage to people living with HIV.
Under this legislation adopted now, States will have the ability to add
poor and low-income uninsured persons living with HIV to the list of
persons categorically eligible for Medicaid.
This is very important for people in the 18th Congressional District
here in Houston for getting proper coverage, and it is very critical
that they receive the kind of quality care that is necessary. There are
HIV-infected persons in my district and across America that need some
relief immediately, and thus the Medicaid provision is imperative.
Under current rules, most people living with HIV are ineligible for
Medicaid until they have progressed to AIDS and are disabled. We wanted
to engage individuals who are infected so they can have the proper care
and treatment. We know with the new health care revolutions and the new
drug treatments that have come about, it is very important to have
early intervention so that these individuals can live full, active
lives. New treatments, such as the highly active heart therapy, are
successfully delaying the progression of HIV progression to AIDS.
Mr. Speaker, this is very exciting. We can turn this situation
around. Early access to HIV treatment is imperative. I remember coming
to this Congress in the early 1990s or in 1990 as a local elected
official to join with Senator Kennedy as he introduced the Ryan White
treatment dollars.
This reauthorization is a testimony that it works, that treatment
works, and now we must focus on prevention. I believe the legislation
must be signed by the President. The formula will add to people's
lives; it will in fact save lives. I am very delighted to support this
legislation, and I look forward to it being signed by the President so
that it can save lives, not only in Texas and in my district, but
throughout this Nation, as we continue to fight the AIDS epidemic
throughout the world.
____________________
CONGRESS RESTORES THE UPARR PROGRAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the
House passed the Department of Interior appropriations conference
report for the year 2001 by an overwhelming margin. Many of the votes
for that legislation were the result of an historic commitment of funds
to efforts to preserve our national resources, including parks and
other public lands, wildlife, endangered species, forest programs and
others.
We are providing this support through a new $1.6 billion Lands fund
because of the severe underfunding of resource programs over the past
decade that have led to a deterioration of the environment and the
recreational opportunities for tens of millions of Americans who
treasure their national parks, wilderness areas, coasts and other
public lands.
No program has been more unjustifiably undermined than the Urban
Parks and Recreation Program known as UPARR.
UPARR is a vital program that provides on a matching basis relatively
small grants to towns and cities throughout America to try and provide
some expanded recreational opportunities to children who have very few
alternative recreational opportunities. Across this country, there are
dozens of towns and cities where baseball fields are overgrown, soccer
fields are short of equipment, gyms and courts are unusable, and every
day tens of thousands of children pass by those vacant and useless
playgrounds and gyms and have to find something to do after school and
in their evening hours. These are the children who fall prey to crime
and drugs and gangs and inappropriate sexual activity that place these
children and their futures in jeopardy.
UPARR answers a terrible need for these children in their
communities. And yet, for the past decade, UPARR has been denied
funding by the Congress. Even though dozens of cities and towns filed
applications and were prepared to raise the matching funds, the
Congress refused to provide even minimal funding for UPARR, despite all
the statements of concern about children's well-being and about the
need for after school athletics and mentoring programs.
For the past several years, I have been working with a wide range of
organizations to fund the UPARR program. I want to pay special tribute
to Tom Cove, the Vice President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers
Association, who has spent so much of his time helping to build a
network of people outside of Washington on behalf of UPARR's revival
and who has been so successful here in the Congress and the
administration in persuading people of this vital program.
The UPARR coalition consists of a diverse array of organizations and
interests, including the National Council of Youth Sports, which
represents 46 million children through the National Youth Sports
Leagues, such as Little League, Pop Warner football; the Amateur
Athletic Union; the U.S. Soccer Foundation; PONY baseball; and the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, especially Mayor Victor Ashe of Knoxville, Mark
Morial of New Orleans, and Rosemary Corbin of Richmond, California.
We have also had tremendous help from professional sports
organizations and players, who recognize the need in providing young
people a safe place to play and learn. I want to recognize our friends
at the National Football League, the NFL Player Association, and Major
League Baseball's ``Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities'' program. We
have also had great support from the Police Athletic League, and I
especially want to recognize them. They have fought long and hard with
us for today's victory for UPARR.
I also want to pay tribute to some of the people in the Seventh
Congressional District of California who have been energetic and
indefatigable supporters of UPARR, including Mayor Rosemary Corbin of
Richmond, California; C.A. Robertson of the Richmond Police Activities
League and the state-wide Police Activities League; the Greater Vallejo
Recreation District and its general manager, Skip Radziewicz; and the
Tri-City County Open Space Committee and its chair, Duane Krumm.
Throughout the Nation, individuals such as these have joined together
and demanded that Congress provide substantial new funding for UPARR;
and
[[Page 21098]]
this week, they succeeded. When we began this effort, UPARR was
receiving nothing, only a few short years ago, not one cent, despite
all the rhetoric about concern for our children. So we committed
ourselves to UPARR's revival; and we began slow, finding a couple of
million dollars on the House floor from here and there.
We were able to convince the Clinton administration that this was a
worthy program that met the President and First Lady's goals for
children, and a couple of million dollars was included in last year's
budget.
This year the President asked for $10 million; and in the bill we
passed today, that number was increased to $30 million for each of the
next 6 years. I want to thank the members of the Committee on
Appropriations for that increase, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks). And we intend to get more, because with this
program we can turn our cities around and we can change the lives of
millions of young children.
Today's bill, while not the level of funding we sought in the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is an enormous increase to $30
million for each of the next 6 years, with the promise of more above
that. With the coalition we have built, I am confident we will
successfully compete for dollars within the Committee on Appropriations
for UPARR dollars and build a network of recreation and athletic
facilities throughout the cities and towns of this Nation.
____________________
STATEMENT OF ROANE COUNTY, TENNESSEE, HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL JODY McLOUD
CONCERNING SCHOOL PRAYER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, William Raspberry, the
great columnist for the Washington Post, asked in a column these words.
He said, ``Is it not just possible that anti-religious bias
masquerading as religious neutrality has cost this country far more
than it has been willing to acknowledge?'' I think that is a very good
question.
In light of that, I would like to read a statement that Roane County,
Tennessee, high school principal Jody McLoud read over the public
address system before his school's first football game on September 1,
following the Supreme Court decision outlawing or banning prayer at
high school football games across the Nation.
Mr. McLoud said this:
It has always been the custom at Roane County High School
football games to say a prayer and play the National anthem
to honor God and country. Due to a recent ruling by the
Supreme Court, I am told that saying a prayer is a violation
of Federal case law.
As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public
facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it an
alternative lifestyle and if someone is offended, that's
okay.
I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity by dispensing
condoms and calling it safe sex. If someone is offended,
that's okay.
I can even use this public facility to present the merits
of killing an unborn baby as a viable means of birth control.
If someone is offended, no problem.
I can designate a school day as Earth Day and involve
students in activities to religiously worship and praise the
Goddess Mother Earth and call it ecology.
I can use literature, videos and presentations in the
classroom that depict people with strong traditional
Christian convictions as simple minded and ignorant and call
it enlightenment.
However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and ask
Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship,
Federal case law is violated.
This appears to be, at best, inconsistent, and, at worst,
diabolical.
Mr. McLoud continued.
Apparently we are to be tolerant of everything and everyone
except God and His commandments.
Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff
and students to abide by rules with which they do not
necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be at best
inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. I suffer from that
affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to
add an intentional transgression.
For this reason, I shall ``render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's'' and refrain praying at this time. However, if you
feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and to ask Him
in the name of Jesus to bless this event, please feel free to
do so. As far as I know, that is not against the law yet.
That is the statement by Roane County, Tennessee, High School
Principal Jody McLoud.
I can tell you that we open up every session of the House and Senate
with prayer, but it is unfortunate, the recent Supreme Court decision.
I commend Roane County, Tennessee, High School Principal Jody McLoud
for this very fine statement, and I close by asking the question that
William Raspberry asked a few years ago in his column, is it not just
possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious
neutrality, has cost this Nation far more than it has been willing to
acknowledge?
____________________
{time} 1330
RESTORE FEDERAL RECOGNITION TO THE MIAMI NATION OF INDIANA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have introduced a bill to
restore the Federal recognition to the Miami Nation of Indiana.
The Miami Nation of Indiana is one of our most historic Indian
nations. Unfortunately, it is not currently recognized by the Federal
Government. It is an ironic situation that we face. When Anthony Wayne
won the battle of Fallen Timbers that lead directly to the Treaty of
Greenville in 1795, the Miami Nation, at that point a defeated nation,
entered into negotiations over a period of time with William Henry
Harrison in the Northwest Territory and the Federal Government, ceding
millions of acres.
Chief Richardville, the civil chief of the tribe, and Little Turtle,
the war chief of the Miami Nation, did the best they could to keep as
many Miamis in Indiana as possible, approximately at that point 800.
The rest were transported in one of the many cases of mistreatment of
Native Americans by the American Government, and moved across the
Mississippi River.
That tribe continued to be recognized and currently is basically the
Miami of Oklahoma. They have completely at this point a distinctive
history, a distinctive tribal form of government from the Miami Nation
of Indiana. They moved across the Mississippi, then down into Oklahoma,
have their own tribal governments and work with that, and occasionally
even come in conflict with their brothers from Indiana over what to do
with artifacts, over what things are important in the tribe. Because
quite frankly, the Indiana Miami are not in many ways a traditional
nation, in the sense they were not part of the reservation system that
many other Indian tribes in America were part of.
Their goals as a tribe are different. Theirs are predominantly
historic and cultural goals as opposed to necessarily the same
financial goals, because they are more or less integrated in, but that
does not mean that they have not been a continual independent nation.
Much of this is detailed in the book ``The Miami Indians of Indiana.''
This particular book was given to me by Charles Bevington, or
Meshintoquah, chief of the Pecongeah Clan of the Miami Nation of
Indiana.
And he, Chuck, still gets benefits from the treaty of Greenville from
1795. His kids get benefits from the Treaty of Greenville; yet our
government says they are not an Indian tribe. Now, wait a minute. If
they are getting treaty benefits directly from 1795, this seems like a
tad of a stretch.
Let me make a couple of points with this: one is, they have been in
continual relationship with the Federal Government, one of the
standards to be an independent Indian nation. One of the problems was
that in 1897, the Secretary of the Interior based on an opinion by a
then assistant Secretary withdrew the acknowledgment of the Indiana
Miamis as a tribe.
[[Page 21099]]
Since then, Congress has never terminated this relationship. Since
then, there has been an acknowledgment that that was an error in 1897.
In 1990, the Department of the Interior specifically admitted that the
opinion of Attorney General Van Devanter was incorrect and that the
trust relationship of the Indiana Miamis was wrongfully terminated. In
other words, in 1897 this was wrongfully done. They reappealed to the
BIA and lost their appeal, because, apparently, some of the minutes
from meetings in either the late 1950s or early 1960s were lost partly
because the Secretary's house trailer burned and the Miami did not have
records of their continual meetings they had. They had powwows in our
district, and throughout parts of northern Indiana they have had a
consistent form of tribal government. So we are basically looking at
technicalities that have disqualified a nation that is one of our most
historic.
Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. The famous Indian
chief, Little Turtle, was one of the greatest warriors in American
history. This is a drawing by a Miami of Indiana person who lives in
Fort Wayne area, my hometown. What is interesting about this is, this
is not a drawing that is contemporary of its period, because the only
oil painting of Little Turtle was in the White House, and it was burned
when the White House was burned in 1812 when James Madison was
President. And it was by Gilbert Stuart.
But this is a likeness drawn after that. Little Turtle is famous
because on American soil, he is the only person to have defeated full-
blown American armies authorized by this Congress, not once, but twice,
bigger defeats, than Custard, bigger defeats than the Western,
different things where Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and all of those
famous Indian chiefs, Little Turtle defeated American armies twice.
George Washington said they had to get the junction of the rivers in
what is now Fort Wayne but at that time was Kekionga, because it was
the controlling of the Northwest territory and we would have never had
a Lewis and Clark. We never would have had a Louisiana Purchase if we
could not get control of the Northwest Territory. Little Turtle twice
defeated those armies.
He was victorious right near Eel River where his settlement was, and
he also defeated La Balme from France, who was considered the foremost
calvary officer in France.
But then Little Turtle realized he was not going to be able to defeat
Anthony Wayne. He stayed in the coalition with Blue Jacket and other
Indian tribes, the Shawnee and others; but they were defeated at the
battle of Fallen Timbers and that led to a change in the West. Little
Turtle decided to work with the United States Government. Then the
civil chief, Chief Richardville, also decided to work with the United
States Government and in Fort Wayne. We hope within a few months this
will be a national historic landmark; it is the oldest Indian treaty
house east of the Mississippi still on its site.
It is Chief Richardville's house. It is where the Miami Nation
congregated. It was their civil chief. We also have Richardville's son-
in-law Lafontaine, in an Indian house. After all, Indiana is named
after the Indians, but we do not have respect and have not respected
them enough.
We have two treasures of these homes. This is apparently the only
Native American home east of the Mississippi on its original site.
Richardville and Little Turtle were in fact in essence punished because
they stopped warring with the United States.
It is time that the United States correct what are acknowledged
wrongs in decertifying the Miami Nation in 1897, to reconcile the
bookkeeping error. One last point, they have agreed by a 12 to zero
council meeting to suspend their gaming rights. The act says that
pursuant they will not pursue gaming in class 3, and only be allowed
with expressed approval from Congress.
It is unfortunate that true rights are being denied because of
gambling, but they have agreed to suspend theirs.
____________________
JAMES RIADY INVITES BILL CLINTON TO LIPPO BOARD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last year, during our
investigation, the Committee on Government Reform had John Huang
testify that James Riady, a close personal friend of the President of
the United States, organized a scheme to funnel a million dollars into
the President's campaign in the early 1990s. Around $700,000 to
$800,000 of that money was raised, brought into the country from
Indonesia through conduits, and funneled into the campaign as had been
promised.
We believe much more than that was brought in, but that is all we
could account for. Most of that money was sent back, was returned,
because it was illegal campaign contributions. We have been after the
Justice Department for some time to, in absentia, indict Mr. Riady for
illegal campaign contributions and for obstruction of justice.
Mr. Riady fled the country. He is now living in Indonesia, and he is
one of the major partners or executive officers in the Lippo Group,
which was formed by his father, Mochtar Riady, sometime ago.
Mr. Riady also orchestrated a complex scheme to launder over $4
million in political contributions to various campaigns, parties and
other nonprofit groups in addition to the money that he gave to the
President's campaign in the early 1990s.
And throughout the 1990s, he worked with John Huang, helped get John
Huang appointed to the Democratic National Committee leadership, so
that he could extract more money from illegal sources in China and the
Far East, including Indonesia.
The Justice Department has not moved to indict Mr. Riady, and that is
something that we have really been fighting with them about, because we
think, even though he is in Indonesia, he has violated American law, he
has fled the country, and he has not complied with subpoenas from our
committee and others.
One of the things that really bothers me, and the reason I come to
the floor today, is not to rehash what we have known for a long time,
Mr. Speaker; but today we find out that Mr. Riady invites the President
of the United States to be on the Lippo board of directors in
Indonesia. This comes right from the Far Eastern Economic Review that
was reported today, and I urge my colleagues to look at the article.
Mr. Speaker, I include this article for the Record.
Riady Invites Clinton to Lippo Board
Indonesian tycoon James Riady has invited U.S. President
Bill Clinton to join the board of Lippo Group when he steps
down from Office early next year, according to business
people who have met Riady in Jakarta recently. Riady has been
telling business contacts in Jakarta that he expects Clinton
to accept, even though the U.S. president has been dogged by
allegations that Riady funnelled illegal foreign donations to
Clinton's 1992 and 1996 election campaigns. A former Lippo
Group employee reports that as far back as the mid-1990's
Riady was said to be trying to recruit Clinton to the board
as soon as he left office. Jakarta police are currently
helping the U.S. Justice Department in its investigation of
the alleged campaign contributions.
The article reads like this: ``Riady invites Clinton to Lippo board.
Indonesian tycoon James Riady has invited President Bill Clinton to
join the board of Lippo Group when he steps down from office early next
year, according to business people who have met with Mr. Riady in
Jakarta recently. Riady has been telling business contacts in Jakarta
that he expects Clinton to accept even though the U.S. President has
been dogged by allegations that Riady funneled illegal foreign
contributions to the 1992 and 1996 campaigns.''
The thing that is interesting about this, and I am not accusing the
President of anything, so I do not want to be stopped for anything, but
the thing that is interesting about this, Mr. Speaker, is that the
beneficiary of one of the major decisions by the administration was the
Riady group, the Lippo Group, in Indonesia.
[[Page 21100]]
Sometime in the 1990s, the President took the coal reserve, the
largest clean burning coal reserve in the United States, out of
possible production in Utah and made it a national park. Many engineers
told us that this could have been mined in an environmentally safe way;
but, nevertheless, the President said he wanted to make it a national
park to preserve the ecology.
Now the beneficiary of that was the Lippo Group in Indonesia, because
they have one of the largest clean burning mining operations in the
entire world. And when you take this large reserve out of possible
production in Utah, the only real beneficiary that we could find was
the Riadys and the Lippo Group in Indonesia.
In addition to that, Mr. Riady met with the President in the back of
a car in 1992, and again in 1996 worked with him, met with him, and
funneled, we believe, millions of dollars in illegal campaign
contributions in from Indonesia and from China and many of those
hundreds of thousands of dollars of this money was returned because it
was to be illegal.
Now we find out that the Riady group is going to put the President on
the board of directors when he leaves office in January. All I can say
is that this really bothers me a great deal, because all of the
information we have would lead one to believe that the very strong
possibility exists that a lot of these things were done to benefit the
Riady group, and now they are going to put the President on the board
of directors. I think every American ought to know that.
____________________
NO ENERGY POLICY UNDER CURRENT ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I, again, rise in the special
orders for my colleagues to understand the importance of the energy
policy of the United States under this present administration, which is
zero. There is no energy policy. In fact, under this administration, we
have declined the use of nuclear. We have declined the use of oil. We
have declined the use of coal. We have declined the use of hydro.
And, in fact, there has never been a position where they have
developed any new power as our population grows and our economy grows.
We are using more power every day, and this administration has sought
not to do it.
During an election time, the presidential candidate, what is his
name, Mr. Gore, decides to asks us to lower the price of fuel in the
Northeast by using our reserves. Now, I cannot think of anything more
ridiculous and using a reserve that was set up when I was here and this
Congress set it up for strategic purposes, in case there was a cutting
off of our shipping channels and we needed that fuel for military
purposes. That is why it was set up.
There is no shortage of oil. Yes, there is an increase of prices
because we are dependent because of this administration's policy on
foreign oil. Now, we have a lot of oil and gas in the United States of
America. We just have not been able to find it or develop it because of
the policies of the Department of Interior, the President of the United
States and the Vice President.
What I am very familiar with, of course, is Alaska. Everybody knows
that Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, 16 billion barrels have been delivered to
the United States. Every American citizen has benefited from that. It
has not gone overseas. It was from Prudhoe Bay, developed in 1973 by
this Congress because we had an embargo in place.
What else do we have in Alaska? We have in Alaska a place called 1002
area, right here, right here, 74 miles from the existing pipeline that
could deliver us a million barrels a day for the next hundred years.
Everybody said what is a million barrels a day? I heard the other
night that my so-called candidate, Mr. Gore, he is not my candidate,
but the candidate of many unenlightened people, Mr. Gore said we should
not destroy the pristine areas, the last ones we have in Alaska.
Alaska, every area you see in Alaska has been set aside here, here,
here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, all the way
around 147 million acres of land, set aside for wilderness for a great
purpose for the American people. Right up here we have 1.5 million
acres that has the potential, 39 billion barrels of oil.
{time} 1345
That is 39 billion barrels of oil, a million barrels a day which we
are now buying from Saddam Hussein that we could be producing and
shipping through our pipeline to the American people. But what does Mr.
Gore say? Oh, we cannot develop it.
Show me one area where he suggested developing will occur. He has not
done it in his 8 years, he did not do it when he was in the House, and
he did not do it while he was in the Senate. He does not believe in it.
To have him say now that we are going to use the reserve and not
support opening this ANWR area to me is ridiculous.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the footprint is less than 12,000 acres, to
give the American people, give the American people 1 million barrels a
day for the next 100 years. That is what is so crucially important.
But along those lines, keep in mind there has been no energy policy
by Mr. Gore. He has none now; and he will have none in the future,
other than the fact he wants us all to peddle bicycles. That is his
idea.
He raised taxes while he was in the Senate, and he has proposed
raising taxes while he was Vice President. Remember, Mr. Speaker, and
my colleagues who drive back and forth and fly an airplane, those taxes
were raised supposedly to stop our consumption. It has not done so, and
in the meantime we have become more dependent, 57 percent today and by
the year 2005 it will be 60 percent, which we will be dependent upon
foreign countries for oil.
By the way, anytime someone controls us 60 percent, we will do
anything they tell us to do. As bad as it is, we will do it because
they control us. That is what this administration has done to us; they
have made us subservient to the foreign countries and not America.
I always hear the Vice President talk about big oil. There is no big
oil that belongs to America anymore; it belongs to the foreigners. He
supported that.
We have heard the previous speaker talk about the Lippo situation,
the coal situation. There is another classic example where being
dependent on foreign countries is wrong. We must as a Nation have an
energy policy. We must have a President who understands the energy
policy. This is crucially, crucially important.
____________________
THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska has outlined the
necessity for energizing an energy policy. That is important for the
future of our country. The lack of the current administration's
intentions towards formulating an energy policy gives us this mandate
now to do so in their place, so the gentleman from Alaska properly says
Alaskan oil, ANWR, is one element of that.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to compliment the gentleman because he
has introduced a bill to do just that, to take into consideration all
of the facets of energy, to take and decide how many Btus we need for
the future of this Nation.
Right now that has not happened. In fact, the administration has
closed down 34 refineries in the United States. The last refinery,
built in 1980, was in Alaska. That is what has happened to us.
The gentleman's bill, and I believe I am a sponsor with the
gentleman, it says to bring to light the need for nuclear power,
hydropower, wind power, for conservation, for gas, and for oil,
[[Page 21101]]
and to put it all together in a package so that my grandchildren will
have the ability to have Btus available to them so they can live, yes,
a better way. I believe that is crucially important.
Mr. GEKAS. The national goal under the energy policy which is
embodied in the bill that we propose calls for our being energy
independent in 10 years.
What do we have to do? Increase by any means possible the correct and
environmentally safe drilling on domestic properties, on domestic
lands, on our Federal lands or wherever it is possible in the western
part of our Nation or in Alaska, as the gentleman has outlined, and
utilizing all the other devices we may have, our technologies, for
solar, for hydroelectric that are our own, waiting for us to use for
our own purposes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to suggest that many people are very much unaware
of the new demand on electrical power.
Twenty-five years ago we did not have that demand. The power being
generated today, which we are now using mostly fossil fuels, natural
gas, coal, no oil, but those two things, now the demand comes from that
which we all take for granted, and that is the computer, the Internet.
The Internet alone, just the Internet, not the total, the Internet
alone increased the consumption of electrical power 7 percent this
year. Seven percent of our energy now is being used by the Internet.
Mr. GEKAS. Our bill, called the NRG bill, NRG, national resource
governance, NRG, energy, calls for the establishment of a commission, a
blue ribbon commission, which will put together all these various
facets that we are talking about and balance them with conservation,
good conservation methods, and provide for us within 10 years no longer
to have to depend on OPEC oil or any foreign oil. That is a Declaration
of Independence in energy that is on the horizon if only we will seize
the opportunity.
What worse kind of position can the United States be in than to have
to kneel in front of the OPEC countries to beg them to produce more
oil, beg them to send us more oil, beg them to sell us more oil?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield one more moment, I
said before that the only energy policy the administration has had is a
set of knee pads so they can beg. The inappropriate conduct of trying
not to allow us to produce energy, all forms of energy, in the last 8
years, has brought us to this point.
We have to wake up. The gentleman's bill does it. I am proud to be a
sponsor of it. I hope everybody that is listening, and I know I am not
supposed to say this, but all my colleagues who are listening, I hope
they understand we had better approach this with the positive side of
production.
We cannot, as we listen to Al Gore, conserve our way into self-
sufficiency. That is impossible. Everybody knows it. As long as we are
growing, and we are growing, our economy is growing, we have to have
energy. That means all the forms of energy that we know, mankind is
realizing today. To say no is wrong.
By the way, if I may, gas, natural gas, $2.15 last year, $5.40 today,
it is going to $6 because demand is so great. Many of the great fields
that would have been drilled, should have been drilled, have been put
off limits by this President and this Vice President.
Let us have a policy of energy development and deliveries to our
people so we do not have to go back. Instead of issuing knee pads to
every American so they can beg for energy, let us have the ability to
say, I am American and we have our own power.
Mr. GEKAS. I ask our colleagues to cosponsor the NRG bill for self-
sufficient energy in the United States.
____________________
THE PROBLEM OF HIV/AIDS AND METHODS TO COMBAT IT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the esteemed
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for joining me this afternoon as
we discuss one of the most serious problems facing our country and,
indeed, our world today, that is, the problem of HIV/AIDS and all of
the problems associated with it, as well as talk about ways in which we
can combat it.
Earlier today we passed the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Relief Act,
which provides resources to fight this dreadful disease. I think our
passage of this act today is further indication of how serious this
Congress takes this problem and the approaches that we have begun to
use in terms of providing resources to deal with it.
Although money is needed, and resources is one way of impacting
positively the situation, there are other things that people can do
that do in fact cost money, but sometimes not as much as we think.
There are many agencies, organizations, and groups throughout America
and throughout the world who are making use of themselves in every
possible way to do what it is that they can to arrest this disease.
One of the areas that we have the most difficulty with is in
teenagers. Despite the fact that most American teenagers are aware of
methods for preventing pregnancy and STD infection, reports indicate
that nearly half of teenagers engage in unprotected sexual activity. In
turn, morbidity and infection rates due to HIV continue to rise as
young adults become one of the fastest-growing populations contracting
HIV/AIDS.
In addition, recent reports estimate that at least 20 to 30 percent
of young men may be infected with herpes simplex virus, regardless of
sociological demographic background.
As a matter of fact, in some manner, we are all affected by the
hardships of these diseases because they have placed hardships on our
communities, no matter where we are or who we are. Consequently,
programs dedicated to informing young adults about safe sex practices
in an appropriate and effective manner are vital.
One such national effort is Project Alpha, which is a creation of
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated.
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, founded in 1906 at Cornell University,
has the distinction of being the first intercollegiate fraternity
established for African Americans. Since its inception, Alpha Phi Alpha
fraternity has provided voice and vision to the struggle of African
Americans and people of color around the world.
Today Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, has approximately
150,000 members. Past and present members include noted sociologist
W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., former Senator Ed Brooks, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall,
former Congressman and ambassador Andrew Young, former Representative
Bill Gray, who heads the United Negro College Fund, the noted author
and activist, Paul Robeson, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon),
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Meeks and
Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
I, too, Mr. Speaker, am pleased to be a member of the Mu Mu Lambda
chapter of this illustrious group, Alpha Phi Alpha, Incorporated.
Project Alpha, in the spirit of this powerful legacy, was established
to address the major social, economic, and health problems related to
troubling trends in teen pregnancy and STDs.
Since the early 1980s, Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity has implemented the
Project Alpha Program, along with the March of Dimes Foundation, and
has taught thousands of young men about the consequences of STDs and
teenage pregnancy from a male perspective.
Over the past 20 years, members of Alpha have worked with the staff
and volunteers of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation to reach
hundreds of communities and thousands of young men throughout America
and the world.
In an effort to herald this program to the entire Nation, the second
week of
[[Page 21102]]
October has been declared Project Alpha Week, and from October 7 to
October 14 each chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha will devote time to
reviewing the medical, legal, and socioeconomic issues involving teen
pregnancy and STD infection with teens while encouraging responsible
behavior.
I want to commend the brothers of Alpha and the Alpha Project, for
without preventative programs such as this successful one, we will pay
greatly in the future with higher rates of teen pregnancy and birth
defects, higher rates of HIV and other STDs, and ultimately, a lower
quality of life for all members of our society.
{time} 1400
Now, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dixon), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, my brother, and fellow Alpha member.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois very much
for yielding to me, and I am very pleased to join with him in this
tribute, not only to the Alpha fraternity, but the fight and the cause.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to commemorate Project Alpha
Week and to honor the brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and the
March of Dimes for their efforts over the past 20 years on this
project.
Project Alpha is a collaboration between Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity
and the March of Dimes to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases by engaging young men before they have established
risk-taking behavior patterns.
During the week of October 7 through 14, young men in communities
across this Nation will participate in Project Alpha conferences.
Project Alpha is one of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's three national
programs. These national programs, ``Project Alpha,'' ``Go to High
School-Go to College,'' and ``A Voteless People Is a Hopeless People''
exemplify Alpha Phi Alpha's focus on assisting communities through
leadership, scholarship, and service.
The curriculum at the Project Alpha conferences will stress three
main elements, knowledge building, motivation and taking the message
back.
In my hometown of Los Angeles, more than 200 young men are expected
to benefit from Project Alpha programs this year. I would like to
commend the 12 Southern California chapters who are participating in
this year's program.
The program's financial supporters and presenters also should be
recognized for their contributions to the community. This year's
program will include Michael Cooper, former L.A. Laker star, and State
Senator Teresa Hughes. Support is also being provided by the Magic
Johnson Theater Corporation; the New Leaders, an organization of young
African-American professionals; and the Holman United Methodist Church.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight
another project that the Alpha Phi Alpha has spearheaded, the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Memorial project. I am honored to have worked with
Alpha Phi Alpha to enact legislation to allow the King Memorial project
to move forward.
In 1996, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and I carried
the bill to authorize the memorial. In 1998, we passed legislation
approving a permanent site on the National Mall for the King Memorial.
The fraternity has since established an independent foundation to
coordinate this project and is engaged in raising funds for the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Memorial. I am very proud that the effort to honor Dr.
King, a man of unique national stature, with a memorial in the Nation's
capital has transcended the fraternity and become a project of national
significance.
The commitment to community that Alpha Phi Alpha instills in its
members is exemplary. I am honored to be a member of the Alpha Phi
Alpha Fraternity, and I am pleased to commend both Alpha Phi Alpha and
the March of Dimes for their efforts on Project Alpha.
From Project Alpha to the King Memorial to helping to shape
generations of great African-American men, Alpha Phi Alpha has
contributed so much to our Nation. I am very proud of the brothers that
serve in the Congress of the United States with me who are members of
the Alpha Fraternity.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dixon), we know that HIV-related illness and death
now have the greatest impact on young people. As a matter of fact, AIDS
is the leading cause of death among Americans 25 to 44 years old. In
this same age group, AIDS now account, on an average, for one in every
three deaths among African-American men and one in five deaths in
African-American women.
Between 1990 and 1995, AIDS incidents among people 13 to 25 years old
rose nearly 20 percent. While AIDS incidents among both young gay and
bisexual men and young injecting drug users was relatively constant
during this time period, AIDS incidents among young heterosexual men
and women rose more than 130 percent.
In a project like Project Alpha, what is it that one can say or what
does one say to young people to try and impact upon them the serious
consequences of certain kinds of behavior?
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that one
does two things, and Project Alpha reaches to both of them. One, one
can explain to them the impact on the community as it relates to
health, as it relates to future planning for a young person. Two, one
can explain to them and make clear to them that this kind of epidemic
can be avoided if they control themselves and practice what is
traditionally called safe sex.
There is probably no greater threat to minority communities today
than the national health problem of HIV infection. So to reach out to
young men 16, 17, of college age to spread information and to make them
realize the danger I think is a great public service.
But just as important, I think that we have to make the entire
minority community aware of this danger, and we cannot stress it too
much because, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) indicated from
his facts, it is a growing concern; and the facts continue to show that
the spread in the minority communities is running ahead of the spread
in the majority communities.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the
gentleman from California, not only for his participation and his
leadership here in the Congress but also his willingness in the
community where he lives to be involved, to be interactive with young
people, and to try and help them to understand how they can improve the
quality of life, not only for themselves, but for others. We certainly
appreciate his assistance.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
taking the time to spread the word. It is an honor for me to serve with
him and my other colleagues, not only as I said in the House of
Representatives, but as members in the same fraternity.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield
time to the distinguished gentleman from the City of Brotherly Love,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who not only provides great leadership in
the field of education, which means that he is a natural to be involved
in this kind of project, but who is an inspiration to all of those who
have known and worked with him for years.
I am proud to call him, not only my colleague, but also my Alpha
brother.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the City of Chicago,
who is a fraternity brother of mine.
I come to the floor just ever so briefly just to add my voice in
support for this effort. It really is a substantial effort that, even
if I was not a member of this great fraternity, I would be supportive
of it, because it really gets at the heart of where we need to be, and
that is communicating with individual young men and with our young
people in a way which is relevant in terms of the choices that they
have to make, the choice points that they confront,
[[Page 21103]]
that will have an impact on their life chances in a way that they
cannot even imagine at 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 years of age.
So I just want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for carving out
this special order for a very special message. I want to thank all of
my fraternity brothers throughout this country and, in fact, beyond the
national borders of this country who are committed to education and
committed to this effort in particular in terms of raising the
awareness of young people about the choices that they have to make, and
the fact that, if they make the right choice, they stand to reap the
reward, and if they make the wrong choice, not only do they suffer the
consequence, but our entire community and our society suffer the
consequences of the choices, assuming they make the wrong one.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and my
other Alpha brothers.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, listening to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), there is no one that I know of who is more
concerned about education. I remember one of the incidents that
happened that sort of reinforced that. I remember the President had
invited the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his family to the White
House as he was about to sign one of the gentleman's bills. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania decided that his son needed to go to school
that day, that he could not come.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, our fraternity had the ``Stay in School and
Go to College.'' That was one of the very early programs of the Alphas.
My son had a perfect attendance up through his high school graduation,
and it was an important choice. But, nonetheless, his record of a
perfect attendance was important to him and acknowledgment of the
importance that we place on education. So now he is a freshman in
college. He is doing well.
I think it is important that we as adults indicate to young people
where they need to place their value. Hobnobbing at the White House is
one thing, but learning and earning a diploma and eventually a degree
so that one day one can be in the White House as the resident of it, as
the Chief Executive, is a much more important goal in life.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one who does, in fact, also have
perfect attendance, especially perfect attendance when it comes to
representing the needs, hopes and aspirations of his people and
representing the effort to make America a better Nation in which to
live.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and commend the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague and Alpha brother, for scheduling
this special order this afternoon. I am delighted that we have an
opportunity through this special order to talk about the proud history
of Alpha Phi Alpha and its ongoing nationwide efforts to meet some of
the critical needs of the African-American community.
We have already heard, men of Alpha Phi Alpha have had a strong
positive impact on our society in every profession and in every field
of endeavor. I am fortunate to serve with many of our Alpha colleagues:
The gentleman from the 15th Congressional District of New York (Mr.
Rangel), the gentleman from the 32nd Congressional District of
California (Mr. Dixon), the gentleman from the 7th Congressional
District of Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from the 2nd
Congressional District of Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentleman from
the 6th Congressional District of New York (Mr. Meeks).
We follow the proud footsteps of Adam Clayton Powell who was elected
in Congress in the late 1940s and many other Alpha brothers who have
served in Congress and prepared the pathway for numerous other Alpha
brothers who serve in public office at the local, State and Federal
levels.
Alphas can also claim three of the big four Civil Rights movements.
So when one considers the members of this distinguished fraternity, it
should come at no surprise that Alpha brothers would be in the
leadership of addressing some of our most serious social problems.
Whitney Young, Martin Luther King, Floyd McKessick were also in the
forefront as Alpha brothers in the civil rights movement. They focused
on the right to vote. As has already been indicated, one of the early
slogans of the fraternity was ``A voteless people is a hopeless
people.'' Because of this focus, the Martin Luther King Memorial is so
appropriate, and we are proud to have an Alpha member so honored.
We also must not forget the late Thurgood Marshall who argued the
Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated
public schools and led to the fall of Jim Crow laws everywhere. That is
important to note because education has been such a critical issue in
the Alpha history.
``Go to high school, go to college'' was another early slogan, an
early program in Alpha Phi Alpha. Project Alpha is another one of those
important projects.
Young African-American males today face many challenges, truancy,
illiteracy, drugs, violence and teen fatherhood. And those needs need
to be addressed. That is why the week of October 7 through October 14
will be Project Alpha week, focusing on Project Alpha.
For some 20 years, now, Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity has worked with
the March of Dimes in an effort to respond to the challenges facing
young black males. Project Alpha is a result of this project, and its
mission has been to create a national program to prepare young men for
the roles that they will be expected to assume in their adulthood.
In communities throughout this country, Project Alpha has created
safe havens for young men to learn about and explore ways to develop
protective factors to minimize the impact of the social hazards which
are present today.
Project Alpha provides education on sexuality, fatherhood, and the
role of men in responsible relationships. It motivates young men to
make smart decisions about their future and to take an active role in
achieving their desired goals. It is a daunting task that Project Alpha
has taken on.
Young black men today face many obstacles on their road to adulthood.
African-American males continue to lag behind their female counterparts
in most measures of academic progress. It is particularly unfortunate
to note that 25 percent of all black men can expect to have some
contact with the criminal justice system.
{time} 1415
We know already that nationally 3 out of every 10 young black males
are in jail, prison, on probation, or otherwise involved in the
criminal justice system. While unemployment levels for African
Americans are at an all-time low, the rate continues to be unacceptable
in many urban communities, and this presents yet another risk factor
for young African American males.
By focusing on those 12 to 15, Project Alpha lays the groundwork
early for developing the protective factors that reduces the likelihood
of teen fatherhood and the associated risks that result from teen
pregnancy. By providing positive role models from the community,
Project Alpha teaches the participants about the social, economic and
personal consequences of early fatherhood. And by reducing the rate of
teen pregnancy, we are improving the likelihood that these young men
will stay in school, stay away from drug use and other negative
behaviors.
That is why we congratulate the Alpha Phi Alpha in designating
October 7 through 14 as Project Alpha Week. I want to thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my brother Alpha member, for
holding this special order this afternoon. I applaud the members of
Alpha Phi Alpha and the March of Dimes for their continued commitment
to improving the lives of young African American males in the African
American community and again congratulate the gentleman on holding this
special order.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman very much, and I would
like to get the gentleman's reaction, if I could, to how much on target
Project Alpha is.
A study by the National Cancer Institute confirms existent data which
reveals that as each generation comes of
[[Page 21104]]
age, there is a substantial increase in the rate of infection as
individuals enter their late teens and early 20s, with infection
peaking in the mid to late 20s. Sustained, targeted prevention for each
group entering young adulthood is what will keep these waves from
developing.
Behavioral science has also shown that a balance of prevention
messages is important for young people, and that total abstinence from
sexual activity is the only sure way to prevent sexual transmission of
HIV infection. Despite all of the efforts, some young people may still
engage in sexual intercourse that puts them at risk for HIV and other
STDs. For these individuals, the correct and consistent use of latex
condoms has been shown to be highly effective in preventing the
transmission of HIV and other STDs.
How important does the gentleman think it is for older, and I would
not necessarily say that all the Members of Alpha Phi Alpha are old,
but more mature members of our society to share concepts, ideas and
experiences with younger people, as this project kind of attempts to
do, in steering them in a more appropriate direction? And would the
gentleman have any challenge for other groups and organizations as to
how they can be more helpful?
Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the gentleman's question really answers
itself. The course in Project Alpha, and I have participated in many of
the activities at the national convention and in classes in Project
Alpha in my own home community in Virginia, and they teach
responsibility, they teach abstinence, they teach safe sex; and it is
done in such a way that they have the role models from the community
coming in and explaining the importance of avoiding teen pregnancy and
avoiding the sexually transmitted diseases.
These kinds of role models, I think, can show that they do have a
future. One of the high risk factors of getting into trouble is when
young people do not feel that they have a future. They tend to involve
themselves in more risky behaviors because they think they have nothing
to lose. When they see role models and can see a path, particularly a
continuum of role models, some of the older ones, like the gentleman,
and younger ones, like me, and even younger ones, they can see that
they have a future within their life. They see that there are jobs
available and careers available. And to the extent that they involve
themselves in risky behaviors, they place that future at risk.
So we challenge other groups to get involved in the same kinds of
interaction with our young people, because we can have a significant
impact in keeping them out of trouble to begin with and keeping them on
the right track, and that is why Project Alpha is so important.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Let me just thank the gentleman for his
response and for his participation. People throw out accolades, and
sometimes they are meaningful and sometimes not as meaningful; but when
it comes to role modeling, I would certainly think that the gentleman
has been and continues to be one, not only as a Member of Congress but
also in the community where the gentleman lives and works. So I want to
thank the gentleman for coming and for sharing with us this afternoon.
Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman as well, and I would want to point
out that the gentleman himself has been a stalwart advocate of civil
rights and voting rights. Just yesterday, we had a special order
involving voting rights and the importance of voting, and my fellow
fraternity brother has been one of the leaders in that effort.
I want to congratulate the gentleman on his leadership. He has a long
history of public service, going back to local government in Chicago,
and that certainly shows that the gentleman is a role model and an
Alpha that everyone can be proud of.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Well, I thank the gentleman. As we have
discussed this afternoon and we have pointed out, all of our speakers
have, the impact of HIV and AIDS in the African American community, we
know that it has indeed been devastating. As a matter of fact, through
December of 1998, the Center for Disease Control had received reports
of 688,200 AIDS cases. And of those, 251,408 cases occurred among
African Americans. Representing only an estimated 12 percent of the
total United States population, African Americans make up almost 37
percent of all AIDS cases reported in this country.
Researchers estimate that 240,000 to 325,000 African Americans, about
one in 50 African American men and one in 160 African American women,
are infected with HIV. Of those infected with HIV, it is estimated that
more than 106,000 African Americans are living with AIDS. So when we
see a program like Project Alpha, there is no doubt about its
importance in mentoring, educating and encouraging young adults to be
responsible during their teen years and beyond.
According to the CDC, 10 national studies have shown that education
programs increase safer sex practices among young people who are
sexually active. These programs also lead to abstinence, fewer sexual
partners, and increased and more effective use of contraception among
young men and women.
The other major objective of Project Alpha is teen pregnancy
reduction from a male perspective. And although teen birth rates
experienced a decline between 1991 and 1996 across all ethnic and
economic groups, the country is beginning to see a new surge in
pregnant women under 20 years of age. Some important facts to consider
are: the United States has the highest pregnancy rate of all developed
countries. About 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, of
which 95 percent are unintended. Public cost as a result totaled $120
billion between 1985 and 1990, a circumstance that may resume if
current trends continue. It is estimated that $48 billion could have
been saved if birth had been postponed.
Eleven States are implementing comprehensive integrated youth
programs to prevent teen pregnancies. While others have assistance
programs, the Department of Health and Human Services' recent annual
report reveals that 32 States have no specified goals regarding this
issue. However, Project Alpha has vision with long-range benefits: to
reduce teenage pregnancy, thereby reducing child poverty; reducing high
school dropout rates and boosting the probability that young adults can
fully achieve their potential.
Furthermore, realizing that these programs are traditionally targeted
towards raising awareness in young women, Project Alpha focuses on
reaching young men, an important yet often overlooked factor in the
teen pregnancy problem. By educating young men about contraception and
emphasizing personal responsibility, positive changes in attitude and
behavior can make a positive difference.
Finally, again, I would like to congratulate Alpha Phi Alpha
Fraternity and the March of Dimes for recognizing the need for Project
Alpha and holding a week that not only serves young Americans in our
communities nationwide, but also fulfills the alpha pledge: First of
All, Servant of All. Does the gentleman have any other comments?
Mr. SCOTT. I would just like to thank the March of Dimes and Project
Alpha for providing this guidance to our young citizens, and I thank
the gentleman for organizing this special order.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman once again,
and First of All, Servant of All, we shall transcend all.
____________________
REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to take a few
minutes this afternoon and to begin a discussion with those Members who
have been a part of what we have been doing with economic development,
a plan by the Republican Party, House and Senate. This plan gives us an
opportunity
[[Page 21105]]
to lead this country into further economic development, an opportunity
to develop not only the plans that we have had for quite some time on
moving this country forward by stopping the deficit spending that has
gone on, but also to turn the country to where we are able to look at
ourselves and what we want in the future of this country so that we
have economic development and prosperity in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first talk to what this Congress began
doing in 1995, after the election that took place in 1994 where we
signed the Contract With America. Back in 1994, when the Republicans
began the effort we called the Contract With America, we started this
plan and idea, which I signed on to because I believed, as my
Republican colleagues did, that it was a comprehensive way for us to
begin the discussion about how we change the power structure from
Washington, D.C. to move power back home; how we go about balancing the
budget and still maintaining economic prosperity and, lastly, how we
take the power that is in Washington and empower people back home to
begin making their own decisions.
{time} 1430
We knew in 1994, just as we do today, that money equals power,
probably always has and probably always will, and that the people who
have the money are the people that are the decision makers and they are
the people that will control, many times, the destiny.
Yet we understood that, back in 1994, the estimates were that this
Congress, the Congress that was a Democratic Congress at that time,
would continue not only spending every single penny that came to
Washington, D.C., but they would also take that money and spend more
than what we had. That was called deficit spending, creating a debt
that would be long-term on this country. And in 1994, by and large, we
had a debt in this country of $5.5 trillion.
The Contract with America, which has been the baseline document for
Republicans and this Congress to move forward on, has become really a
contract with America that would lead to the development of where we
are today.
What happened as a result of that was that two different times this
Republican Congress, understanding that welfare was a huge issue in
this country, people on welfare needed to come and join what was going
on not only in workplaces but would also be a better relationship that
they would have with their families to go and create opportunities for
those families, many times having a job where they had not had them in
generations, and so what happened was we changed the dynamics by
changing the law.
What happened in that entire endeavor was we all of a sudden created
economic opportunity. Instead of some seven million people being on
welfare today, as they were back before 1996, there are now seven
million people who get up every morning and leave their home and go to
work. They go to work and they become taxpayers. They have become
credible people that we can look at and say they have made our country
better. Many times they may be doormen or cooks, they may be drivers,
they may be involved in teaching our children. But they are people who
have made a significant gain in their own personal life and for the
life of our Nation.
We are now at the point where these seven million people have created
opportunities, because they are now taxpayers, to become a part of
paying into what this country has with its system, Social Security,
Medicare, the opportunity to pay school taxes, to have a strong voice
because they now feel a greater responsibility, and they have been
empowered to become a part of what we are doing.
What has happened is that this Republican Congress went from 1996 to
1997 and we had a package, an economic development package, it was
called a tax cut package also, and we understood as conservatives that
we would incent America to begin the process of wanting to not only
invest in jobs and opportunities but also to invest in our stock market
and the critical mass that was necessary to begin our infrastructure
capitals, and we did this by first cutting taxes. It was a following up
with what happened with us having our welfare changes. And we cut
taxes. We cut the capital gains tax.
Of course there were people that did not want us to do that. The tax
collectors that were in Washington, D.C., said, we should not do that.
That will ruin our deficit. We were told it would cost the tax
collector $9 billion. In fact, what it did is it brought in $90
billion. It was the catalyst for this country completely turning around
to where we all of a sudden then had a surplus.
For, you see, if you do not have a surplus, you cannot pay off your
debts. What it did is it changed the direction to where we quit
spending money on welfare and started spending more on education and on
the infrastructure of this country.
Point two: We looked at families and said, you are the most important
asset America has; and we created what was then called a $500 per-child
tax credit. It has been nothing less than marvelous to see my neighbors
and friends who want to take care of their own family who now have a
chance to get back their hard-earned money so that they can take care
of their own children.
Point three: We raised the exemption on what is called the death tax,
estate tax. We looked at who was being hurt and we compromised with the
President and said, we need to raise the exemption.
We went immediately to farmers, people who own their only property
for agriculture, and we raised the exemption. We changed this because
we believed then and believe now that the people who own their own land
and agriculture, for the people that own their own small businesses
who, yes, may have assets and resources but are cash poor, should not,
based upon death, have these assets taxed to the point to where their
heirs have to sell the farm, sell the small business and break it up
simply to pay the tax collector.
These are the things that we did to bring us to the point where we
are in America where we have created a surplus. We now have breathing
room. We now know and are prepared as a Congress to move forward with
the new President, a new President that has a bold plan about how we
are going to not only make America sound by paying down the debt but by
creating economic opportunity for the future.
I am pleased to be joined today by my good friend, the majority
leader of the United States Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey). The gentleman from Texas has been a leader in the efforts to
make sure that the plans that will develop America to where people get
back more money in their pocket to where they have the power will be a
key to our future because he is not only majority leader but he is also
a grandfather and he recognizes that the future of this country rests
with our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on this
matter.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for taking this hour so that we can conduct this discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I think we in America ought to recognize our heroes, we
ought to recognize the people that help this Nation prosper and do
well.
There is no doubt in my mind that this Nation owes a debt of
gratitude to Bill and Al. Bill and Al can rightfully be cited as the
people that perhaps more than anybody else has made it possible for
this Nation to be as prosperous as it is.
More than any other two people, perhaps these two people, Bill and
Al, are the people that we can credit for all the jobs, the prosperous
economy, the fact that the Federal Government is running a surplus, the
fact that that surplus combined with the fiscal restraint we have shown
here in the House of Representatives has allowed us just on last
Saturday to have paid down an astonishing, an astonishing $350 billion
in debt in the last 3 fiscal years.
[[Page 21106]]
Bill and Al, Mr. Speaker, have done so much more than any other two
people I can think ever to warrant our applause and our appreciation
for what they have done to make all this possible.
So I would like this body to join me to give a special thank you to
Bill and Al, Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan. Without their hard work, we
could not have prospered the way we have done.
That is not necessarily the voice that you will hear out of the
campaign, Mr. Speaker. The Vice President is running for President, and
the essence of his message is, this prosperity is the best idea I ever
had. He is saying, without myself and the President, we could never
have had this prosperity; and if you do not elect me President, you may
lose your prosperity.
It is a frightening thought, Mr. Speaker. When I listen to these
speeches on the campaign trail and I realize that the argument that I
am hearing is that, the President and I gave you the prosperity and if
you lose us, you will lose the prosperity, I am haunted by this fear
that on Tuesday we will win the election and I will wake up on
Wednesday and discover the Internet has gone away.
But let us look at this. The Vice President says, my plan will secure
the prosperity, my plan will preserve the surplus, my plan will
continue to buy down debt and save Social Security.
We have taken the trouble to look at the Vice President's plan. And,
Mr. Speaker, the Vice President is putting out an economic plan that
would spend the on-budget surplus. Indeed he would not only spend all
of the on-budget surplus, and this is what I refer to in common
parlance as the income tax surplus, but he would even return us to
those frightening days of yesteryear when this Government continuously
raided the Social Security, and under the Vice President's plan, should
he get elected and implement his plan, we would not only spend all of
the income tax surplus, but he would go back to the days of raiding the
Social Security trust fund and spending those monies, as well.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
The reason I am here is that, with two distinguished Texans having
taken the floor, I think it is important to provide a little geographic
perspective to this debate.
The fact of the matter is my geographic perspective comes from
California and the area which I am privileged to represent, Los
Angeles, which happened to be the site of the Democratic National
Convention.
At the Staples Center, we saw the Vice President deliver a speech in
which he unveiled about 37 different programs which, based on the
studies we found, would cost a projected $2.3 trillion. And so, my
friend is right on target when he talks about the fact that when we
look at where it is we are going and the things that have been
proposed, we are going back to a dramatic level of spending.
In fact, I have argued that if, God forbid, Al Gore were to be
elected President of the United States, there are many people,
certainly on our side of the aisle, who might look back and think, my
gosh, would it not be wonderful if we had the days of Bill Clinton
again. Because we know that it has been President Clinton who has
embraced the 1997 balanced budget agreement, putting us on the road
towards balancing the budget not through the tax increase, much of
which has been repealed in 1993 that he put through and which Vice
President Gore was the deciding vote on in the United States Senate
when they voted to do things like have a $48 billion cut in Medicare
that was included in that package that they are so proud of, and at the
same time we saw the President embrace our tax reduction effort in
1997.
He has embraced the traditional Republican themes of free trade, and
we are very proud that he joined with us in doing a number of free
trade things; and, of course, the welfare reform bill, which, as we all
have said time and time again, he twice vetoed and ultimately signed.
My point is that those bipartisan accomplishments which President
Clinton has joined us on, would I believe in large part be reversed
with many of the programs that my friend is referring to that have been
unveiled by the Vice President.
I think it is very important for the American people to know that,
while people have said that the moniker of tax and spend which
traditionally had been put around the necks of Democrats in the past
and we Republicans have so often said tax-and-spend Democrats, it has
been not as easy to do that over the past few years since President
Clinton joined with us in a number of initiatives, but if we look at
this proposal which has come forward from Vice President Gore, tax and
spend would be an understatement for the pattern that we would have.
I wonder if my friend would agree with that.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, yes, I would. I must say, if the gentleman
from Texas will continue to yield to us, my colleague says the Vice
President today embraces the welfare reform and he embraces the budget
agreement we reached in 1997.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I said the President did.
Mr. ARMEY. The President did.
The fact of the matter is part of the story that the Vice President
does not tell us is that he did in fact vote in 1993 for President
Clinton's budget, that budget that increased taxes, a larger increase
in taxes than any other time in the history of the world, increased
taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on Social Security benefits,
increased taxes across the Nation.
{time} 1445
Then in 1997, in fact, he vehemently objected to our budget agreement
where we reduced taxes and set us on the course to a balanced budget.
The clear fact of the matter is that if you took the Congressional
Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget at the White
House, the projections that they made in 1994 for where we would be
this fiscal year under the President's 1993 budget, that budget for
which the Vice President so consistently claims credit by virtue of
having cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, that under that budget
had it continued, we would have had a $264 billion deficit this year.
Now, that was not my projection. That was the projection made by the
President's own Office of Management and Budget, which was agreed to by
the Congressional Budget Office.
It was only after 1995, 1996, and especially 1997 where we made this
enormous change in direction in the budget that we began to see the
projections change; and, indeed, rather than a $264 billion deficit
that was projected for this year under the President's 1993 budget,
today, thanks to the 1997 budget, the welfare reform and the other
things that we did, we have an actual surplus of $250 billion. From
$268 billion in deficit to $250 billion of actual surplus is a half a
trillion dollars' worth of budget turnaround.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think it is
important for us to note that with that $264 billion projected deficit,
it pales in comparison to the projected spending level that we would
see under these plans that have been unveiled by Vice President Gore. I
think that is one of the most troubling things. As bad as those
proposals were projecting a $264 billion deficit, they look wonderful,
and almost like a surplus, compared to what has been put before us as
far as projected spending.
Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman is absolutely right. I am reminded of that
wonderful song by another very important and colorful Californian,
Merle Haggard, ``Rainbow Stew,'' where Merle Haggard bemoans the
American fear that Presidents will go through the White House door and
not do what they said they would do. In the case of the Vice
President's budget proposal, I think, Mr. and Mrs. America, our fear
should be that this President would go through the White House door and
do what he said he would do.
We all look at Bill Clinton, and we think of him as a big spender;
but when
[[Page 21107]]
you think of President Clinton as a big spender, you have got to
recognize that as a big spender, he is a piker next to Vice President
Al Gore and his plans. Vice President Al Gore wants $3 for new
government spending programs compared to every $1 in new programs
requested by President Clinton. That is what I call an awful lot of
risky, big government spending schemes.
Vice President Gore's spending proposals add up to at least $2.7
trillion in new Federal spending over the next 10 years. This is
important for us to understand: he would spend the entire projected on-
budget surplus to pay for his massive expansion of government. That is
not what he said the other night. He said the other night he is going
to preserve the surplus. But the fact is if he got his way on the
spending proposal that he is campaigning on, he would spend the entire
income tax surplus.
Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting that what took place the other night
with the discussion of what the Vice President said, and he looks right
at the camera and says it. Yet he looked at the camera and talked about
him being in our home State a year ago when we were having natural
disasters and then admitted a day later, well, he was not there at all.
He told us a story about the school where the girl who is the daughter
of the restaurateur did not even have a desk to sit at. Yet the reason
why, we now find out, after the fact, that 100 new computers were being
delivered to the school that day and her desk was taken to put a
computer on it.
Which person can we trust? I would suggest to you it is the numbers
that you have talked about that is his real plan and the real effects
that it will have.
Mr. ARMEY. That is what we are trying to do here. For example, one of
the other things we discover when we look at the plan proposed by Vice
President Gore is that for every dollar by which he would cut taxes,
and I might mention, that would be a net tax cut because he has in fact
more actual tax increases than he has tax reductions in his budget
plan, but for every net dollar of tax reduction, he would raise
government spending by $6.75.
His spending spree would not stop there. His plan would also spend
from the Social Security trust fund. We stopped the raid on Social
Security, and we will not go back.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a fact we should recognize here. I
think it is a telling statistical comparison. If we take the period of
time from 1980 to 1990, the United States people sent to this
government a doubling of the money they sent because of the economic
growth that followed in the first couple of years of the Reagan
administration in 1981 and 1982.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, that was due to one measure.
It was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which Ronald Reagan
pushed for and was able to get ultimately some southern Democrats and
some of your Texas colleagues to vote in favor of. That laid the
groundwork for a doubling of that flow of revenues to the Treasury
through the decade of the 1980s.
Mr. ARMEY. Through the decade of the 1980s. This incidentally is
labeled by the Vice President and his friends as ``the decade of
greed,'' where also incidentally you had charitable giving not only
double but charitable giving to faith-based institutions triple during
this period of time. The American people did a magnificent job. They
not only built more, created more jobs, earned more, paid more in
taxes; but they doubled what they gave to charities and tripled what
they gave to faith-based charities. Yet they have the audacity to look
at you and me and our families back home and indict us as having lived
a decade of greed.
We doubled what we sent to Washington. Bless us. What did Washington
do with it? Washington increased spending by $1.68 for every increased
dollar we sent them. It does not take any genius to figure this one
out. Any time you increase the money coming in by a dollar and increase
the money going out by $1.68, you are going to run a deficit. That is
what we did. That deficit was so large that it not only spent all of
the Social Security trust fund surpluses we generated in those areas,
up to $60, $70, $80 billion a year; but it ran a $250 billion deficit.
Let me just say, since 1994, after we put in the massive
restructuring of what we call entitlement or mandatory spending, that
spending that could never be touched by any President but it was
required by Congress to restructure the actual spending programs,
welfare reform being the most applauded incident of such reform, that
has put 4 million people to work that up to that point had lived in the
hopeless despair of welfare. But since that period of time, for every
increased dollar the American people have sent in to Washington,
spending has gone up by less than 50 cents. Once again, it does not
take a genius to figure that one out. If you have got an increased
dollar coming out and you are spending out less than 50 cents, you are
running a surplus.
That surplus was the product of two things: the prosperity of the
American people, the job creation, the expansion, the invention that we
see in this magnificent electronic revolution that we are surrounded by
in America, the increased tax bonus that came to Washington because
America was doing well; and a first time in my lifetime restraint of
government spending by a responsible Congress that did the one thing
that everybody by that time knew was imperative, reformed the
institutionalized, mandatory government spending programs that had been
constructed through all that period of time beginning in the mid-1960s
called the Great Society programs of President Johnson, and added to
quite often by, and most often by, Members of this body.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, when I heard
him mention the Great Society, I was reminded of an analysis that I
heard of the programs that have been put forward by the Vice President,
and an independent analyst, I frankly have to admit I do not remember
which one it was, I was either reading the newspaper or I may have
listened to it on National Public Radio, they came on and talked about
how these proposals which have come forward from the Vice President
actually match, or in some cases even exceed, the level of spending
that we saw launched as the Great Society.
We do know full well that the spending on subventions that we saw
launched with the Great Society were in excess of $5.2 trillion, as
Speaker Hastert likes to say, with a T, that is trillion with a T, $5.2
trillion in spending; and we saw during that period of time the poverty
level in this country go from 14.7 percent to 15.2 percent. And so that
pattern has clearly failed. And we all know very well that it has
failed around the world, as we have seen people clawing toward self-
determination.
We are watching the situation unfold at this moment in Belgrade where
hundreds of thousands of people are storming to have self-determination
because they feel that their votes were improperly counted there. The
rest of the world is moving towards individual initiative,
responsibility, self-determination, and the proposals that have come
forward from Vice President Gore shift us back to the failed policies
of the Great Society. That is something that I think again the American
people need to know and it is an extraordinarily troubling situation.
Mr. ARMEY. I want to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), we
all watched this debate the other night and we are always impressed
with glib politicians. People who can turn a phrase impress us. I
always like a wordsmith. But every time I see one of these politicians
that can come along and so slickly recite expressions, phrases,
numbers, I always have to stop and ask myself, can that fellow really
be trusted with words and numbers?
One of the things the Vice President made a big point of the other
night was that if you elect me, we will never, ever, ever touch your
Social Security trust funds. Now, first of all they have got a bad
track record on that. But we take a look again at his budget proposals.
And his very own proposals
[[Page 21108]]
when you score them out, they estimate that the Vice President would
rob the trust fund of between $500 billion and $900 billion to pay for
his new spending agenda.
Mr. and Mrs. America, we are today celebrating the fact that we have
made $350 billion in debt reduction; and here we have got a fellow that
has come along and said, ``I'm going to spend between $500 billion and
$900 billion to pay for my new programs.''
Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gentleman is right. What is interesting is
that I felt like that there should have been some tracer along the
bottom about truth in advertising, because, in fact, what happened is
that the Vice President made it seem like that he would support these
lockboxes that would be available for Social Security and Medicare; and
yet it is the Vice President's own party, the Senate minority leader
Tom Daschle, that will not allow seniors today to be able to have their
own lockbox for Social Security. And yet we are supposed to trust the
Vice President to say if he were only President, he would accomplish
what he cannot get done or President Clinton cannot get done today.
Truth in advertising should be important.
Mr. ARMEY. Yes, it should. Here is another case in point. The
gentleman from California will recognize this distinguished professor
from Stanford University, Dr. John Cogan. The Vice President says his
plan would cost $200 billion over 10 years. We have already seen that
the estimates are that it would rob the trust fund of between $500
billion and $900 billion. The Vice President says it would cost only
$200 billion over the next years. Let us not take my word for it. Let
us not take his word for it. Perhaps I might be perceived as one of
those glib politicians, such a good wordsmith. How about Dr. John Cogan
of Stanford University. He says that the Vice President's plan would
cost $160 billion in the very first year alone. Yet the Vice President
says that it would be $200 billion over 10 years.
Again, you have got to have an objective measure of these numbers.
Ladies and gentlemen, be very, very careful when somebody says, ``I'm
from Washington; I'm here to help you. Trust me, I'm from the
government.'' I think it is better to get a second opinion and a second
opinion from the professor from Stanford would be helpful here.
{time} 1500
Mr. DREIER. I am going to give a second opinion, but it is my opinion
of what Professor Cogan had to say on the issue of tax reduction. My
friend, another Dallas friend of mine here, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), just handed me a clip from the editorial page of the
``Wall Street Journal.''
First, I see we are joined by another gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall).
Mr. SESSIONS. All conservatives.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall)
joining us. Let me say as we look at where we stand on this tax
proposal, the thing that was very, very troubling was this argument
that, of course, every bit of benefit goes to the richest 1 percent of
the American people. We continue to have that argument put forward.
Professor Cogan has really blown the top right off of that argument,
as was pointed out, in this piece in the Journal the day before
yesterday, in which it talks about the fact that people at the lowest
end of economic spectrum are those that have the greatest percentage
reduction.
I guess if you look at the fact that there are people who make large
amounts of money and maybe pay $500,000, $1 million in taxes, you have
got to ask if someone does pay $500,000 in taxes, as Michael Reagan
posed last night on his radio program when I was talking to him, are
they not entitled to some type of reduction? Well, under the plan that
Governor Bush has put forward, they would get about a 10 percent
reduction in their tax burden.
Yet those who are earning less than $35,000 a year get how much,
based on this assessment that Professor Cogan has put forward? A 100
percent reduction. Why? Because if you couple the doubling of the child
tax credit from $500 to $1,000, along with the overall rate reduction,
it is very, very clear that those who are earning less than $35,000 are
the greatest percentage beneficiaries from this program that has been
put forward by Governor Bush.
Again, that has not gotten out there, but Professor Cogan very
correctly points to that, those who are in the upper-income levels have
the lowest percentage reduction. But it does seem to me that the
argument that we have been getting for the past several months on this
us-versus-them class warfare, that is why I think George Bush is right
on target when he describes himself as a uniter and not a divider.
I have oft quoted our former colleague, the late Senator Paul
Tsongas, who said it so well. He said, ``The problem with my Democratic
Party is that they love employees, but they hate employers.'' So that
has created a situation where we do not recognize what my friend from
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Armey) has just mentioned, where the people in, for
example, the technology sector of the economy, 45 percent of our
Nation's gross domestic product growth in the past 3 years has come
from these job creators.
Yes, there are a lot of very rich people, and I know my friend opened
by talking about Bill and Al. Bill Gates is one of them, who has been
very successful financially. But look at what he has created in jobs,
in improving the quality of life and standard of living, not only here
in the United States, but around the world. So they are tremendous
beneficiaries of this successful man, who has had the incentive to try
and look at creative ways to deal with challenges that are out there.
And these proposals, which would be so divisive, that the Vice
President has put forward, would do little more than stifle that kind
of creativity. I find it very troubling.
Mr. HALL of Texas. If the gentleman would yield, does the gentleman
remember when it was indicated that a George McKinney, who was a friend
of the Vice President, had to go to Canada, as a $25,000 a year man,
had to go to Canada to get satisfaction in the health field. I just
wondered, who sent him up there for the last 8 years? I think a real
good answer would have been, you know, 8\1/2\ years is long enough for
that to happen. If they put the right folks in position and then charge
up here, he will not have to go to Canada; he can go to his corner
drugstore.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, there has been a good question that
has been thrown on the floor, and certainly the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall), a man of great stature and also with grandchildren at home,
as I looked at just in being the father of two little boys, I heard Al
Gore talk about the top 1 percent. He was running against success in
America, people who are successful, people who obviously have made so
much money that, by golly, we should run against them.
In fact, I have always taught as a parent, as a scoutmaster, and even
as an employer and certainly in my congressional district, we want and
need people who will come and work hard. Yes, they will be rewarded for
what they do, but expect them to give back to their community.
Bill Gates, incredible amounts of money that he has given for
learning projects, for opportunity to employ people, and yet what do we
hear? We hear Vice President Gore attack Bill Gates, attack the top 1
percent.
It is a philosophy that then flows directly to the Attorney General
of the United States, who, rather than trying to encourage competition,
goes and beats up the largest, most value-packed company in the world,
that has created millions of jobs.
Since that time, it is the Attorney General and her actions of
government that have put the economy at risk. It is the high-tech
companies that today are worried about their profits, that are worried
about it.
Of course, the question that came from Mr. Lehrer was about the world
economy. I believe the answer is it is the United States Government and
Al Gore, through the policies and procedures because they do not like
people
[[Page 21109]]
to be rich, they do not want people to be successful, for envy reasons,
that would destroy what we have built up in this country.
Mr. ARMEY. Maybe the gentleman from Texas might make a point. I would
like to come back to that point too.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the majority leader and the gentleman from
Dallas. Everybody, from a young man like Calvin Clyde from Tyler,
Texas, who sits by my side, to people past my age, are a little sick of
pitting class against class. I think that is old stock. I do not think
it sets well. I think the American people can see through that.
Mr. ARMEY. I want to talk about this 1 percent. I am getting tired of
hearing it. When we tried to do the $500 per child tax credit, they
said that is for the top 1 percent richest people of America. Give me a
break on that. I raised five children. I never felt rich at any time
when one of those babies came along. I perhaps had blessings beyond my
wildest dreams in all five of them, but I do not remember feeling rich.
We said, well, we will eliminate the marriage penalty. They came back
and said, that is a tax break for your rich friends. Again, come on,
how many young people getting married feel rich? They may feel blessed,
but, bless their hearts, they do not feel rich. If they do get married,
why stick them with a $1,400 tax penalty? I laugh at our Tax Code. It
just tickles me.
We have got a generous, although constantly eroding, home mortgage
deduction to encourage us to buy a house, and then we have got a
marriage penalty to encourage us to live in it out of wedlock. The
government cannot make up their mind as to what they want to do in
their social engineering. But that top 1 percent, this has become a
mantra. No matter what tax reduction you talk about, it gets the same
indictment.
Here is the real story. The real story of the debate is whose money
is it? If I reduce taxes, I thereby will take less of your money. It is
your money. But how is it characterized? As me having a big tax
giveaway.
I cannot give away what is not mine to give. It is your money. And
that is the fundamental message. Why is it if they take 90 percent of
the budget surplus and we commit to buying down debt, and then take
from that 10 percent that remains the essential spending for a lot of
our emergencies, like the fires and floods you have been seeing, to
restore our military readiness so our children will be safe on the job
as they defend liberty here and abroad, a few of the other things, and
then say another 5 percent of it we give back in taxes, or just refuse
to take it away in taxes, why is that going to blow a hole in the
budget when you have got, by alternative, a spending proposal that is
$1.2 trillion over the next 10 years? Why is it they always say, when I
spend more of your money, that is good for the economy; but if I leave
you to spend more of your money, that is bad for the economy?
Let me just finish my point. In the end, whether I spend the money or
the government spends the money, the acid test is, am I getting what I
need for myself and my family?
Now, the Vice President, he presumes he knows better. He thinks he
can, through the government, buy better for me and my family than I
can. My response to that is, oh, yeah? When was the last time you got
your wife the right birthday present? I cannot even figure it out for
my wife, who I know better than any other person in the world and love
more than all other people in the world. And I cannot get the right
birthday present. Why does somebody in Washington think they can do a
better job for my wife than I can, or, for that matter, for me? The
audacity of that just amazes me.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the majority leader for being here today, and I
will tell the gentleman that I believe his time as a professor of
economics not only pays often, has paid off in the past, but will pay
off in the future. It is a matter of freedom. It is a matter of freedom
about who is going to make decisions for who.
One of the things which we as conservatives repeatedly speak about is
that we believe it is not only our money, but it should be our
decision-making process also. I think it really gets back to this
question of who is going to make the decisions for us. It is either
going to be the tax collector or the taxpayer. And money still equals
power, and the opportunity to have money in your pocket means that you
cannot only engage in the debate and be a part of what is happening,
but you can have a say in the final answer. And when Washington, D.C.
gets all the money, which is what Al Gore wants, then they will be the
decision maker in life.
If we give the money back to the taxpayer, which is what George Bush
and the Republican Party wants, then we will have an opportunity for
people to not only come and participate in America, but for their
answer to be the winning answer, their dream to be the bigger dream.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appreciate the gentleman having this special order.
I have been absolutely fascinated with some of the claims I see being
made by our liberal Democrat brethren, and one of them is that the big
thing now is to attack our tax cut plan, because we are giving a tax
cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Of course, they never
point out those are the Americans who paid a lot of the taxes, and, in
fact, I believe the figures are that the top 5 percent of taxpayers
paid a majority of the income taxes in this country.
So it is really Marxist class warfare, is what it is. In fact, I do
not like to use the term ``middle class,'' and I hear Vice President
Gore use that term over and over and over again. It is a Marxist term.
You will never find in the U.S. Constitution any reference to
``class.'' In fact, it says all men are created equal. It is the very
opposite of this idea of classes that are to be pitted against each
other, somehow using government to redistribute benefits from one to go
to the other.
I was absolutely fascinated to hear the attack levied recently by the
Vice President on Republicans, and specifically Governor Bush, over
this 1 percent, over giving the tax cut to all Americans, including the
1 percent of the wealthiest, and yet he then turns around and attacks
the Republicans for not giving free prescription drugs to the top 1
percent of wealthiest Americans.
Figure that one out. If that is not the height of hypocrisy and
nonsense, I do not know what is. His socialistic disastrous plan for
prescription drugs would destroy the surplus that we have worked so
hard in the 6 years of Republican administration of this Congress to
build up. He would create just another huge entitlement program that
would result pretty much in government price fixing, and the drug
industry would drop innovation and would be giving all these free
prescription drugs to people who do not need them, and all the time he
is telling us what a great fiscal conservative he is.
Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting that the facts of what George Bush's
own tax plan is all about was in the ``Wall Street Journal,'' a review
of it, on September 5 of this year. Here is what it does. I quote from
this article. ``The Bush tax cut does not favor the rich.''
The ``Wall Street Journal'' says, ``The Bush tax cut does not favor
the rich. This is not a flat tax, or even a proportional cut, though
such cuts would be more efficient in economic terms. Rather, higher
income families get lower percentage reductions.''
{time} 1515
This is household income. Those earning $50,000 to $75,000 a year
would see an average cut of 30 percent. My colleagues, I will tell you
that this is exactly in line with what our economics have been, to take
the burden away from people who earn between $50,000 and $75,000.
Families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would see an average cut of 18
percent, and those earning more than $100,000 would have an average
reduction of 10 percent.
Mr. Speaker, what this does very clearly is say that where you have
two people, perhaps they are both teachers
[[Page 21110]]
making $35,000 and $35,000, they would receive a cut of 30 percent.
All the time in my district, wherever I go, I try and talk about how
teachers are great for not only our schools and our children, but for
America; and they talk about they want a pay raise, they need more
money, they need more money. The George Bush tax plan would give the
average teacher and a spouse a 30 percent tax cut.
I cannot imagine any school board giving their teachers a 30 percent
tax increase. We need to have a tax cut. This government is too big and
costs too much money. We need to give the power back, yes, even to our
own teachers.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas also makes a
point, you have to define your terms. What is a tax cut? George Bush
suggests, like most of us would and the common sense parlance, that a
tax cut is a reduced tax bill to those people who pay taxes. Is not
that what most Americans would think?
Vice President Gore has one scheme here where he asks the IRS to
actually write checks to people who do not even pay taxes, and he calls
that a tax cut. Now, I call that a spending spree. It seems to me that
there is a very definitional thing.
Can you imagine when the Vice President talks about his tax cuts that
what is featured in there is this risky scheme where he is going to say
to the IRS, you write checks to people who do not even pay taxes, and
we will call it a tax cut. I would not call it that at all. I would
call that a funds distribution.
Mr. Speaker, I pay taxes. The IRS has taken my tax money and given it
to somebody else, but they are certainly not reducing anybody's taxes
in the process. Let us start with making a fundamental thing. A tax cut
should be, by definition, a reduction in the tax liability of somebody
who pays a tax. Is that not a fair definition?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. I would
agree with that.
Mr. ARMEY. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) is
here with us.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would like
to add to this discussion the following thought: clearly, Governor Bush
made the case, I thought very persuasively, and the choice between Vice
President Al Gore and what Governor Bush comes down to is will we be a
freer society in which the men and women who produce the assets and
resources of our country get to decide how to allocate those assets and
resources, or will it be a less free society and we will see the
Federal Government's massive new powers, massive new spending that the
Vice President has proposed and believes in?
I would just like to make two observations. First, if we believe in
the very central premise on which our Nation was founded, the principle
of individual liability, then that is a very compelling reason in and
of itself to support Governor Bush, because he wants to expand the
freedom of the men and women of our country. But if we are not
persuaded by that principle, then I would suggest that we ask
ourselves, what does the empirical evidence suggest? What does the data
suggest about the results of economic freedom?
The fact is, the jury is in, the verdict is in. The outcome is very,
very clear. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my colleagues that they
might want to read an annual report that is produced by the Heritage
Foundation in cooperation with the Wall Street Journal, and it is a
fascinating report. What it does, it measures the extent to which
various societies around the world are economically free.
It measures things such as the level of government expenditures in an
economy, the level of the tax burden, the amount of the regulatory
burden, whether or not currencies are exchangeable. It takes this
measurement, and it evaluates those countries which are essentially
free economies, and it analyzes those which are essentially unfree, and
then it shows an astonishing interesting correlation between economic
freedom and wealth and prosperity.
In fact, I would suggest my colleagues turn to page 21 of this
report, it is the 2000 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage
Foundation and Wall Street Journal, and what it demonstrates is
empirically and objectively beyond a dispute that those economies,
those societies that are most free are also most prosperous, allow
their people to create the most wealth, have the highest standard of
living, and the greatest opportunity in the world. And those societies
which are least free have the greatest poverty and misery.
We know that that happens on the extremes. We know that the Soviet
Union was an economic disaster, and the United States has been an
economic miracle, but the important point that this study illustrates
is that it is not only true on the extremes, but it is true on the
continuum in between.
Mr. Speaker, just to finish and to conclude, the point that it makes
is that if we move in the direction of greater economic freedom,
lowering the tax burden, lowering government regulation, limiting
Federal spending, limiting the control of our society in the hands of
politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, if we limit that and we
expand personal freedom and economic freedom, we will have more
prosperity, more economic growth, more opportunity, more people with
bigger take-home paychecks able to do the things that work best for
their families; and that is the society that I think we all want.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey). The gentleman hits right to the point, and that is, we
want to be in an America where we have opportunity and faith in each
other and faith in our future.
I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), to talk about the
surplus dollars.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on the Budget, and we work very
closely at taking a look at whose numbers add up, what we are going to
do with the Federal budget surplus. I have here an apples-to-apples
comparison of the Bush plan for the surplus and the Gore plan for the
surplus.
I think it is very important to put aside all the rhetoric you hear,
because a lot of times when you listen to politicians' rhetoric, when
you listen to the presidential campaign rhetoric or the media's
interpretation of the rhetoric, you do not actually see what is being
proposed. Let us take a look at what is actually being proposed.
We have a monumental chance, a historic opportunity to use this
surplus to address the many challenges facing our Nation. We have a
chance to pay off our national debt. We have a chance to shore up
Social Security. We have a chance to modernize and fix Medicare, and we
have a chance to let people keep more of their hard-earned money as
they continue to overpay their taxes.
What the Gore plan does is it says for every dollar coming into the
Federal Government in the form of a budget surplus for the next 10
years, we are going to take 46 cents out of that surplus dollar, 46
cents out of every surplus dollar will go toward Washington, will go
toward new spending.
Mr. Speaker, 36 cents of every surplus dollar will go towards Social
Security and Medicare and paying down the debt. You take a look at the
Gore plan, he has said in his speech and I notice in the debate we are
going to pay off the debt by 2012.
The Bush plans the debt off even faster. It puts more money towards
preserving Social Security and Medicare and paying off the debt. It
puts 58 cents of every surplus dollar toward paying off the debt,
preserving Social Security and Medicare.
The point is, if my colleagues take a look at the blue slice of this
pie in the Bush plan, after paying off the debt, after stopping the
raid on Social Security, paying off the debt in 12 years, after having
a meaningful prescription drug benefit, people are still going to
[[Page 21111]]
be overpaying their taxes, and Governor Bush is proposing that 29 cents
of every surplus dollar go back to the people who gave us the surplus,
the taxpayers.
What is the alternative to that vision? It is not paying down debt.
It is not a question of cutting taxes or paying off debt. It is a
question of after paying off the debt and shoring up Social Security
and Medicare, giving people their money back or spending it on new
programs in Washington, which is what the Vice President is proposing.
He is proposing a minor 7 cents out of every surplus dollar going
back to the taxpayers who gave us the surplus in the first place and a
whopping 46 cents of new spending out of every surplus dollar. So the
question that the Vice President has answered, is, it is not a question
of paying off debt, it is a question of not giving anybody their money
back or spending more money on new programs in Washington.
If my colleagues take a look at the amount of spending, Bush wants to
spend $278 billion over the next 10 years above and beyond the current
budgets for national defense, for education, for fixing Medicare. Gore
wants to increase spending by $2.1 trillion. He is proposing the
largest spending increase in 35 years to double the size of the Federal
Government in 10 years. That is the proposal you see with the Gore
budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is a huge election. This is about philosophy and
vision. The question is, do you want your money to come to Washington
and to stay in Washington, so that Washington then can give you some of
your money back if you engage in behavior that they approve of; or do
you want to keep some more of your own money in your paycheck to begin
with? Do you want us to become fiscally responsible and pay off our
debts before we launch into new spending sprees and creating more
programs?
These are the questions that are being answered that are going to be
on line in the ballot this November between Bush and Gore.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who
has orchestrated this hour and thank him for the time he has given.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan). I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), the majority leader. We have had an opportunity today to speak
about the differences between what is Al Gore's old tax and scheme
plans versus confidence and security that we will make sure that people
make their own decisions back at home which is called the George Bush
plan.
I want to thank my colleagues for not only participating today, but
for the fervency of their belief that America's greatest days lie ahead
of us; that I believe that America's greatest days and no problem that
cannot be solved in America, because America will be responsible for
its own destiny and the future, not the government.
____________________
ILLEGAL NARCOTICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor this
afternoon, and I hope to talk about the issue that I usually come on
Tuesday to talk about but was preempted by the presidential debates on
Tuesday night, that is, the problem of illegal narcotics and the damage
that illegal narcotics have done across our land.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but come to the floor, though, preceding
my colleagues who just spoke about some of the differences and the
great balance that we have that may be undone here in this next
election and some of the differences between the candidates on the
issues.
I sat with many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and watched the
debates. There are some things I would have mentioned that were not
mentioned. Governor Bush has not been part of the legislative process
here. The governor was chief executive of the State of Texas.
Mr. Gore has been a Member of the other body, and the differences are
very dramatic. He served a number of years as a Member of Congress and
finally as a Member of the other body, and it was interesting.
Before I get into the drug portion of my talk this afternoon, I want
to talk about some of the differences that are very distinct, the
failure of the Vice President, when he was a Member of Congress, to
ever come forth with a balanced budget; the failure of Mr. Gore to ever
come forward with a proposal to secure Social Security. He is talking
about a lockbox.
{time} 1530
The Republicans did a lockbox here. He is talking about paying down
the deficit by 2012. We are talking about paying down the deficit
sooner than that with the plan that we have.
There are things that he had an opportunity, but why did he not
propose this? When the Democrats had control of both Houses of
Congress, the Senate, by a wide margin, and this body here by a wide
veto-proof margin, they could do basically anything they wanted to do.
What did they do? He said, well, I cast the deciding vote for an
economic policy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, his plan was to pass a deciding vote to increase
taxes to the highest level they had. The plan that they brought to this
floor of the House of Representatives in 1993 when they passed that
huge tax increase projected, their projections were a $200 billion
deficit this year. That would have been on top of raiding social
security, which they had done decade after decade when they controlled
this body.
What a farce, to have this side and one of the leaders of the other
side come before the American people and tell them that he is going to
solve the problem if he is given another chance.
He had a chance in the Congress, he had a chance when they controlled
this place for 2 years with a wide, wide margin. What did they do? They
taxed and they spent the largest tax increase.
Talk about energy policy, they do not have a clue of an energy
policy. They have allowed the United States of America to be held
hostage by ten dictators and by Middle East sheiks and others and
allowed our reliance from around 50 percent on foreign oil to go now
into the 56 percent and growing range. So we are held hostage. That is
their policy.
What is amazing is that we are being held hostage by people in the
Middle East, we who sent, under President Bush, our young men and women
to die for them, and they cannot even negotiate an oil deal to give us
a better rate on the per barrel oil price.
They do not have a clue of an energy policy. On our side of the
aisle, we have all backed a domestic plan and tried to increase
domestic production, tried to get alternative fuels. I have been up to
the ANWR region of Alaska. The footprint that they had and the
technology they had years ago when they took oil out of Prudhoe Bay,
and even taking oil out of Prudhoe Bay, it is not the same technology
today that it was 20 years ago. There is a very small imprint and
footprint for oil production.
There is no reason why we have to be energy dependent. We can put a
man on the moon. And there is no reason why we cannot devise technology
for nuclear energy. Some countries produce much, much more of their
energy supply by nuclear means. They do not want to talk about that, of
course. But there is no reason why we cannot do away with nuclear waste
and turn that actually into energy production. There is no reason why
we should be held hostage. Under this administration, we have increased
our dependency to foreign sources.
Those are some of the things that I noticed in the debate.
They talk about a tax cut and balancing the budget without hurting
people. We heard the other side here, as we attempted to balance the
budget. Balancing the budget is something they could have done for 40
years here. All they had to do was match the expenditures with the
revenues. It is not a complicated thing. Most Americans do
[[Page 21112]]
it every week. They have to limit their expenditures to what they take
in.
We did that, and kicking and screaming and dragging some of our
people through elections and calling them names and accusing them of
all kinds of atrocities is unfair. They want to do that again with
Mediscare, with scaring seniors about social security.
Stop and think. I have great respect for senior citizens all in my
family that I know because they have been around a long time, and they
are not fooled by those who will tell them that they bankrupted social
security when they had control of the entire process. They were not
only bankrupting the country in these huge deficit expenditures, but
dipping into the social security trust fund, dipping into the Highway
Trust Fund, dipping into the aviation trust fund, dipping into the
Federal employees' trust fund.
Every one of these accounts they raided, until we were just about at
our financial knees. Thank goodness a Republican majority, a new
majority in the House and in the other body, came along to rescue that.
So now the folks from the other side that raided these funds, we
restored the funds and took the abuse from them and were putting our
Nation's finances in order, and they had the gall to go before the
American people and tell them that they need another 4 years in the
White House to solve these problems. They need control of the House and
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, their history is tax and spend. Their history. We passed
legislation putting our financial House in order. We also passed a
$1,000 tax credit for those people who have children in this country
when they said we could not do it, that we could not do that. We passed
a marriage penalty tax which was vetoed by those same folks that have
taken control that want to deny tens and tens of millions of working
men and women a little bit of money back in their pocket and not be
penalized for being married.
Is that family-friendly? Is that helping working people? So I saw
those debates, too. I am so glad my colleagues were here before me to
reiterate some of the issues.
The question of education, for 40 years the other side has done
nothing but bring power to Washington, as far as education. We heard in
the debates that only 6 cents of every dollar comes from the Federal
Government. We have a Department of Education with thousands of
bureaucrats, most of them in Washington, D.C., 5,000, and many
thousands of contract employees. They disguise the true number of
employees. I will talk about Federal employees in just a moment.
But in education, we have 5,000, and within just a few miles of my
voice in this Capitol there are 3,000 Department of Education Federal
employees.
One time I took a student who was visiting here. We were on our way
down to the White House. We drive from the Capitol to the White House
and see all of these buildings, these massive buildings. He asked me,
what do people do in those buildings? We passed the Department of
Education. I told him, there are 3,000 Federal education employees just
in Washington, D.C. I will tell you what they do, they administer
hundreds of Federal education programs. We were up to 760 Federal
education programs, all well-meaning, but all that required
administration and overhead.
Not only do they require it in downtown Washington in those
buildings, where they make $60,000 to $100,000, on average, and show me
one teacher in my district that makes $60,000 to $100,000. I do not
know of any. But they make it in those buildings here.
I will tell the Members what those people do in the Department of
Education: They pass rules and regulations. They administer those 760
programs.
I have no problem with the Federal Government providing money to
education. In fact, I guarantee Members, if we ask this question and
people would answer, this would be the response. The question would be,
if we were thinking about it, who would provide more funding for
education, Republicans or Democrats? If we had an audience here, Mr.
Speaker, of citizens sitting here, they would probably say the
Democrats would.
That is wrong. The Democrats, when they had control, again, and when
they were running these deficits, they put very little money into
education and increases.
If we take the same period of time that we have had control of this
House and we go back when they had control, we dramatically increased
the funding and money available for education as a percentage compared
to what they did, and put more money in student loans. The difference
is that they put more money in administration. They put more emphasis
on regulation. They want the control here in Washington, D.C., so that
is why they not only require those 3,000 Federal employees here
administering these programs, again, well-intended, but they require
them in the regional offices.
Then, what is worse is they require them in the State capitals and
down at the school boards until we get down to the poor teacher. The
teacher is held captive by rules, regulations, by the mandates coming
from Washington. I guarantee Members that if we had a President Gore,
he would be the king of rules and regulations, and more control in
Washington.
That is what the debate is about: Do we want Washington and the
Federal Government to have more control, more power, more authority, or
do we want the money that is hard earned by the taxpayers to go back to
the taxpayers? That is the major question, the major difference, for
the people who get their check at the end of the week and they look at
the check and there is very little left.
I remember when my daughter graduated a couple of years ago from
college. Her biggest shock was to get her first paycheck. She almost
cried. She said, dad, I have hardly anything left, and she was not
making that much money. But she was shocked, as every American worker
is shocked, at the end of the week, how much they have left; at the end
of the month, at the end of the year, how much they have left.
This is one of the best fundamental debates this Congress and this
country has ever heard, because the debate is about where that money is
going to end up and who controls that money: whether we control it,
have it back in our pockets, or whether they send it to Washington and
tell us how our school will be run, whether they add more
administrators in that Department of Education in Washington, whether
they force more administrators at the regional level, whether they
force more at the school level.
I served in the State legislature in Tallahassee, Florida, the
capital, back in the seventies. If Members go to Tallahassee, Florida,
there is a huge capitol building. I was there when they built it.
But the second biggest building in Tallahassee, Florida, is a
skyscraper which is a Department of Education, a State Department of
Education. That Department of Education grew to a huge bureaucracy,
one, because of some of the rules and regulations and mandates that
came out of Washington. Again, they only supply 6 cents on every
dollar. The rest of the money comes from local property taxes, State
sales tax and State fees and local money. But they pass down to the
local level this huge bureaucracy, this red tape, so a teacher is held
hostage in her classroom, so a principal cannot control the school, so
the school board has to have hundreds and hundreds of mandated Federal
employees carrying out Federal mandates.
That is where the education money goes. That is why this is a great
and fundamental debate. If people want government to have more control,
there is a very clear choice. If they want education mandated out of
Washington, there is a very clear choice. If they want more regulations
in education, there is a very clear choice.
Some of this is not rocket science. We know that children need basic
education. Governor Bush, I heard his proposal for Head Start. What a
great proposal. What he has done in Texas with his young people, if we
could do that for our country, for our children, which
[[Page 21113]]
are the poorest and most at-risk children in this country, they need
basic education. They need to be able to read and write and do simple
math. It is not complicated. My wife was an elementary schoolteacher,
and this is some of the answer.
Let me tell the Members what they put in place. Even I tried to
change it, and we cannot change the bureaucracy because they will veto
it. This President will veto it.
With Head Start, a great program, I was involved in helping, when I
went to the University of Florida some 40 years ago, before some of my
colleagues here were even born, I was trying to help young people,
particularly with an institution, with the University of Florida.
Here is a great education university next to a community in
Gainesville that had many poor children who did not have an opportunity
for education.
The Great Start concept is to take good resources, teaching
resources, and to give those young people the ability to have a head
start, to have access to education so that they have the basic skills
so when they enter school they can do simple math, they can read.
{time} 1545
Governor Bush, and I hope will be President Bush, proposed that we
convert Head Start into a reading program or at least an emphasis on
reading and basic skills.
I have a good Head Start program in my local area, but we also have a
Head Start program which I examined in my area. My Head Start program,
the public one, is a great example of what we should not be doing with
taxpayer money. One of the Head Start programs spends between $8,000
and $9,000 per year per student for a part-time program which is
basically a glorified baby-sitting program. It has turned into a
minority employment program so that the student who is coming out of a
disadvantaged home is going into a disadvantaged program and not
learning.
I examined the program, and the program had administrators, over 20
administrators in a program for around 400 students, 20 administrators
earning between $16,000 and $60,000. The teachers, there was not one
certified teacher in the program, not one certified teacher. The so-
called teachers were making between $12,000 and $16,000. Is that a head
start? That is a farce.
But if those children who are so disadvantaged had just a minimal
opportunity to learn to read, to learn to do simple mathematics. Try to
hire someone today who can do simple mathematics and read out there, it
is very difficult.
One of my community college presidents told me that over half of the
students entering community college in my area need remedial education.
We have an education recession, and that is because they have taken the
power to Washington with all of these mandates and regulations.
Do my colleagues know what they have done? They have failed. They
have failed. A teacher cannot teach. A teacher goes into the classroom
in many areas and is threatened with bodily harm. One of my district
aid's wife is a teacher in one of the schools in central Florida and
has been physically attacked.
There is not much the teacher can do. The teacher has lost control of
the classroom. Why? Because of the liberal policies and left wing
policies of well-intended people who have managed to take control away
from parents, from teachers, from principals and local school
administrators and amass them all here in Washington, D.C.
That is the clear choice that the American people are going to have:
Do you want more power here in Washington over education? Do you want
more mandates? Do you want more rules? Do you want the people who, for
40 years, have brought power and regulation to education and so
encapsulated the regulation of education that a teacher cannot teach, a
parent cannot discipline, that we cannot teach basics, that we have
programs that were intended to give children a head start? What do they
do? They keep them at the lowest common denominator.
We look at what Governor Bush did just with education in the State of
Texas for his young people. These are the young people. If we fail
them, ask any teacher what will happen, ask any principal what will
happen. First, these will be the disruptive students in the classroom.
Next, they will be the dropout students who used to be in the classroom
and who are now roaming our streets and neighborhoods. They will be the
social problems. These children will be the social problems because
they cannot read, they cannot do mathematics.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources, I have had the opportunity to sit in some of our
prisons and some of our drug treatment programs and penal institutions
and talked to young people and talked to also those older who were
incarcerated behind bars, the lost souls of this country. A common
denominator among almost all of them is that they failed in school.
They did not succeed in school.
Of course many of them came from disruptive families, and they had
substance abuse problems, and I will try to talk about that in the rest
of my talk. But one of the basic problems with young people getting
into trouble is the lack of education, lack of being able to compete in
and participate in school and having basic educational skills.
So if for no other reason if on the basis of education, we turn over
to the tax and spenders and the regulators and the mandators, this
Congress and that White House, it would be a very sad day for America.
It would be a very sad day for education in this country.
I talked a little bit about education bureaucrats. I do not advocate
the necessary abolishment of the Department of Education. The Federal
government can play a role. I do not know that we need 5,000 people or
3,000 people in Education. My God, we might have to have some of them
go out and teach for a living and actually be in a classroom and stop
regulating. We might have to take those dollars instead of the
gobbledegook administration of them and the hundreds of millions of
dollars spent on administration and block grant that money.
We passed a simple proposal here to try to get 90 percent of Federal
dollars into the classroom and to the teacher. To get a good teacher,
one has to pay a good teacher. To have a student able to learn in a
classroom, one wants the dollar to go there, not the dollar to go to
Washington.
This is an unbelievable statistic. But under their plan, the Democrat
plan, under what they have done for 40 years in bringing education and
bureaucracy to Washington, almost 90 percent of Federal dollars go to
everything but basic education. Our plan was to turn that around for
teachers, for students to benefit.
Now, just take a few minutes. I would pray that the American people
would take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, and look at what is being
proposed here and what has been done here to their schools, public
schools.
I was educated in a public school. My wife was educated in a public
school. My wife was a teacher in a public school. I think public
schools are one of the best institutions this country has ever created.
But they are managing to ruin them. That is why they go to charter
schools. That is why they are proposing vouchers as an alternative,
because they are failing.
So if we want them to fail more, we can regulate them more from
Washington. If we want them to succeed, we can put parents and teachers
in control. We can have that money come from here and be a partner with
them, but let local parents and students and educators make the
decisions. Let us take back the schools.
That is what I think Governor Bush is talking about, successful
programs and education that teach basics. Basics. If one cannot read
and write in this society or do simple math, how can one function? So
that is a great difference. I am glad my colleagues were here to talk
about it.
Before I talk about the drug situation, I have to talk about Federal
employees. I heard the Vice President of
[[Page 21114]]
the United States taking credit for, and I could almost cry when he did
it, for reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy, I think he said
by more than 300,000 Federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, those 300,000 Federal employees were almost all Federal
Defense employees. They have not met a bureaucrat that they do not like
on this side of the aisle. They love to expand the size of government,
and they have had a great deal of experience at it, whether it is the
Department of Education.
They cut the Defense civilian employees, and almost every one of
those cuts came out of those agencies. If one looks at it, EPA is
bigger than it ever has been, the Department of Commerce. Then if we
see any shrinkage, Mr. Speaker, do not let them fool us. Do not let the
Vice President of the United States, who knows better, tell us that he
has reduced the size of the Federal bureaucracy because it just is not
so.
I will tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil
Service, I will tell my colleagues where the bodies are buried. What
they have done is they have contracted for employees. So we have
millions and millions of Federal contract employees rather than Federal
employees on the payroll.
So that is where some of these folks are. The only agency I know of
that Bill Clinton cut when he came in, he reduced the Drug Czar's
office from 120 to about 27. We have managed, fortunately, with General
McAffrey and others to try to restore the viability of that office. But
it has been a struggle. That is where they made their cuts.
That might be a good lead into the subject that I came to talk about
that I usually talk about on Tuesday night but was preempted by the
debates. I wanted to make a few points. It is very frustrating as a
Member of Congress to have seen the folks who brought this country into
fiscal disarray, who operated this Congress, this House of
Representatives like a poorly run southern plantation with taxpayers
subsidizing the Member's restaurant downstairs, with the House bank run
as a piggy bank for anyone who wanted to write a check and bounce a
check and have the taxpayers fund it, who wanted to see 17 people
deliver ice, even though they instituted refrigerators here in the
recent years, they still had 17 people spending three-quarters of a
million dollars delivering ice the morning and afternoon, who ran this
place like a poorly managed southern plantation is the only comparison
I could give. The shoe shine operation was subsidized. The haircut was
subsidized.
What did we do? We came in. We cut this committee staff by a third. I
was sitting with a Member here, and I related this to the Member, a new
Member of my side of the aisle. Republicans do not even recall what the
Republicans have done in the Congress. We cut the committee staff by
one-third. We cut the number of committees by one-third. We privatized
the dining room and turned it over to a private operator. We no longer
subsidize the barber shop, the shoe shine shop. They are private
vendors. We took out the printing office which was doing sweetheart
deals for Members, and now you must compete with everyone.
Let me tell my colleagues one more that just galls me. They had
disabled people that were blocking the Republican National Headquarters
yesterday. I saw them, I guess it was, last night. I thought I would
stop and talk to those people, but they did not want to hear the truth.
When I was a Member and came here as a minority member in 1993 when
Bill Clinton took over, when the Democrats had control of the House of
Representatives and the other body, I had visually disabled blinded
people coming to visit me as a Member of Congress, and they bounced off
the walls going down the halls. There were no accommodations for
disabled.
I wrote the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and I
said, it is a disgrace that the House of Representatives does not live
under the laws that we have. I came from the business sector, and the
business sector was not allowed to ignore the law. Business people must
go by the letter of the law, the Americans With Disabilities law. There
is no reason why this Congress should not accommodate it, particularly
the House of Representatives, the people's house.
Do my colleagues know what the Democrat chairman did? He ignored me.
I wrote him again, and he ignored me. I wrote him again. They ignored
the disabled. The disabled Americans who come to this Capitol, came to
this Capitol when they controlled by wide margins the House of
Representatives and the other body, and they ignored the disabled.
I begged them if they would please accommodate. These are good
people. They deserve to have the law enforced as far as the House of
Representatives, their people's house, even when they come to lobby or
talk to or visit their Members of Congress. They ignored me.
One of the greatest satisfactions I had was, when we took over the
House of Representatives, we passed the Congressional Accountability
Act. We put the Congress, the House of Representatives under the same
laws as the business people. One of the greatest days of satisfaction
that I have ever had, and if I never serve another day in the House of
Representatives, is when they put a plaque on my door, and it said John
L. Mica; and underneath in braille, it had a braille reading for my
constituents, so when they visited me they could be treated the same
way they would in the private sector.
That was denied when they controlled this entire body by huge margins
and could have done anything they wanted to do. That was denied the
disabled in my district.
If one goes around the Capitol, and I am now on the Committee on
House Administration, it is ironic how tables turn. The Committee on
House Administration that would not even hear a minority member asking
about helping the disabled, it is ironic. I now serve on that as one of
the Speaker's designees on House Administration. Go around and see what
we have done.
{time} 1600
This place was a disgrace, and we are still trying to get it so it is
accessible to the disabled.
The fire alarms. We are still working to get them in order so it is a
safe workplace even for the people who work here, which they ignored,
as well as the access to people who are disabled.
But I am very proud of what we did. Every Member of the Republican
side of the aisle can be very proud of what they did and of their
legacy, not only as far as putting this country's financial house in
order but in the area of putting the people's House in order. So, as
Paul Harvey says, ``That's the rest of the story,'' or a little bit
more of the story.
I guess they got my dander up between watching the debates and not
hearing what should have been said. But we do need to continue the
progress that we have made: keeping our financial house in order,
helping Americans have a few more dollars in their pocket, working
Americans, and helping people get off of government. I guess those who
want a lot of control by government and want power in Washington, it is
better to have people relying on them here in Washington. God only
knows what JFK would be saying these days. He said, ``Ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' The
other side seems to think it is ask how much more Washington can do for
you, and we will get your vote and your money. It is sort of sad, and I
hope the American people pay attention to what is going on here.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, I have a very small responsibility of all the
responsibilities here. I do not have control over the budget. I am one
vote out of 435. I do not have control over the appropriations process.
But I do have responsibility to try to focus on our national drug
policy, and for the past year and a half, as chairman, and since
assuming that and leaving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil
Service of the Committee on Government Reform, I have tried to do my
best to deal with a problem which we inherited as a new majority.
[[Page 21115]]
The other side was convinced when they came in to office that we did
not need a war on drugs, so they began systematically dismantling what
was truly a war on drugs. Now, if we all think back to the
administration of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, they instituted a
number of policies, community-based policies, against narcotics. The
First Lady led a ``Just say no'' effort. The President was engaged in
this, we had a vice presidential task force, we had an Andean policy
where we went after the drugs at their source. We brought in the
military and the Coast Guard, not into arresting people but into drug
surveillance; and we had an almost 50 percent decline in drug use in
this country back from 1985 to 1990. I brought that chart up and showed
it many times.
With the Clinton administration, the first thing they did was fire
everybody, just about everybody, in the drug czar's office. They took
the military out of the war on drugs. They stopped intelligence sharing
with our allies, who were going after drug traffickers. And it is
better to have them go after them than to spend our resources. They
blocked aid to Colombia, and that is why we have a $1.3 billion aid
package to Colombia because they very directly stopped aid and
information sharing and any type of assistance going to Colombia.
Now Colombia has gone from practically having no production of heroin
and no production of cocaine in 1993, this is the total supply of
heroin produced in Colombia in 1993, this is a zero, I hope my
colleagues can see this, this is a zero in 1993, and in 6 years of the
Clinton-Gore lack of a drug policy, and an actually obstructive drug
policy in Colombia, what they have managed to do is to have that come
from zero production of heroin to being up to 75 percent of the world's
supply. And most of that is coming into the United States from South
America.
This is the most recent report I have had as the chairman. We know
where the drugs are coming from. Heroin is coming from South America.
We see it is at 65 percent of all the heroin. We know this and DEA
knows this. They have supplied me with these figures because they can
do a DNA signature analysis and almost tell the field that the heroin
has come from. So we know that now in the Clinton-Gore administration,
in 6, 7 years, they have managed to turn Colombia from producing zero
to 65 percent of everything on the streets seized in the United States;
75 percent of the world's supply, as we see. These are DEA figures
given to me.
The other huge increase we see is Mexico. From 1997 to 1998 they went
from 14 to 17 percent, a 20 percent increase in the country that we
gave trade assistance to; that we helped to secure their peso during
their financial disaster. We loaned them money. We have given them the
best trade benefits of probably any nation in the history of
negotiation over trade. We gave them the best benefits. This
administration certified Mexico as cooperating; yet they increased by
20 percent in one year the production of heroin. They blocked any aid
going to Colombia and turned it into the biggest producer.
So here are two of our problems: we know where it is coming from. It
is coming across the border from Mexico. It is being produced, the last
6, 7, years, under the Clinton-Gore administration, in Colombia, where
they denied aid; they denied assistance. And even several years ago,
when we appropriated $300 million to go to Colombia, that money was
bungled in getting delivery of goods and resources to Colombia to go
after narcotics trafficking and also eradicating the narcotics
production in that country.
We will hear next week from DEA and from GAO and others that have
looked at this situation, and they will outline that ``the gang that
can't shoot straight'' could not even get the aide that we appropriated
more than 2 years ago to Colombia to try to get this situation under
control. That scares me as far as the $1.3 billion we just
appropriated. Even when it is appropriated, they cannot get it
straight.
The same is true for another deadly drug, which is cocaine. In 1993,
President Bush had gotten the production of cocaine almost under
control. They went after the cartels. They had an Andean strategy. We
have to remember, from a position of wimping out on the narcotics
issue, which is sort of the trademark of this administration, back to
what took place in 1989. President Bush found one government
trafficking in illegal narcotics, primarily cocaine, and what did he
do? He sent our troops in and they surrounded the house. If my
colleagues will remember, those of us that followed this, they
surrounded and captured Noriega. He was captured because he was dealing
in drugs and drug trafficking, and that is what he was charged with.
And then there is this administration that has turned its back on
trying to stop the production.
This was a successful program. When we reduce drug use 50 percent
from 1985 to 1992 in this country, when it is reduced by 50 percent,
that is a successful program. But they will tell us that the war on
drugs has failed. Their war on drugs has failed. Their war on drugs was
a dismantling of any effort on drugs, and the evidence could not be
more clear.
Now, finally we have gotten the President's attention. In 7 years, I
believe the President mentioned the war on drugs eight times, just
before the Colombian appropriation. When we do not have leadership from
the top, when we do not have an effective strategy, when we take the
military and surveillance out of the war on drugs, what do we have? We
have a huge supply of drugs. That is why they are dying in Vermont,
that is why they are dying in Oregon, that is why they are dying in my
State, that is why they are dying in Baltimore, right down the street
from here in Baltimore. ``Drug Overdose Deaths Exceed Slayings,'' this
is a recent headline, September 15, in Baltimore. That means that there
are more drug-related deaths than homicides.
This would be a horrible headline in any community. It has appeared
in the headlines in my community. But the national media will not pay
attention to this. We held a hearing a week ago on this, but in the
United States of America, for the first time in the history of
statistics, drug-induced deaths, drug-related deaths in the United
States of America exceeded homicides. For the first time. They do not
want that information out. The media would not cover it. God forbid
anyone should think that they are not doing a great job. But when the
drug czar and Donna Shalala held a conference several weeks ago that
drug use among eighth graders had dropped slightly, they championed
that like we had solved the whole problem.
I tell my colleagues, the problem is serious. Ask any parent, ask any
young person. These are the headlines that we see: ``High Schoolers
Report More Drug Use.'' Ask any high schooler, ask any parent, ask any
single parent, any mother, any set of parents what one of their
greatest fears is, and that is to have their child addicted to
narcotics. Not only the problem of addiction, it is the problem of
death. And now we have all kinds of drugs on the street.
We have a huge supply. We saw where some of the supply is coming
from. I am not sure if the Speaker has an HDTV or how many of my
colleagues here have an HDTV. Probably not too many. Some might say,
well, what is an HDTV? And what does high definition television have to
do with drugs? It is a simple economics equation. When there is a short
supply and a high price, there is not the demand.
We have heroin, we have cocaine, we have methamphetamine, we have
Ecstasy, we have all of these drugs flooding our streets; and the
administration has dismantled any effort to go after the supply, to go
after the producing countries, to stop drugs most cost effectively at
their source. And that is why we have an incredible supply of heroin,
that is why we have heroin overdose deaths. Not only do we have heroin
overdose deaths, we also have on the streets of our country the most
pure heroin and cocaine that our drug enforcement people have ever
seen, and our young people are mixing it with alcohol and with other
drugs, and they are dying like flies. That is why drug-related deaths,
and many of them with our young people, now exceed homicides in the
United States.
[[Page 21116]]
Now, some people would say that the answer is treatment. And I heard
this Geraldo Rivera debate the other night with one of the pro-
legalizers talking about this is just a health problem. This is just a
health problem. We treat everybody and we will be fine.
{time} 1615
Well, they tried the health problem approach in Baltimore and they
grew from a small number of addicts to somewhere between 60,000 and
80,000 addicts. Of course, the population went from 900,000 to 600,000
because people left Baltimore. They had a mayor who had a
liberalization policy, no enforcement policy. And what happened? Almost
the same number of homicides every year. And we saw where now drug-
induced deaths exceed homicide in Baltimore. That did not work and it
does not work.
The alternative is zero tolerance. Rudy Giuliani did it in New York.
He cut the murders from over 2,000 in a year when he took office to
600. Six hundred is about double what Baltimore had, and Baltimore has
600,000 population. And there are millions and millions in New York
City. Rudy Giuliani, through a zero tolerance policy and going after
drug dealers, cut all crime in New York City.
Walk through New York City and you will see the evidence of it by 58
percent. The seven major felony categories were cut by 58 percent. So
it not only cut murders from 2,000 down to 600, it cut down all of the
mayhem and the felonies. But this is treatment.
Now, they say we did not put enough money in treatment and we hear
that from the other side. We put money in treatment, even under the
Republicans, a 26 percent increase in treatment since 1995 funds. Every
year we put money in treatment. And we see what has happened with
interdiction, with international programs, when the other side, the
Democrats, and under the Clinton-Gore policy cut the interdiction, cut
the international source country programs.
We have a huge increase in drug use in almost every category in the
United States because we have a huge supply coming in. And we can never
treat enough people. So we will continue to put money into treatment.
But do not let them fool you that this is a health problem that we can
treat our way out of this. You cannot have a war or any kind of a
conflict and only treat the wounded in battle.
And once someone is addicted to narcotics, our success rate in public
programs is a 60/70 percent failure rate. Only a 20/30 percent success
rate. And these people are repeat and repeat. Ask any parent who has an
addicted young person. Ask any adult who has been addicted to
narcotics. And it is the hardest thing in the world to treat these
people.
If we follow the Baltimore model, we will have tens and tens of
millions of people who are addicted. We cannot afford that. We have
asked this administration to go after drug dealers. And the Clinton-
Gore administration from 1992 to 1996, this is a chart that was
supplied to us by the administration and all the statistics come from
the administration, it is entitled Individual Defendants Prosecuted in
Federal Courts in Drug Prosecutions 1992 to 1996, they cut the
prosecution of going after drug offenders from 29,000 here to 26,000 in
1996. So when we got after them to go after drug dealers and drug
offenders, and we are not talking about people with small amounts of
possession, we are talking about people dealing in death and
destruction in huge quantities trafficking in illegal narcotics, they
dropped the prosecution.
And what happened is these are the headlines from the ``Dallas
Morning News'': ``Federal Drug Offenders Spending Less Time in Prison
Study Finds.'' We went after them, and we started to get the
prosecutions up. And now we find in 2000 the drug offenders are
spending less time in prison.
We cannot win with these folks. First they will not prosecute folks;
and then when they prosecute them, we finally get them to prosecute
them and they do not let them serve prison terms.
That is unfortunate. What is also unfortunate is our country is now
being ravaged by not only heroin, not only by cocaine and other drugs
of high purity and deadly levels, but we have a new plague across this
country and that is the plague of Ecstasy and designer drugs.
We just had a young person at the University of Central Florida die
from an overdose of designer drugs just the past few days. We have
young people who are dying from Ecstasy. We had a hearing of our
subcommittee in Atlanta and heard a father talk of his daughter who
about 2 years ago took Ecstasy and went into convulsions. And for 2
years that family went through hell. The daughter was in a coma and
finally died.
We have had hearings where we had fathers talk about their sons who
have tried Ecstasy and did not get a second chance. They are part of
those statistics of drug related deaths that exceed homicides.
One father from Orlando told me, ``Mr. Mica, drug related deaths are
homicides.''
But one of the great misconceptions young people have is that Ecstasy
is a harmless drug, designer drugs you can take and feel good.
This is a brain scan provided to us by the National Institute of Drug
Abuse, who does scientific studies. This is a brain scan of a normal
brain. This is a brain that has dealt with Ecstasy. Ecstasy destroys
the brain tissue and it creates a Parkinson's type disease almost in
the brain, a destruction of the brain. This is a brain scan after use
of Ecstasy.
The young people and adults of this country must realize that they
have a dangerous commodity out there. And now some of it is mixed with
all kinds of substances and used with other drugs and is deadly.
It is amazing how this stuff is packaged. This is not a little
cottage industry. This has turned into a huge industry of deadly drugs
in designer packages.
I do not know if we can focus on this, but they put all kinds of
fancy designer labels on these drugs. This was provided to us by U.S.
Customs Service, and that is what is out there. They try to make it
attractive to our young people, and this is what our young people get
is a brain, if they survive, that is damaged. And you do not repair
this damage to the brain.
So right now we are facing an Ecstasy epidemic. We are facing it in
California.
I see my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) is here.
We were in his district for a hearing. I might want to yield to the
gentleman to comment about his perspective. Maybe he can relate, too,
to the House part of this problem. The gentleman does a fantastic job
working on the subcommittee but shares, as a father and a parent, my
concern for what is happening with illegal narcotics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding
to me. And I do want to commend his efforts on the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, on which I am
honored to serve with him as chairman.
He has in fact been to my district for a hearing, and at that hearing
we heard the traumatic tales of families whose very fiber was ripped
from seam to seam from the abuse of drugs by folks who should know
better.
I was hopeful, if I might, Mr. Speaker, if I could just have just a
few moments to speak about, frankly, a fraudulent initiative on the
California ballot that will contribute to a far more pronounced number
of experiences than we have even today.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman. I
think we have about 4 minutes, but I think it is important that he gets
this message out to our colleagues, the Speaker, and the American
people.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, in California we have an
interesting process called the initiative process. And on this year's
ballot we have Prop 36, which is labeled Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act of 2000.
I have a copy of it here. And it is interesting. I have gone through
and I
[[Page 21117]]
have flagged the various parts of it that are so troublesome. This is
about 4,500 words in total. And it is interesting, it is being marketed
on the basis of treatment. It provides treatment to people, that if we
approve this, Californians will receive treatment. But of its 4,500
words, only 383 of them speak directly within the initiative to
providing treatment for people. So can you imagine that, less than a
tenth of the words in this initiative.
Let me tell my colleagues that what this initiative really does is it
imposes the wisdom of a criminal defense attorney, it interjects that
into California statute under the guise of providing treatment for
folks who need drug treatment.
There is nothing in here that provides treatment to Californians. It
changes criminal statute to allow people who violate our laws as it
relates to drug possession and use are treated, but it does not provide
a single dollar for drug treatment to people who desperately need it.
And keep in mind that this is an initiative written by a criminal
defense attorney. The initiative itself was funded by three people who
do not even live in California. There is no medical analysis, no
medical input to drafting this. It is a shameful fraud being,
attempting to be perpetrated on the voters of California.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, just in the course of our committee hearings,
the gentleman and I have heard time after time after time from medical
professional after medical professional after medical professional that
drug testing is an inherent and integral part of a successful drug
treatment program. This initiative, the $120 million to be appropriated
under this initiative, not a dime of it can be used for drug testing
whatsoever. So the initiative eliminates the chance to use the most
successful tool we have. I just want to make that clear.
I appreciate being able to come down here and visit with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) for his comments, and I thank him for the leadership on our
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
As we conclude, I again call to the attention of my colleagues, the
Speaker, and the American people the need to be vigilant on the issue
of illegal narcotics, not to make the mistake of the past, not to be
fooled by the legalizers, but to make this country safe for our
children and the next generation and stop the ravages of illegal
narcotics. Because illegal drugs do destroy lives and do a great deal
of damage to our society and our country and particularly to our
families and young people.
____________________
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Martinez). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Democrats' and
the Clinton-Gore administration's energy policy versus the Republicans'
lack of energy policy and the Republicans' support for big oil rather
than the consumers.
I also have to underscore the fact that the Democrats' energy policy
protects rather than sacrifices environmental protection.
I know I am going to be joined this evening by some of my colleagues,
and I wanted to first yield if I could to the gentleman from the great
State of Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding to me, and I appreciate very much his taking this time today
to talk about the lack of a national energy policy.
Perhaps the best known price in America today is that of gasoline.
Americans see it posted along the road a dozen or two times a day. They
pull in to fill up every week to 10 days, if not more often.
It is also a price that perhaps because of that visibility can
generate a lot of heat, especially when it is going up, as it has this
year.
This is in fact a price that tells the complex story of global supply
and demand, of technological change and of environmental consciousness,
and of shifting consumer taste and social change.
Despite the long-term trend, prices move up and down a great deal.
These fluctuations can be caused, among other things, by political
events, shift in supply and demand of fuel, weather, the level of
inventories, disruptions in refinery operations, and the introduction
of new environmental standards.
{time} 1630
Over the last year or so, retail gasoline prices in the United States
have bounced down and then up from very low levels and then back up to
very high levels. In February of 1999, the national average retail
price fell to 95 cents per gallon, the lowest since 1989 in nominal
dollars and one of the lowest levels ever seen in inflated dollars, and
30 percent lower than the price 2 years earlier. Not much more than a
year later, they had risen to the recent highs of over $1.50 per gallon
nationwide.
These price swings were detrimental to the producer and the consumer.
The trucking industry, for example, in my district and all over the
United States had a hard time maintaining operations as usual under the
economic strain experienced by their businesses as a result of these
price increases. Agriculture also has borne the brunt. Today, high oil
prices reflect in part the U.S. economic boom and recovering economies
elsewhere.
According to the study done by Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
gas price conditions felt this summer were attributed to four primary
forces acting on the market: number one, the price of crude oil, where
for every $1 per barrel, gasoline prices increased 2 to 3 cents; two,
inventories are low based on production constraints; three, new
environmental regulations have created numerous variations, RFG,
ethanol, MTBE, in gasoline contents making it difficult to transport or
mix gas from one area into the next during times of crisis; four, the
booming economy has created a 2 percent higher demand for gasoline over
last summer. This coupled with the fact that Americans are driving more
per person per year, 13,000 miles per person per year, has increased
demand.
The last President or last administration to attempt to create a new
energy policy was President Carter. I cannot remember a time when the
Congress, particularly in the last 6 years, in which we have had a
serious debate in this Congress regarding energy policy.
A national energy policy is a must for the United States and this
policy must decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Our Nation
gets almost 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and this is
absolutely unacceptable as it puts our economic and national security
at risk. The rejuvenation of the domestic oil and gas industry will
benefit all Americans and ensure an energy security for this Nation far
into the future. Wide swings in price are not good for consumers or for
producers. I happen to represent the oil patch. Less than 2 years ago
when oil prices were at critically low levels, we had $8 per barrel
prices, domestic oil and gas producers in my district, the 17th
District of Texas, were struggling to keep their operations open and
many did not.
In my district, claims for unemployment from the oil and gas industry
quadrupled from 1,171 to 4,730 between December of 1997 and December of
1998. During this time, the lost wellhead value dropped $5.79 million
and the value of oil to the Texas economy dropped by almost $1 billion.
The number of producing wells declined by 2,855 during this time as
well. In my home county of Jones, oil production in December of 1997
was 83,706 barrels; in December of 1998 it had dropped to 69,000
barrels; and in December of 1999 it had declined to 58,000 barrels.
That is a decline of 25,000 barrels per month from December of 1997 to
December of 1999, or a decline of 30 percent. Total domestic crude oil
production has declined
[[Page 21118]]
from 8.7 million barrels per day in the United States in 1986, the
first oil price collapse, to 5.9 billion barrels per day.
When prices are below the cost of exploring and producing crude,
these small independent producers cannot stay in business, and it has a
ripple effect throughout local communities as schools and hospitals in
Texas rely on a healthy oil and gas industry for revenues. At the time,
we warned that critically low prices have the potential to turn into a
price shock. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that we should have
learned many times over the last 2 decades. I would like to find any
evidence anywhere in which this Congress, the 106th, attempted to do
anything about the low prices.
If there was a time of dramatic demonstration, the compacted
experience of the last 3 years with its highs and lows illustrates the
need for our Nation to take responsibility for its energy future. We do
need a free market for the production of energy, but it cannot be a
free market dominated by foreign producing countries that do not have
our best interests at heart. Congress needs, in fact must consider
measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude oil and
natural gas prices, maintaining a level where domestic producers can
compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must
recognize both producer and consumer issues.
Last week, the House considered the energy and water appropriations
conference agreement which deleted language added in by the House
earlier this session to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
to create a Northeast home heating oil reserve. I find it reckless that
in the midst of home heating oil shortages in the Northeastern States,
this Congress is on the verge of allowing the President's authority to
use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lapse.
Authorization of the SPR expired on March 31 of this year, 6 months
ago. The House supported a measure that would reauthorize the SPR, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and ensure that it would be filled with
domestic crude oil to capacity with specific options leading to the
expansion of the SPR capacity. Many of us stood on this floor and
through letters and Dear Colleagues encouraged the Congress 2 years ago
when we had the opportunity to buy oil from domestic producers at $8 a
barrel and put it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which would have
been a good investment for this country, a good investment for taxpayer
dollars, to buy it at $8, to support the domestic industry when we had
a chance to. But because of overt concerns about unrealistic budgets,
the majority on this body refused to even consider it.
It is irresponsible, I believe, to refuse that the SPR be
reauthorized, giving this and future Presidents all means available to
respond to any possible energy supply emergency. It is in our national
security interest. The Department of Energy cannot establish a regional
home heating oil reserve until Congress either reauthorizes the SPR or
separately passes legislation authorizing the creation of such a
reserve with a responsible trigger. Are we trying to send a message
from Congress to many vulnerable consumers that they will have to
sacrifice other needs just to heat their homes this winter?
Additionally, shortages in natural gas will be the next energy issue
before us when brownouts start occurring in cities short on natural gas
used to create electricity, a direct result of the collapse of the
independent oil and gas producing industry in the United States because
when you stop drilling for oil, you also stop drilling for gas. Gas is
often found in the process of discovering oil. That is something that
we have been very, very shortsighted on with our, again, lack of a
national energy policy.
Let me just quickly outline some of the things that this Congress
should have done this year, or last year. Congress needs to consider
measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude and
natural gas prices maintaining a level where domestic producers can
compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must
recognize both producer and consumer issues. We need to enact
legislation that provides tax relief for marginal well production,
providing a safety net for producers when prices are critically low. We
need to enact legislation that provides tax incentives for inactive
well recovery aimed at bringing plugged or abandoned wells back on
line. We need to pass the Watkins-Stenholm proposal that would correct
the inequity facing American oil producers who must meet regulatory
costs avoided by producers in other countries by imposing an
environmental equalization fee on imported crude oil and refined
products at the level of cost domestic producers currently spend on
compliance with Federal environmental regulations.
We need to encourage production of unconventional fuels. I have
recently cosponsored the Energy Security for American Consumers Act
that aims to stimulate production of unconventional gas in the hope
that our Nation will be better equipped to meet our future energy
needs. This bill would extend the section 29 tax credit for
unconventional gas production and will provide the energy sector with a
necessary incentive to produce gas that is both difficult and costly to
obtain.
We need to enact legislation expensing geological and geophysical
costs, delaying rental payments and extending the suspension of net
income limitation of percentage depletion for marginal wells. We need
to enact a low-cost emergency lending program for the benefit of
domestic oil and gas producers. We need to enact legislation that would
enhance recovery and wildcat exploration. We must open our Federal
lands, both onshore and offshore, except in the most treasured
environments, to responsible exploration. From 1997 to 1999, oil well
completions for drilling for new reserve declined 54 percent. But by
providing financial incentives to increase domestic oil production and
exploration, we can encourage the discovery of new domestic oil
reserves.
We need to ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is filled with
domestic crude oil to capacity and to the extent that the filled
capacity does not meet a 90-day supply of foreign imported petroleum,
expand the SPR capacity. We need to ensure that the Northeastern States
are not in the position where they are facing home heating oil
shortages that will harm consumers by establishing a home heating oil
reserve in the Northeast. Despite the fact that the President acted
administratively in July to create it, the Congress still needs to
authorize the use of this new reserve.
We need to enact legislation to promote new developments in the
access, production and use of natural gas. We need to enact legislation
to promote research in exploring other avenues of energy, including
solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable energy resources. We
need to enact legislation to provide tax incentives encouraging
consumers to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes and
purchase energy-efficient automobiles, as well as further promote and
fund LIHEAP.
It is imperative that Congress work together setting aside partisan
differences to ensure price stability, prices that are not so low that
producers are put out of business and prices that are not so high that
they hurt consumers and threaten our economy. America needs a balanced,
forward-looking energy policy based on the proposals that have been put
before this Congress. We need a responsible approach that will infuse
our energy sector with both efficiency and competition seeking to
protect America against emergencies in the energy market.
Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we should have done. I would
challenge very many individuals on either side of the aisle to show
anything that we have done other than not avoid the temptation of
pointing the finger. There are many, many solutions. I am very happy
today, and I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking this
1 hour. I thank him for allowing me to show at least in this one
Member's mind some of the things that we should have been doing in this
Congress, and some of the proposals that
[[Page 21119]]
are being advocated now of where we need to go in the next
administration and in the next Congress.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for
his remarks and two things, first of all, I think he points out very
successfully, that it is the Congress that needs to act on authorizing
these energy initiatives that would help the American consumer, and we
know that for the past 6 years, the Republicans have been in the
majority and they have not done it. I know the gentleman does not like
to point a finger; but the bottom line is, the Republican leadership
runs this place, and they have not put forward an energy policy, and
they have not been willing to enact the policies that the Clinton-Gore
administration have put forward.
I also wanted to thank my colleague because I see the concern he
expressed for the Northeast, particularly the need to authorize the
Northeast home heating oil reserve which, again, the Republican
leadership has not been willing to do and has been trying to stop the
reserve actually from being passed. The gentleman mentioned gas prices.
There is an article in the Star Ledger, which is the major newspaper in
my home State of New Jersey, today that is entitled ``Gas Heat Costs
Will Be Soaring. Jersey's Four Utilities Want Rate Hikes as High as 40
Percent.'' If I could just in the first couple of paragraphs of the
article, it says:
Heating bills could rise as much as 40 percent for some New
Jersey consumers this winter if rate increases requested
yesterday by the State's four natural gas utilities are
approved by regulators. The four utilities covering millions
of customers filed petitions seeking emergency relief with
the State board of public utilities which is expected to act
on the proposals at its next meeting on Tuesday. The
increases would be effective immediately.
So what he is saying about the impact ultimately on gas prices is
certainly coming true. Most important is the fact that the Republican
leadership continues to oppose the President's initiative, backed up by
Vice President Gore, to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the SPR. I
just wanted to point out briefly, and then I would like to yield to my
other colleague from Texas, that it is ironic that Governor Bush and
the Republican leadership here and the Republican leadership on the
Committee on Commerce, which I serve on which has jurisdiction over
energy policy, continue to criticize the President and the Vice
President with regard to the SPR, because if I could just recount a
little history here because I think it is important since the
Republican leadership came into the majority, or actually I could take
it even further back to when President Bush was in office.
When President Bush sold oil from the reserve from the SPR during the
Gulf War, domestic reserves were higher than today and crude prices
were $5 per barrel cheaper. Yet he said he released the oil not because
of national security but to, ``calm the markets.'' So even President
Clinton's predecessor, President Bush, recognized the fact that the SPR
could be tapped, not for security reasons, but to make sure that prices
did not continue to rise.
{time} 1645
But, beyond that, since the Republican leadership has been in charge
here in the Congress, since 1996, they twice passed laws requiring the
sale of oil from the reserve, over 28 million barrels, to help pay for
GOP budget priorities. Selling the oil from the SPR just to make ends
meet in terms of the budget. Then, last year, in 1999, the Republican
leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), joined 35 other Republicans to introduce a bill that
would not only eliminate the Department of Energy, but abolish the
Reserve, abolish the SPR.
Since taking control, Republicans have let the President's authority
to fully use the Reserve lapse three times, totaling 18 months. The SPR
authority last lapsed on March 31. In 1999, Republicans blocked the
Clinton Administration proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when
crude prices were only $10 a barrel. This is what the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was saying. The purchase would have helped
domestic producers and fill part of the 115 million barrels of SPR
capacity in the Reserve.
I am only trying to bring up dramatically that we have Governor Bush
and the Republican leadership here criticizing President Clinton, Vice
President Gore, for tapping the Reserve to try to bring prices down,
and we know the Republicans have a history going all the way back to
President Bush of tapping the SPR for similar reasons, but, at the same
time, trying to abolish it altogether and not even have it available
for use in a time like this, when prices have been going up.
So I am just glad that President Clinton acted on Vice President
Gore's advice and decided to go ahead and tap the SPR, because we know
it did have the impact of stabilizing prices and even reducing prices
to some extent.
I would like to yield now to another one of my colleagues from Texas,
the chairman of our Democratic Caucus, who has been chairing a task
force on energy policy and has been very effective in not only bringing
forth the message in terms of what the Democrats are trying to do here,
but trying to get the Republicans to act on the Democrats' proposals.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
For the past 22 years, I have had the honor of serving the people of
Texas, America's prototypical energy producing State, so I know that we
can achieve bipartisan consensus around energy policy if we want to.
Unfortunately, for 6 years this Republican Congress has been AWOL on
energy policy, and, when they have not been asleep at the wheel, they
have led the fight against energy independence for America, slashing
energy efficiency programs, trying to eliminate the Department of
Energy and selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Earlier this year, gas prices surged around the Nation, and then, as
now, the Republican Congress chose irresponsible partisan attacks
against the administration, not reasonable responses with bipartisan
support. Most outrageously though, this Republican Congress has
consistently ignored or killed Democratic energy policies, and then
turned around and tried to score political points when oil prices went
up.
For more than 6 months, for instance, the United States has been in a
weaker position to negotiate with OPEC, because the Republican Congress
continues to withhold one of the President's chief tools for dealing
with an energy crisis, the clear authority to fully use the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
This winter, families in the Northeast face a repeat of last winter,
record high home heating prices, because this Republican Congress
refuses to create a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. Just last week, in a
fit of partisan pique, Republican leaders again played politics with
these two key pieces of America's energy security arsenal, deleting
them from the energy and water appropriations bill.
In the midst of an energy crisis, this Republican Congress still
refuses to take the simplest of steps to increase America's energy
independence. Fortunately, President Clinton and Vice President Gore
have showed their leadership to ignore Republican partisanship and to
act decisively and appropriately to address our immediate energy
problems. After the President announced that he would address shortages
by swapping oil out of the Reserve this year in exchange for more oil
next year, oil prices dropped nearly $6 a barrel, their lowest level in
almost a month. In contrast, oil prices immediately jumped when
Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas announced that he would
try to stop the oil swap.
While we are on the subject of the Reserve swap, let me take a minute
to clear up some misconceptions being perpetuated by some of our
Republican friends.
First of all, Republicans like to attack the President's move as
political. Well, was it political for northeastern Republicans to call
for deployment of the Reserve? Hardly. They, like Al Gore and the rest
of us, are trying to
[[Page 21120]]
do what we can to protect families from having to choose between
heating their homes and buying groceries this winter.
Indeed, families in the Northeast are facing the prospect of another
winter of low oil inventories and high home heating oil prices, as much
as 30 percent higher than last year. Across the country, gas prices are
still too high. It would have been irresponsible, a terrible abdication
of leadership, to ignore this coming energy crisis in the way
Republican leaders are trying to do.
Second, Republicans claim the President risked national security by
using the Reserve to help families suffering from the energy crisis.
This is as hypocritical as it is ridiculous. After all, did it threaten
national security when this Republican Congress sold off 28 million
barrels of oil from the Reserve to pay for its budget priorities in
1996? Did it threaten national security when this Republican Congress
stopped the administration from increasing the Reserve's inventory last
year, when oil prices were at just $10 a barrel, which would have
strengthened the Reserve and helped domestic producers? And did it
threaten national security when Republican leaders, like the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) tried last year to abolish the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve altogether? Probably so.
But by swapping oil out of the Reserve now for more oil next year,
the President's action will not just help consumers this winter, it
will also strengthen the Reserve and increase national security. In
fact, the Department of Energy announced yesterday that its swap
agreement with 11 oil companies had been completed, and that it would
yield the Reserve a net increase of 1.5 million barrels of oil.
Once you put politics aside, it is clear that the administration's
action was good for families in the Northeast beset by high home
heating oil prices, and it was good for us in Texas, where long
distances and high gas prices can take a real toll on people's
pocketbooks.
Fortunately, where American consumers see an energy crisis,
Republican leaders see a political opportunity; an opportunity to score
political points against a President they despise and an opportunity to
cover up their 6-year record of negligence on energy independence. That
is profoundly disappointing, because there is no doubt about the
seriousness of home heating oil shortages this winter and continued
high gas prices.
This Republican Congress has the ability and the responsibility to do
more than just play partisan blame games while American consumers are
suffering. Congressional Democrats, President Clinton and Vice
President Gore, have consistently tried to develop a comprehensive
energy independence policy that has broad support across partisan,
regional and industry lines. We have worked to reduce America's
dependence on foreign oil by encouraging environmentally friendly
domestic production.
Under the Clinton Administration, natural gas production on Federal
lands on shore has increased nearly 60 percent since 1992, and under
the Clinton Administration, oil production offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico has increased 62 percent since 1992. But, again, Republican
leaders have preferred politics to progress, so Republican energy
policy pretty much starts and ends at drilling in the pristine Alaska
National Wildlife Reserve, despite the fact that it would not result in
a drop of oil on the market for years and despite the fact that the
most recent U.S. Geological Survey estimates make clear that the amount
of recoverable oil, which amounts to less than 6 months of U.S.
domestic oil consumption, is not nearly enough to justify despoiling
forever this pristine wildlife reserve.
In contrast, Democratic tax incentives for marginal wells and to
further increase domestic production, which have broad support, have
been ignored in this Republican Congress. Republican leaders have been
even more hostile to our efforts to increase energy efficiency and
develop alternative energies. Over the past 6 years, the Republican
Congress has underfunded solar, renewable and conservation programs by
$1.3 billion below the President's request, and, if Republicans had not
cut the weatherization assistance program by 50 percent in 1995, then
250,000 more households could have been helped, which would have
decreased demand for oil.
When Republicans first took control of the Congress, they voted to
kill the Low Income Home Heating Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP,
which helped the neediest Americans in the midst of an energy crisis,
and the following year Republicans proposed changing LIHEAP so that
disadvantaged families could be forced to choose between buying food
and heating their homes.
For the past 6 years, the threat to America's energy security has
come from this Republican Congress and its refusal to treat energy
policy as anything other than a partisan political opportunity. It is
long past time that Republican leaders finally stop playing political
games with oil prices and began working with us to give America the
common sense, comprehensive energy independence policy it needs.
I thank the gentleman very much for taking out this special order, so
that we could discuss these very important issues with the American
public.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Texas.
If I could just reiterate two of the things the gentleman mentioned,
because I think they are so important, one is this whole effort by
Governor Bush and the Republican leadership now to insist that, because
of the crisis in oil prices, that we have to now threaten the
environment again, either with drilling in ANWAR and Alaska or offshore
the continental coast of the United States.
As the gentleman points out, this has no immediate impact. I mean, we
are not talking pie in the sky here, we are talking about our
constituents, and being from New Jersey and the Northeast, I know this
is an immediate crisis that people are facing. They do not want to hear
about what is going to happen in a few years; they are facing the
crisis now.
The one thing that President Clinton's proposal by tapping the SPR
does was to actually reduce prices, and ultimately I think stabilize a
market in a way that has an immediate impact. That is what is really
important.
I never cease to be amazed how our Republican colleagues talk about
policy, but they do not seem to respond to the immediate need that
people have, and that is what Vice President Gore and President Clinton
were doing when they talked about the need to tap the SPR.
The other thing that I think is so important that the gentleman
pointed out, and we do not hear that too often, is this idea that by
the Republicans not pursuing a real energy policy for our country, it
leaves us weak to foreign exploitation.
I think what I have noticed with President Clinton and Vice President
Gore is they keep saying that we need to tap the SPR, not only because
of the immediate impact on prices, but because it has an impact on our
ability to influence OPEC and the cartel, the oil cartel, if you will,
that is trying to drive prices up.
As the cartel and OPEC know that we are going to take action on our
own and tap the SPR, they realize that they cannot influence prices as
much as they have been able to and take advantage of the situation over
the last 6 months.
So, again, we need to make some policy initiatives here. Certainly
the Republican leadership in the Congress has not been willing to do
it, and the administration has essentially had to act on its own with
regard to the SPR and the decision also to move to create this
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. But, at the same time, instead of
reacting positively to that, the Republican leadership comes here and
says, oh, no, we do not want the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, and we
do not want you to be able to pass the SPR, and they passed the energy
and water appropriations conference bill last week that actually would
eliminate both of those options.
[[Page 21121]]
It is an outrageous step. It is outrageous that at a time when the
American people are crying for some action to deal with the rise in oil
prices and the rise that is going to result in home heating oil, as
well as natural gas prices, and the response of the Republican
leadership in the Congress is to say no, we do not want you to be able
to tap the SPR. We want to pass legislation that says you cannot pass
the SPR and pass legislation that says you cannot set up this Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve. I just cannot believe that that is their
response to the public outcry for the need to action to address the
crisis.
I wanted to, in the time that I have left, I wanted to develop a
little more the reason why I believe very strongly that the Republican
leadership here in the House has not only failed to address the
immediate energy needs, but is really trying to dismantle and eliminate
any effort to set any kind of U.S. energy policy that would create
independence on our part for the future.
{time} 1700
And I wanted to give some examples of action that has taken place
either here or in the other body over the last few weeks. Just last
week or within the last 2 weeks, Senator Murkowski from the other body
came to the floor, once again, to push for drilling Alaska's last
remaining open space, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only is
he advocating what I consider a policy of destruction; but as I
mentioned before, drilling the Arctic Refuge will not produce a drop of
oil for several years, and, on the other hand, would only produce
several months' worth of supply, while destroying this precious
resource for future generations.
We have said over and over again, both in the House and in the other
body, that we do not want to tap ANWR, the Arctic Refuge, because of
the negative impact on the environment.
What I see now is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying
to use the current crisis as an excuse to go against what has been a
bipartisan position, not to drill in the Arctic Refuge. What I would
suggest is that instead of trying to drill the Arctic Refuge, we should
be banning exports of Alaskan oil to other nations.
I think a lot of people are not even aware of the fact that we are
now on a daily basis in the process of exporting Alaskan oils to other
countries, Japan and other countries.
If we really want to take some action that is going to have an impact
on prices here, use that, make that oil available here, rather than
ship it overseas.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would say, too, is that we had the
GOP, and I call it the Big Oil GOP leadership on the other side of the
aisle, in both the House and the other body. We are reluctant to
investigate whether the oil companies were profiting excessively from
gas price spikes this summer.
They do not even want to let us investigate the problem and try to
come up with a solution. And I guess the fear is that if the
investigations proceed, it is going to uncover that the oil companies
are trying to undermine the concerns of the American people and show
that they are really in league, essentially, with OPEC and the cartel
to try to drive up prices.
Now, the Clinton administration did the investigation and the
investigation that they did proved that the increase in prices this
summer was not due to environmental standards, as the Republican
majority has alleged, but in fact was a result of the oil giant's greed
and their effort to simply drive up prices.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) yield for a question?
Mr. PALLONE. On this point?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Mr. PALLONE. I will yield, not the whole time, but sure I would yield
for a question.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Has the gentleman visited the area up there?
Mr. PALLONE. The Arctic Refuge?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Mr. PALLONE. No, I have not.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I have. I used to hear stories all the time about how
building of the pipeline and all the rest of the things they were doing
and exploration up there, that would hurt the caribou herds and destroy
the tundra. And I was quite surprised when I went, actually, that upon
visiting the area, the first place the area where the oil drilling is
taking place is so cold that the workers cannot be out there for any
more than a short length of time, and they have to be brought in and
relieved by other workers.
I actually asked the rangers there, because the environmentalists
were so concerned about the destruction of the environment, as the
gentleman has suggested, how many people had actually visited the area
of the previous year, and there had been three people visiting the
area. And he said awhile back, a couple of years back, there was
actually more than that that visited, because there was the big debate
about whether or not to drill there in that period of time, and they
were mostly people that were protesters of the drilling there; there
was 12.
Now, the closest they could get to that area is a mountain peak,
which is quite a few miles that you can see right down across the whole
flat area, where they would contemplate drilling. And there is nothing
there.
It is absolutely barren, but what I did see, and I was really
surprised, as we were traveling along the road alongside of the
pipeline, I looked out there and I saw thousands and thousands of
caribou, thousands of them. And I had to get down and take a picture. I
asked the bus driver to stop the bus, and I went on down.
Now the one big thing that everybody was concerned about then, they
even caused the people who built that road to build ramps over the road
so the caribou could cross over, because that would be the only place
that it would cross over because of the pipeline there. And so I got
down--let me finish this one statement.
Mr. PALLONE. I will, then I want to move on.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I got down off the bus to take a picture, and I was
busy snapping a picture out here of all of these caribou out there; and
all of a sudden, I realized there was something very close to me. At
the buttress of the support for the pipeline, there was a caribou
standing there eating, munching the tundra and looking at me, and I
turned around and took a picture. I have a picture. I would like to
show the gentleman. And he was absolutely so close to me I could almost
reach out and touch him. He did not seem disturbed at all.
Then I noticed that the caribou were crossing, not over the ramps
they built for them, but anywhere, anywhere along that road.
So I am wondering, and the question that I have for the gentleman is,
if this is to be so pristine that it is going to be disturbed and it
has not seemed to do it yet, would we not rather have that oil than be
dependent, because 18 years after when I got here, they were still
arguing and complaining about being dependent on OPEC and the oil over
there, and in 18 years we have not developed a policy.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) stood here and said he has
not heard any talk here in the Congress or in the White House about
developing a strategy or developing.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me answer the gentleman's question. I
am willing to give the gentleman some time and that is fine. I would
like to answer the question and move on, because I do have other things
to say. Let me just answer the gentleman's question. Then I will not
yield to the gentleman any more, because I want to finish with my
comments.
I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman came to the floor and
expressed his concern. I understand that some people would like to
explore in the Arctic Refuge, but I think that in many ways, your
comments make me feel even more strongly about why it should not be
taking place. Obviously, when the gentleman went there, it was a very
beautiful area; the gentleman was witnessing the wildlife. The
gentleman seems to feel that whatever has happened so far has not had
an impact,
[[Page 21122]]
but it is obvious from what the gentleman witnessed that it is a very
sensitive area, and there is a lot of wildlife. And it is a very
beautiful, pristine area.
I would maintain that given that fact and given the fact that we are
not really talking about that much oil over the long time that is going
to impact, I think, U.S. energy policy that we should not take the
risk; that the very fact that it is difficult to get there and it is
difficult for people to deal with the situation there means that if
there was a spill or if there were environmental problems, it would be
that much more difficult to clean it up.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the environmentalists take the view that
this is a beautiful, pristine area. There is a terrific risk involved,
a significant risk, because of the delicate nature of it, and the fact
that it is so far away and difficult to access; and that it should not
be tapped for that reason; and that if we have to make a decision and
weigh the risks that it is just not worth the effort.
It is very similar to what I have in New Jersey. There have been
proposals by mineral management's agency to develop offshore oil
resources off the coast of New Jersey. And arguments have been made
back and forth about whether it is a good idea. And basically my
position, because I represent the coastal area where this would take
place, has been we have a huge tourism industry. We make billions of
dollars every year from having safe beaches and clean water. Frankly,
we do not want to take the risk, because we know that the amount of oil
that is available there probably would only be a few months in terms of
America's supply, and it is just not worth the effort.
So I think part of it is weighing of the risk, and I just do not
think it is worth it in the case of ANWR. I will not yield again. I do
not mean to cut the gentleman off. I have a lot more to say.
Mr. MARTINEZ. The gentleman has a lot more time. I just have one
question.
Mr. PALLONE. I do not have that much more time, I will not yield to
the gentleman any more. I thank the gentleman for coming down.
Mr. Speaker, I have another one of my Democratic colleagues here that
is joining me here. But just before I yield to him, I just wanted to
make a few more comments about the Republican opposition to the tapping
of the SPR. And I just want to point out, as some of my Democratic
colleagues have, how politically motivated this was, because as we know
in the past, the Republicans have not hesitated to sell off the SPR, to
tap the SPR, for reasons not related to national security or even
advocated that there not be an SPR and it be abolished.
It is interesting that in this case, when the President suggested
that he was going to move forward and tap the SPR because of the high
oil prices, there were some Republicans also that joined with the
Democrats saying that that was a good idea. In fact, over 100 House
Members, including 20 Republicans, such as the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) of the House Committee on
Commerce, sent a letter to President Clinton requesting the tap.
I, for one, would not heed the allegations, if you will, of the big
oil ticket, the Bush-Cheney ticket that somehow this is a bad thing.
Because if you will notice, even if you are a Republican and from the
Northeast, you think it is a good idea, because my colleagues are
concerned about the impact on your constituents in New Jersey, New York
and the other States that are being negatively impacted by these high
oil prices.
The other thing that I think is very interesting is that actually we
have not even had opposition from the oil industry or even from some
Members of OPEC to the tapping of the SPR.
We had a situation where this was quoted in the Washington Post last
week where John Lichtblau, I do not know if I am pronouncing it
properly, the chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation,
said that the price drop that occurred after the SPR was tapped
reflects the fact that inventories will be increased. He went on to say
while very recently there have been speculation about $40-a-barrel oil,
now there is speculation that will drop to below $30. He actually
thought it was a good idea that we tap the SPR.
We had the Venezuelan oil minister and OPEC president, Ali Rodriguez,
affirm the administration's belief and intent in releasing oil from the
SPR in that same Post article where he said I think oil prices will not
remain at their high levels.
My point is, I do not even see opposition necessarily from the
industry or even from OPEC, because they understand that prices were
going up and they needed to be stabilized. I really do not have any
clue where Governor Bush and Vice President nominee Cheney are coming
from where they criticize the Democrats and the Vice President and the
President for tapping the SPR. It just seems like they just do not care
about the impact on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the State of
Massachussetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for yielding; and I come here just to add to
some of the gentleman's comments when the gentleman was discussing the
fact that this is, in fact, very bipartisan.
I understand all the rhetoric during the campaign trails, and I
understand that two people that are largely involved with the oil
industry are trying to make this a political situation; but that, in
fact, is not the case. I was one of those 114-plus Members that signed
a letter to the President asking him to do a number of things that
would improve the energy situation.
I joined a number of my colleagues from the mid-Atlantic States, as
well as from my home State of Massachusetts and New England in talking
with the President and the Department of Energy as far back as last
winter when these problems originated. We have consistently asked the
President to take the kind of preemptive moves that we thought were
necessary setting up a reserve for the Northeastern area, releasing
fuel from the SPR, from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to cover that
difference.
Trying to make this into a case where people think that that release
was to cover all of our needs is way off base. The fact of the matter
is there is a gap between what is produced and what is consumed, and it
is only that gap that we are trying to affect. We asked the OPEC
countries to produce more oil, and they are trying to do that.
We have asked the non-OPEC foreign producers to produce more oil, and
they tell us they are trying to produce it. We now need to go to the
domestic producers who have not been producing more. In fact, in a
hearing with the Committee on Government Reform, at which I was
present, one of the officials from the Exxon-Mobil company was
questioned; and the answer was they, in fact, made 272 percent more
profits in the second quarter of 2000 than in the second quarter of
1999, while simultaneously reducing their production budget by some 30
percent.
Most of the domestic oil producers, the large companies, have, in
fact, been making enormous profits in comparison to the previous year
and have been cutting back.
The President did a responsible thing that Democrats and Republicans
have asked him to do. There were any number of Republicans from the
mid-Atlantic States and the Northeastern States that joined in that
letter to the President asking him to do something with the funds,
asking him to set up a New England reserve and asking him to release
some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Our colleagues on the Republican side from New York, one of them is
running for the Senate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), our
colleagues from Maryland, our Republican colleagues from Connecticut,
and so on, one of our colleagues from Maine is a Republican. The fact
of the matter is, this is geographic in nature of where the hurt is
going to be felt, and it is nonpartisan in terms of people trying
[[Page 21123]]
to help their constituencies and getting the President to do the right
thing.
{time} 1715
We should not politicize this. We should understand that we have to
ask every oil producer, whether they are domestic or foreign in nature,
to step up to the plate and produce some more oil. They can do that,
and it is about time that they step forward and do that, but also
understand that the Republican party has a responsibility here. It is
that party that has been prohibiting the President from having the
flexibility he needs because they have not reauthorized the strategic
reserve clauses of the act that need to be dealt with.
There is no excuse for that. They have let it lapse most recently in
March, right in the middle of this oil situation, and that is just not
responsible.
They have still yet to put the authorization language in for the
Northeast reserve. We have made the appropriations on that. A
responsible government would make sure that we have the authority in
the President to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as and when
needed in small amounts.
That would be far more responsible than what was done by the
Republican majority in 1996 and 1997. At that point in time they did
not swap what was in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, they sold it,
about $227 million dollars in 1996 for the sense of bringing down part
of the deficit, and about $227 million in 1997 to pay for some other
appropriations that they wanted to pay for. They sold it, they did not
swap it.
In fact, last year when we on the Democratic side wanted to have the
President get authority to buy 10 million more barrels, that was shot
down by our friends on the Republican side. So we could have been
increasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at an interim at a low price
when it was down to $10 or $12 a barrel, and that was rejected.
This is the same group that on occasion has voted to get rid of the
Department of Energy, and along with it any Strategic Petroleum Reserve
at all, and now for political reasons they are saying, gee, it is a
national security issue that we are going to swap some. Unlike them,
the President was not going to sell it, he was going to swap it.
As a consequence of that, we are actually going to get 1\1/2\ million
more barrels back a year from now than it was actually swapped out in
the interim period, so we are going to have an increase in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve that our friends on the other side of the
aisle wanted to eliminate altogether.
So if they really want to talk about security, let us do the sensible
thing here and support the President's action. Let us make sure people
in the mid-Atlantic States and Northeast and elsewhere that might be
really jeopardized by the severe cold winter, make sure that the supply
is there, make sure we are doing everything we can do; and most
notably, for those that have low incomes, make sure the LIHEAP monies
get out to people, just as the President has done, so they can fill
their tanks while it is lower and make sure they have the best possible
opportunity to weather this winter.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for taking the
time and giving me the time to address this sure. The record must be
set straight: This is not about politics, this is about people's health
and safety, as well as our Nation's security.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think what
he is pointing out, and the Democrats have all been pointing out this
afternoon, is that we are just trying to address the problems that the
average person faces leading into the winter months.
It was really encouraging to see that on our side of the aisle, on
the Democratic side, we started off this afternoon with two colleagues
from Texas. We might think, why do they care about the Northeast? But
they obviously do. They both said very emphatically how important it
was to try to address the price issue and set up the Northeast
Petroleum Reserve, which I know the gentleman and other Members from
the Massachusetts delegation have been very much involved with.
That is what this is all about. That is what the President and the
Vice President, they represent the whole country and they have to worry
about people all over the country. I just think it is commendable that
we are here expressing that concern, and we have colleagues on the
Republican side saying, oh, no, that is not the way to go.
Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, during our
committee hearings we also heard a lot of talk about the fact, whether
or not this oil could be processed, that refineries were running at
capacity and whatever.
What we found out is that that was just more rhetoric, also. The
refineries generally run at 95 percent, 96 percent, during the months
just past. Then there is a retooling period, and in our favor, just at
the end of this month, that will be over and they would be down to a
capacity of 90 or 91 percent, which they can then kick back up to 95,
96 percent, to get out this home heating oil.
That is a circumstance working in our favor. In fact, people within
the industry are welcoming this. The Department of Energy has been
talking with people within the industry. Oddly enough, they also
understand that there is a situation out there that needs to be
addressed and they are cooperating. So that is another reason to take
it out of the political realm and leave it in the realm of people's
security, safety, and health.
Hopefully we will have that sort of discussion, and not the sort of
rhetoric that has been going around.
Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Of course, I have
been talking about the lack of a GOP energy policy, but I could just
mention briefly here for maybe a few minutes or so that the
administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, for the last 7 years
has been trying to get the Congress to enact a really positive energy
policy. Of course, for 6 of those 7 years they have had to deal with
the Republican leadership that has simply not been willing to adopt it.
Just to give an example, because I keep hearing the Republicans
saying they want to open up ANWR, they want to do drilling offshore,
but earlier this year when we passed an appropriations bill in the
House, the President had come forward with his budget proposing major
initiatives for energy efficiency, energy conservation, alternative
sources of energy.
The House bill that passed, the House appropriations bill that passed
I guess in July or so, had $201 million less than the President's
request with regard to energy conservation and $71 million below the
existing appropriations level for energy conservation. This was at a
time when we were already starting to experience higher prices and less
ability to get foreign oil from OPEC.
Just to give an idea of these cuts and how they cut what the
President had proposed, it was a $143 million cut, a complete
elimination of applied research and development at the Department of
Energy for certain conservation programs. They canceled 400 R&D
projects in 33 States by 15 Federal labs, 22 universities, and others.
There was a $14 million cut in the Low-income Home Weatherization
Assistance Program, which would mean about 7,000 fewer low-income
families would have their energy bills reduced. There was a $2 million
cut from industrial co-generation, which funds R&D.
Then, in that appropriations bill, there was $67 million less than
the President's request for solar and renewable energy. There were cuts
in biomass fuels and biopower R&D, reductions in solar electricity R&D,
cuts in R&D for wind power, which if adequately funded would be
competitive just within a few years.
I could go on and on here, and I will not because I am running out of
time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield before he runs
out of his time, when I hear people start to politicize this and say
that it is a national security issue to swap oil
[[Page 21124]]
out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, one thing we have to remind
people is that it is a swap, and the oil will come back with additional
oil.
Secondly, the very people who are making that acquisition now are the
people who in 1995 filed a bill that was known as H.R. 1649, the
Department of Energy Abolishment Act.
As part of that act, it would ask to eliminate the reserve totally
and sell off 571 million barrels of oil. Now, there are 35 people on
the other side of the aisle that signed onto that, including three of
the very highest members of their leadership, who are the same people
now who have the audacity to go on the floor or elsewhere and start to
say that a swap is somehow affecting national security.
So not only is it totally wrong and it is not affecting national
security in any adverse way, and it is what our allies and what other
foreign countries think is a good thing to do, as well as business and
others, but it is absolutely contradictory to their past behavior and
their past comments.
I think the public can pretty much get in line as to whether people
are acting as statesmen or politicians when they make assertions like
that. I am going to let it go at that message and defer back to you,
but I think it is important for people to know that this was a good
move. People in the Northeast and New England, and Massachusetts in
particular, are very pleased that the LIHEAP money has gotten relieved.
Our people and low-income seniors will have that relief.
We are pleased there is a Northeast reserve being set up so the gap
can be addressed, and hopefully keep the supply up and the prices
somewhere within the stratosphere. We are very pleased that the
President indicated he was going to release from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, and already we have seen the prices drop on that,
except for a slight rebound when Members on the other side of the aisle
indicated they would try to block it.
The psychological effect, already a month before it hits the market,
has shown it is bringing prices down. That is going to help our
seniors, people in our districts generally, and our small businesses,
who cannot stand the kind of high prices that are going on and still be
productive and get their business done in a way to support their
families.
Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to address this on the
floor. I think it is important to get this information out.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down and
joining us during this time.
I think we have a couple of minutes left, so I would just like to
point out, Mr. Speaker, that all the Democrats are really asking is
that instead of trying to reverse the positive steps that the
administration is taking and making these false accusations, that the
GOP adopt a sound energy policy and pass the measures that the
Democrats have been advocating and that have been proposed by the
Clinton and Gore administration in its budget request.
Above all, we should be implementing measures that sustain our
natural resources, practical measures that would conserve energy,
promote our long-term energy security, and promote international
competitiveness and alternative energy resources, all without
sacrificing our economic growth.
For example, before we adjourn, the GOP leadership should pass the
administration's request for funding and tax incentives for energy
efficiency and renewable energy measures, efficient energy research and
development, weatherization, and alternative fuel vehicles and mass
transit.
I also urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass
legislation banning the export of Alaskan oil. Earlier last week, one
of my colleagues on the Democratic side introduced a bill promoting
wind energy. This is the kind of creative thinking we need to reduce
our dependence on domestic and foreign fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority has done the opposite. It has
vastly underfunded programs for the past 6 years that my Democratic
colleagues and I and President Clinton and Vice President Gore have
promoted, programs that would have conserved energy and prevented the
situation we now face.
The Republican majority has an opportunity in the waning days of the
Congress, we have a couple of weeks left, to reverse their course and
help us pass sound legislation to avert an even greater energy crisis
this winter. I would certainly urge them to do so.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4578) ``An Act making appropriations
for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.''
____________________
ISSUES REGARDING OIL PRODUCTION AND CONDITIONS IN RURAL AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk
about rural issues, but I feel a little compelled to talk a little bit
about what was just discussed.
I come from Pennsylvania, and in fact 5 miles from my home the first
oil well in America was drilled, Drake's well. So I come from an area
where my district had four refineries, we only have three now, but an
area that has been in the oil business since it started. It is where
all the major oil companies in America started, in western
Pennsylvania, because that is the first oil field that was developed.
It is interesting to talk to people about these simple ways to fix
this problem when it is obvious they have never been in a refinery and
they certainly do not understand the oil business.
I am going to just back up a little bit and talk about the problem we
have with oil going from $10 to $35 a barrel. It is because we have
been 1 million or more barrels short per day in our volume that is
necessary, so we are gradually creating a shortage. When we have a
shortage in the marketplace, we drive the price up.
We still have a shortage in the marketplace. We are still not
importing and domestically producing enough oil to build up a supply.
Normally, in the spring, refineries have all of these tank farms full
of gasoline because they cannot produce enough gasoline in the
summertime for us to drive our cars as much as we do, so they build
those supplies.
In the summertime and in the fall, they build up the supplies of home
heating oil, and they have this reserve. This country is way behind.
All the refineries are way behind in building up just the normal stocks
that they need for this winter for home heating.
Now, we are talking about instantly starting a reserve for New
England. In Pennsylvania, a number of years ago when we had the first
energy crisis, we had reserves. We had oil and gasoline and fuel oil
set aside. Then it was allocated. That is what they are talking about
to help themselves in New England when the pipeline is only half full,
and it needs to be full to have enough to do the winter. If we put some
in a set-aside reserve, we cause a shortage.
I remember when I argued with our Department of Energy in
Pennsylvania because we were having this problem every year, and I
spent half of my time helping people get fuel oil or gasoline for the
gas stations.
I said, I think we are close enough in volume now where if you would
not have anything in reserve this year, the system would work. And we
argued for weeks. Finally they did that, and we did not have any
problem that year.
But the problem we have now, no matter what we do, the refineries in
America cannot fill those tanks to supply us, and especially if we have
a cold winter, we really are in a dilemma.
[[Page 21125]]
They run at 96 to 97 percent capacity, so there is not much room to
refine more than they are refining.
What people do not realize, my son works in a refinery. He is an
electrician in a refinery. They are getting ready for a 4- or 8-week
shutdown where they stop refining. They have to do this to different
parts of the refinery annually, and sometimes twice a year, because the
refinery runs at such high temperatures, such high pressures, certain
pipes and valves and things all have to be replaced every so many
months.
{time} 1730
So they shut the refinery down and rebuilt all those lines and
rebuilt all those things so that it is safe. Otherwise, these lines
would wear out from heat and pressure, and the refinery would blow up.
They are a very dangerous facility.
So refineries have to shut down for weeks and months and sometimes 2
months at a time. It depends on if it is a minor overhaul or major
overhaul, and they just have to do it. Some of the shortages that we
have had is when we have had refineries down longer than they
anticipated.
I can remember when my son said they were going to have a 4-week
shutdown, and they ended up with a 6-week shutdown because they had
problems they did not realize they had.
So this is not a simple process. Suddenly saying we are going to set
some oil aside for New England could actually cause us a national
shortage that would double the price. So I think those from New England
ought to think carefully that we need to fill the pipeline of oil that
we refine, we need to get some more normal reserves that we
historically have had before we start setting some aside for any one
part of the country. It is not a simple issue.
I also was a little amused. I am not going to say that wind does not
have some potential in a few parts of the country. We spent billions on
wind. We have not had much progress. The researchers have told me they
have just about researched wind to death.
I heard a speaker last year that said if we built windmills, the
latest type of windmills, a mile wide from coast to coast, that would
be 3,000 miles of windmills a mile wide. Now think of the imprint that
makes on the landscape. Think of the environmental impact statement one
would have to get to do that. We would produce 11 percent of our
electricity.
Is it the answer to our future energy needs? No, I do not think wind
will ever be. It is not dependable. So many parts of the country, one
just cannot count on it. One cannot store it when one has it. It is not
a resource that we can count on. So I think to pour a lot of money in
wind is throwing the money to the wind from my point of view.
I do have to say that those who are suddenly trying to say the
Republicans are the cause of high oil prices in this country, I was one
a couple years ago that said $10 oil will destroy our country's ability
to produce its own oil. In Pennsylvania, most of the producers have
gone broke. In Texas and Oklahoma, many of the producers went broke.
Mr. Speaker, $10 oil destroyed our oil infrastructure; and because of
that, one just cannot turn the spigot on. We have to find ways to get
them the resources they need so they can rebuild, because a lot of them
went broke with $10 oil; and the infrastructure is no longer in place.
It is not a simple issue.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 2138
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dreier) at 9 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida submitted the following conference report on the
bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-940)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4475) ``making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes'', having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said
amendment, insert: That the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, namely:
Section 101. (a) The provisions of the following bill are
hereby enacted into law, H.R. 5394 of the 106th Congress, as
introduced on October 5, 2000.
(b) In publishing the Act in slip form and in the United
States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112, of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall
include after the date of approval at the end an appendix
setting forth the text of the bill referred to in subsection
(a) of this section.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Frank R. Wolf,
Tom DeLay,
Ralph Regula,
Harold Rogers,
Ron Packard,
Sonny Callahan,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Kay Granger,
C.W. Bill Young,
Martin Olav Sabo
(except for provisions to withhold highway funds from
states that do not adopt 0.08 blood alcohol concentration
laws),
John W. Olver,
Ed Pastor,
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
(except for provisions to withhold highway funds from
states that do not adopt 0.08 blood alcohol concentration
laws),
Jose E. Serrano,
Michael P. Forbes,
David R. Obey
(with exception to denial of funds to states without 0.08
BAC),
Managers on the Part of the House.
Richard C. Shelby,
Pete V. Domenici, (except for Wilson Bridge),
Arlen Specter,
Christopher S. Bond,
Slade Gorton,
Robert F. Bennett,
Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Ted Stevens,
Frank R. Lautenberg,
Robert C. Byrd,
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Harry Reid,
Herb Kohl,
Patty Murray,
Daniel K. Inouye,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The mangers on the part of the House of Representatives and
the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4475) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, submit the
following joint statement to the House of Representatives and
the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying
conference report.
The Senate deleted the entire House bill after the enacting
clause and inserted the Senate bill.
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5394 as introduced on October 5, 2000. The text of that bill
follows:
[[Page 21126]]
A BILL Making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$63,245,000: Provided, That not more than 52 percent of the
funds made available under this heading shall be obligated
and not more than 224 full time equivalent staff years funded
through the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2001:
Provided further, That funds in excess of 52 percent and 224
full time equivalent staff years shall be available only if
the Secretary transmits a request to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations for these additional funds:
Provided further, That not to exceed $60,000 for allocation
within the Department for official reception and
representation expenses as the Secretary may determine:
Provided further, That not more than $15,000 of the official
reception and representation funds shall be available for
obligation prior to January 20, 2001.
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,140,000.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
For necessary expenses for conducting transportation
planning, research, systems development, development
activities, and making grants, to remain available until
expended, $11,000,000.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to
exceed $126,887,000, shall be paid from appropriations made
available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That
such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to
entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided
further, That the above limitation on operating expenses
shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That
no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the
Department shall be transferred to the Transportation
Administrative Service Center without the approval of the
agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no
assessments may be levied against any program, budget
activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless
notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $1,500,000, as authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $13,775,000. In addition, for administrative expenses
to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $400,000.
Minority Business Outreach
For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center
outreach activities, $3,000,000, of which $2,635,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That
notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for
business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.
COAST GUARD
Operating Expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not
to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only;
payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and
welfare, $3,192,000,000, of which $341,000,000 shall be
available for defense-related activities; and of which
$25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in
this or any other Act shall be available for pay for
administrative expenses in connection with shipping
commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for
expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C.
12109, except to the extent fees are collected from yacht
owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
Coast Guard to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation
that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically
authorized by law after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $415,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which
$156,450,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate
or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to
remain available until September 30, 2005; $37,650,000 shall
be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation
capability, to remain available until September 30, 2003;
$60,113,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain
available until September 30, 2003; $63,336,000 shall be
available for shore facilities and aids to navigation
facilities, to remain available until September 30, 2003;
$55,151,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and
benefits and related costs, to remain available until
September 30, 2002; and $42,300,000 for the Integrated
Deepwater Systems program, to remain available until
September 30, 2003: Provided, That the Commandant of the
Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of surplus real
property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
made available only for the National Distress and Response
System Modernization program, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That
upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal year
2002 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation
shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital
investment plan for the United States Coast Guard which
includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years
2002 through 2006, with total funding for each year of the
plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated
shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after
initial submission of the President's budget that the plan
has not been submitted to the Congress: Provided further,
That the Commandant shall transfer $5,800,000 to the City of
Homer, Alaska, for the construction of a municipal pier and
other harbor improvements, contingent upon the City of Homer
entering into an agreement with the United States to
accommodate Coast Guard vessels and to support Coast Guard
operations at Homer, Alaska.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $16,700,000, to
remain available until expended.
Alteration of Bridges
For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $15,500,000, to remain available until
expended.
Retired Pay
For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for
this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's
Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C.
ch. 55), $778,000,000.
Reserve Training
(including transfer of funds)
For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities;
and supplies, equipment, and services, $80,375,000: Provided,
That no more than $22,000,000 of funds made available under
this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating
expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast
Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be
used by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast
Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so
charged during fiscal year 1997.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
applied scientific research, development, test, and
evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation
of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$21,320,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used
for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from
State and local governments, other public authorities,
private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred
for research, development, testing, and evaluation.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including
operations and research activities related to commercial
space transportation, administrative expenses for research
and development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of
aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and
maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 104-264, $6,544,235,000, of which
$4,414,869,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which $5,200,274,000 shall be available for
air traffic services program activities; $694,979,000 shall
be available for aviation regulation and certification
program activities; $139,301,400 shall be
[[Page 21127]]
available for civil aviation security program activities;
$189,988,000 shall be available for research and acquisition
program activities; $12,000,000 shall be available for
commercial space transportation program activities;
$48,443,600 shall be available for Financial Services program
activities; $54,864,000 shall be available for Human
Resources program activities; $99,347,000 shall be available
for Regional Coordination program activities; and
$105,038,000 shall be available for Staff Offices program
activities: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act
shall be available for the Federal Aviation Administration to
plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that would
promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized
by law after the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided
further, That there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign
authorities, other public authorities, and private sources,
for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services,
including receipts for the maintenance and operation of air
navigation facilities, and for issuance, renewal or
modification of certificates, including airman, aircraft, and
repair station certificates, or for tests related thereto, or
for processing major repair or alteration forms: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
not less than $5,000,000 shall be for the contract tower
cost-sharing program and not less than $750,000 shall be for
the Centennial of Flight Commission: Provided further, That
funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a
nonprofit standard-setting organization to assist in the
development of aviation safety standards: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new
applicants for the second career training program: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for paying premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to
any Federal Aviation Administration employee unless such
employee actually performed work during the time
corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, That
none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to
operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the
contiguous United States: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act may be used for the Federal Aviation
Administration to enter into a multiyear lease greater than 5
years in length or greater than $100,000,000 in value unless
such lease is specifically authorized by the Congress and
appropriations have been provided to fully cover the Federal
Government's contingent liabilities: Provided further, That
none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and
cartography are available for activities conducted by, or
coordinated through, the Transportation Administrative
Service Center.
Facilities and Equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or
purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental
facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of
subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including
initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant;
engineering and service testing, including construction of
test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease
or grant; and construction and furnishing of quarters and
related accommodations for officers and employees of the
Federal Aviation Administration stationed at remote
localities where such accommodations are not available; and
the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds
available under this head; to be derived from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund, $2,656,765,000, of which $2,334,112,400
shall remain available until September 30, 2003, and of which
$322,652,600 shall remain available until September 30, 2001:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other
public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air
navigation facilities: Provided further, That upon initial
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2002
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which includes
funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 2002
through 2006, with total funding for each year of the plan
constrained to the funding targets for those years as
estimated and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated
shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after
initial submission of the President's budget that the plan
has not been submitted to the Congress: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be used for the
Federal Aviation Administration to enter into a capital lease
agreement unless appropriations have been provided to fully
cover the Federal Government's contingent liabilities at the
time the lease agreement is signed.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(airport and airway trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
research, engineering, and development, as authorized under
part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
including construction of experimental facilities and
acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant,
$187,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other
public authorities, and private sources, for expenses
incurred for research, engineering, and development.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(airport and airway trust fund)
For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid
for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility
planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of
chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49,
United States Code, and under other law authorizing such
obligations; for administration of such programs; for
administration of programs under section 40117; for
procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway
incursion prevention devices and systems at airports; and for
inspection activities and administration of airport safety
programs, including those related to airport operating
certificates under section 44706 of title 49, United States
Code, $3,200,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the
obligations for which are in excess of $3,200,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001, notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title
49, United States Code: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more than
$53,000,000 of funds limited under this heading shall be
obligated for administration.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission of contract authorization)
Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C.
48103, as amended, $579,000,000 are rescinded.
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund
The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to
make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of
funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in
accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation
Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary
in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities
under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $295,119,000
shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made
available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration
together with advances and reimbursements received by the
Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That of the funds
available under section 104(a) of title 23, United States
Code: $4,000,000 shall be available for Commercial Remote
Sensing Products and Spatial Information Technologies under
section 5113 of Public Law 105-178, as amended; $10,000,000
shall be available for the National Historic Covered Bridge
Preservation Program under section 1224 of Public Law 105-
178, as amended; $5,000,000 shall be available for the
construction and improvement of the Alabama State Docks, and
shall remain available until expended; $10,000,000 shall be
available to Auburn University for research activities at the
Center for Transportation Technology and to construct a
building to house the center, and shall remain available
until expended; $7,500,000 shall be available for ``Child
Passenger Protection Education Grants'' under section 2003(b)
of Public Law 105-178, as amended; and $25,000,000 shall be
available for the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Program under section 1221 of Public Law 105-
178, as amended.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $29,661,806,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2001: Provided, That within the $29,661,806,000
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $437,250,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504,
506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as
amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as
amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
178) for fiscal year 2001; not more than $25,000,000 shall be
available for the implementation or execution of programs for
the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment
Program (section 1218 of Public Law 105-178) for fiscal year
2001, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available to
the Federal Railroad Administration for administrative
expenses and technical assistance in connection with such
program, of which not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be available
to the Federal Railroad Administration for ``Safety and
operations'', and, notwithstanding section 1218(c)(4) of
Public Law 105-178, of which $1,000,000 shall be available
for low speed magnetic levitation research and development;
not more than $31,000,000 shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs for the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (section 111 of title 49, United
States Code) for fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That
within the $218,000,000 obligation limitation on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, the following sums
[[Page 21128]]
shall be made available for Intelligent Transportation System
projects in the following specified areas:
State of Alaska, $2,350,000;
Alameda-Contra Costa, California, $500,000;
Aquidneck Island, Rhode Island, $500,000;
Austin, Texas, $250,000;
Automated crash notification system, UAB, $1,000,000;
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, $1,000,000;
Bay County, Florida, $1,500,000;
Beaumont, Texas, $150,000;
Bellingham, Washington, $350,000;
Bloomington Township, Illinois, $400,000;
Calhoun County, Michigan, $750,000;
Carbondale, Pennsylvania, $2,000,000;
Cargo Mate, New Jersey, $750,000;
Charlotte, North Carolina, $625,000;
College Station, Texas, $1,800,000;
Commonwealth of Virginia, $5,500,000;
Corpus Christi, Texas (vehicle dispatching), $1,000,000;
Delaware River Port Authority, $1,250,000;
DuPage County, Illinois, $500,000;
Fargo, North Dakota, $1,000,000;
Fort Collins, Colorado, $1,250,000;
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, $500,000;
Huntington Beach, California, $1,250,000;
Huntsville, Alabama, $3,000,000;
I-70 West project, Colorado, $750,000;
Inglewood, California, $600,000;
Jackson, Mississippi, $1,000,000;
Jefferson County, Colorado, $4,250,000;
Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000;
Kansas City, Missouri, $1,250,000;
Lake County, Illinois, $450,000;
Lewis & Clark Trail, Montana, $625,000;
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, $2,000,000;
Moscow, Idaho, $875,000;
Muscle Shoals, Alabama, $1,000,000;
Nashville, Tennessee, $500,000;
New Jersey regional integration/TRANSCOM, $3,000,000;
North Central Pennsylvania, $750,000;
North Las Vegas, Nevada, $1,800,000;
Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, California, $500,000;
Oakland and Wayne Counties, Michigan, $1,500,000;
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, $1,500,000;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $500,000;
Puget Sound regional fare collection, Washington,
$2,500,000;
Rensselaer County, New York, $500,000;
Rochester, New York, $1,500,000;
Sacramento County, California, $875,000;
Sacramento to Reno, I-80 corridor, $100,000;
Sacramento, California, $500,000;
Salt Lake City (Olympic Games), Utah, $1,000,000;
San Antonio, Texas, $100,000;
Santa Teresa, New Mexico, $500,000;
Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, $400,000;
Seabrook, Texas, $1,200,000;
Shreveport, Louisiana, $1,000,000;
South Dakota commercial vehicle, ITS, $1,250,000;
Southeast Michigan, $500,000;
Southhaven, Mississippi, $150,000;
Spokane County, Washington, $1,000,000;
Springfield-Branson, Missouri, $750,000;
St. Louis, Missouri, $500,000;
State of Arizona, $1,000,000;
State of Connecticut, $3,000,000;
State of Delaware, $1,000,000;
State of Illinois, $1,000,000;
State of Indiana (SAFE-T), $1,000,000;
State of Iowa (traffic enforcement and transit),
$2,750,000;
State of Kentucky, $1,500,000;
State of Maryland, $3,000,000;
State of Minnesota, $6,500,000;
State of Missouri (rural), $750,000;
State of Montana, $750,000;
State of Nebraska, $2,600,000;
State of New Mexico, $750,000;
State of North Carolina, $1,500,000;
State of North Dakota, $500,000;
State of Ohio, $2,000,000;
State of Oklahoma, $1,000,000;
State of Oregon, $750,000;
State of South Carolina statewide, $2,000,000;
State of Tennessee, $1,850,000;
State of Utah, $1,500,000;
State of Vermont, $500,000;
State of Wisconsin, $1,000,000;
Texas border phase I, Houston, Texas, $500,000;
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, $2,000,000;
Tuscon, Arizona, $1,250,000;
Vermont rural ITS, $1,500,000;
Washington, DC area, $1,250,000;
Washoe County, Nevada, $200,000;
Wayne County, Michigan, $5,000,000;
Williamson County/Round Rock, Texas, $250,000:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding Public Law 105-178,
as amended, funds authorized under section 110 of title 23,
United States Code, for fiscal year 2001 shall be apportioned
based on each State's percentage share of funding provided
for under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, for
fiscal year 2001, except that before such apportionments are
made, $156,486,491 shall be set aside for projects authorized
under section 1602 of Public Law 105-178, as amended;
$25,000,000 shall be set aside for the Indian Reservation
Roads Program under section 204 of title 23, United States
Code $18,467,857 shall be set aside for the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial Bridge project authorized by section 404 of the
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995, as
amended; $10,000,000 shall be set aside for the commercial
driver's license program under motor carrier safety grants
authorized by section 31102 of title 49, United States Code;
and $1,735,039 shall be set aside for the Alaska Highway
authorized by section 218 of title 23, United States Code. Of
the funds to be apportioned under section 110 for fiscal year
2001, the Secretary shall ensure that such funds are
apportioned for the Interstate Maintenance program, the
National Highway system program, the bridge program, the
surface transportation program, and the congestion mitigation
and air quality program in the same ratio that each State is
apportioned funds for such program in fiscal year 2001 but
for this section: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the funds apportioned to the State of
Oklahoma under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
for fiscal year 2001, $8,000,000 shall be available only for
the widening of US 177 from SH-33 to 32nd Street in
Stillwater, Oklahoma; $4,300,000 shall be available only for
the reconstruction of US 177 in the vicinity of Cimarron
River, Oklahoma; $1,500,000 shall be available only for the
reconstruction of US 70 from Broken Bow, Oklahoma to the
Arkansas state line; $1,000,000 shall be available only to
improve Battiest-Pickens Road between Battiest and Pickens,
Oklahoma; $140,000 shall be available only to conduct a
feasibility study of increasing lanes or adding passing lanes
on SH 3 in McCurtain, Pushmataha and Atoka Counties,
Oklahoma; and $100,000 shall be available only for the
reconstruction of US 70 in Marshall and Bryan Counties,
Oklahoma: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the funds apportioned to the State of
Mississippi under section 110 of title 23, United States
Code, for fiscal year 2001, $24,600,000 may be available for
construction of an interchange for a connector road from the
interchange to U.S. Highway 51, between mile markers 115 and
120 on I-55 in Mississippi: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
apportioned to the State of New York under section 110 of
title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 2001,
$4,000,000 shall be available only to upgrade and improve the
Albany North Creek intermodal transportation corridor:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, of the funds apportioned to the State of Nebraska
under section 110 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal
year 2001, $3,500,000 shall be available only for the
construction of a pedestrian overpass in Lincoln: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds apportioned to the State of Alabama under section
110 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 2001,
$8,000,000 shall be available only for construction of the
Patton Island bridge in Lauderdale County, Alabama: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds apportioned to the State of California under
section 110 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year
2001, $46,000,000 shall be available only for traffic
mitigation and other improvements to existing SR710 in South
Pasadena, Pasadena and El Serano: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obligation
limitation distributed for specific projects described herein
shall remain available until expended and shall be in
addition to the amount of any obligation limitation imposed
on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs for future fiscal years.
Federal-Aid Highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying
out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, that are
attributable to Federal-aid highways, including the National
Scenic and Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C.
148, not otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums
expended pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308,
$28,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and
derived from the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available
until expended.
Emergency Relief Program
(Highway Trust Fund)
For an additional amount for the Emergency Relief Program
for emergency expenses resulting from floods and other
natural disasters, as authorized by section 125 of title 23,
United States Code, $720,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the
entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for $720,000,000, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by
the President to the Congress.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Motor Carrier Safety
limitation on administrative expenses
For necessary expenses for administration of motor carrier
safety programs and motor carrier safety research, pursuant
to section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code, not to
exceed $92,194,000 shall be paid in accordance with law from
appropriations made available by this Act and from any
available take-down balances to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier
[[Page 21129]]
Safety Administration: Provided, That such amounts shall be
available to carry out the functions and operations of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49
U.S.C. 31102, $177,000,000, to be derived from the Highway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $177,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants''.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Operations and Research
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $116,876,000 of
which $85,321,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2003: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or
implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement
pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated in this Act may be obligated or
expended to purchase a vehicle to conduct New Car Assessment
Program crash testing at a price that exceeds the
manufacturer's suggested retail price, unless the Secretary
submits a request for a waiver that is approved by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further,
That the Department of Transportation shall fund a study with
the National Academy of Sciences on whether the static
stability factor is a scientifically valid measurement that
presents practical, useful information to the public
including a comparison of the static stability factor test
versus a test with rollover metrics based on dynamic driving
conditions that may induce rollover events: Provided further,
That nothing in this provision prohibits NHTSA from
completing action on its proposal to provide rollover rating
information to the public while the National Academy of
Sciences conducts this study: Provided further, That to the
extent NHTSA continues action on its rollover ratings
proposal during the study, the agency shall consider any
available preliminary deliberations or conclusions available
from the National Academy of Sciences before completing
action on its proposal, and shall consider coordinating any
final action on its proposal with the completion of the
National Academy of Sciences study: Provided further, That
the National Academy of Sciences shall complete this study
and issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than nine months after the date of
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That after the
National Academy of Sciences submits its findings to the
Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shall formally review and respond within
thirty days to the study findings and propose any appropriate
revisions to the consumer information program based on that
review.
Operations and Research
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until
expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2001, are in excess of
$72,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
National Driver Register
(highway trust fund)
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under
chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000, to
be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, and to remain
available until expended.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411 to remain available until
expended, $213,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2001, are in excess of
$213,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402,
405, 410, and 411 of which $155,000,000 shall be for
``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $13,000,000
shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under
23 U.S.C. 405, $36,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, and
$9,000,000 shall be for the ``State Highway Safety Data
Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further, That none of
these funds shall be used for construction, rehabilitation,
or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures
for State, local, or private buildings or structures:
Provided further, That not to exceed $7,750,000 of the funds
made available for section 402, not to exceed $650,000 of the
funds made available for section 405, not to exceed
$1,800,000 of the funds made available for section 410, and
not to exceed $450,000 of the funds made available for
section 411 shall be available to NHTSA for administering
highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United
States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of
the funds made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for
technical assistance to the States.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Safety and Operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $101,717,000, of
which $5,899,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That, as part of the Washington Union Station
transaction in which the Secretary assumed the first deed of
trust on the property and, where the Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is obligated to
make payments on such deed of trust on the Secretary's
behalf, including payments on and after September 30, 1988,
the Secretary is authorized to receive such payments directly
from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them
to the appropriation charged for the first deed of trust, and
make payments on the first deed of trust with those funds:
Provided further, That such additional sums as may be
necessary for payment on the first deed of trust may be
advanced by the Administrator from unobligated balances
available to the Federal Railroad Administration, to be
reimbursed from payments received from the Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation.
Railroad Research and Development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $25,325,000, to remain available until expended.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as
amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be
necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the
guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist
as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding:
Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as
amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments
shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium
during fiscal year 2001.
Rhode Island Rail Development
For the costs associated with construction of a third track
on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central
Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate
double stack freight cars, $17,000,000 to be matched by the
State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar-for-dollar
basis and to remain available until expended.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed
Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102,
$25,100,000, to remain available until expended.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the Alaska Railroad, $20,000,000 shall be for capital
rehabilitation and improvements benefiting its passenger
operations, to remain available until expended.
West Virginia Rail Development
For capital costs associated with track, signal, and
crossover rehabilitation and improvements on the MARC
Brunswick line in West Virginia, $15,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
For necessary expenses of capital improvements of the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49
U.S.C. 24104(a), $521,476,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligate
more than $208,590,000 prior to September 30, 2001.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $12,800,000: Provided, That no
more than $64,000,000 of budget authority shall be available
for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds in
this Act available for the execution of contracts under
section 5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $1,000,000
shall be transferred to the Department of Transportation's
Office of Inspector General for costs associated with the
audit and review of new fixed guideway systems: Provided
further, That not to exceed $2,500,000 for the National
Transit Database shall remain available until expended.
Formula Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308,
5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178,
$669,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $3,345,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided
[[Page 21130]]
further, That of the funds provided under this heading,
$60,000,000 shall be available for grants for the costs of
planning, delivery, and temporary use of transit vehicles for
special transportation needs and construction of temporary
transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the
VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake
City, Utah: Provided further, That in allocating the funds
designated in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall make
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and
such grants shall not be subject to any local share
requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this
Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-178, the
$50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred
to and merged with funding provided for the replacement,
rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment
and the construction of bus-related facilities under
``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment
grants''.
University Transportation Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505,
$1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Transit Planning and Research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304,
5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322,
$22,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $110,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That
$5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation
assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)), $4,000,000 is available to
carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49
U.S.C. 5315), $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit
cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)),
$52,113,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C.
5303, 5304, and 5305), $10,886,400 is available for State
planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $29,500,000 is available
for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C.
5314).
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308,
5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037
and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $5,016,600,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$2,676,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $87,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $51,200,000 shall be paid to the
Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses
account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to
the Federal Transit Administration's university
transportation research account: Provided further, That
$80,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $2,116,800,000 shall be paid
to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment
grants account.
Capital Investment Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309,
5318, and 5327, $529,200,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no more than $2,646,000,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, there shall be available for fixed guideway
modernization, $1,058,400,000; there shall be available for
the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and
related equipment and the construction of bus-related
facilities, $529,200,000, together with $50,000,000
transferred from ``Federal Transit Administration, formula
grants''; and there shall be available for new fixed guideway
systems $1,058,400,000, together with $4,983,828 made
available for the Pittsburgh airport busway project under
Public Law 105-66, together with $1,488,750 made available
for the Burlington to Gloucester, New Jersey line under
Public Law 103-331, together with $20,521,470 previously
appropriated for the Orlando Lynx light rail project
remaining unobligated as of or deobligated after September
30, 2000; to be available as follows:
$10,400,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
$500,000 for the Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass
transit project;
$25,000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension
project;
$1,000,000 for the Austin, Texas, capital metro light rail
project;
$3,000,000 for the Baltimore central LRT double track
project;
$5,000,000 for the Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor;
$25,000,000 for the Boston South Boston Piers transitway
project;
$1,000,000 for the Boston Urban Ring project;
$2,000,000 for the Burlington-Bennington (ABRB), Vermont,
commuter rail project;
$1,000,000 for the Calais, Maine, branch line regional
transit program;
$2,000,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail
project;
$3,000,000 for the Central Florida commuter rail project;
$5,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south
corridor transitway projects;
$35,000,000 for the Chicago METRA commuter rail projects;
$15,000,000 for the Chicago Ravenswood and Douglas branch
reconstruction projects;
$1,500,000 for the Clark County, Nevada, RTC fixed guideway
project;
$4,000,000 for the Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement
project;
$1,000,000 for the Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project;
$70,000,000 for the Dallas north central light rail
extension project;
$3,000,000 for the Denver Southeast corridor project;
$20,200,000 for the Denver Southwest corridor project;
$500,000 for the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan airport
light rail project;
$50,000,000 for the Dulles corridor project;
$15,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-County
commuter rail project;
$1,000,000 for the Galveston, Texas, rail trolley extension
project;
$15,000,000 for the Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter
rail project;
$500,000 for the Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit
corridor 1 commuter rail project;
$1,000,000 for the Hollister/Gilroy branch line rail
extension project;
$2,500,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii, bus rapid transit project;
$2,500,000 for the Houston advanced transit project;
$10,750,000 for the Houston regional bus project;
$3,000,000 for the Indianapolis, Indiana, northeast-
downtown corridor project;
$1,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas, I-35 commuter
rail project;
$3,500,000 for Kansas City, Missouri, Southtown corridor
project;
$4,000,000 for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension
project;
$3,000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail
project;
$8,000,000 for the Long Island Railroad East Side access
project;
$2,000,000 for the Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side
corridors projects;
$50,000,000 for the Los Angeles North Hollywood extension
project;
$3,000,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor
project;
$2,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New
Hampshire commuter rail project;
$10,000,000 for the MARC expansion projects--Penn-Camden
lines connector and midday storage facility;
$1,000,000 for the Massachusetts North Shore corridor
project;
$6,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, medical center rail
extension project;
$6,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter
rail project;
$121,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson Bergen project;
$7,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth rail link project;
$2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana south shore commuter
rail project;
$1,000,000 for the Northwest New Jersey-Northeast
Pennsylvania passenger rail project;
$10,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, California, light
rail extension project;
$2,000,000 for the Orange County, California, transitway
project;
$10,000,000 for the Philadelphia-Reading SETPA Schuylkill
Valley metro project;
$2,000,000 for the Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County metro
project;
$10,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit
project;
$5,000,000 for the Pittsburgh North Shore-central business
district corridor project;
$12,000,000 for the Pittsburgh stage II light rail project;
$7,500,000 for the Portland-Interstate MAX LRT extension
project;
$2,000,000 for the Portland, Maine, marine highway program;
$5,000,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail
project;
$10,000,000 for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle
transit project;
$500,000 for the Rhode Island-Pawtucket and T.F. Green
commuter rail and maintenance facility;
$35,200,000 for the Sacramento, California, south corridor
LRT project;
$2,000,000 for the Salt Lake City-University light rail
line project;
$1,000,000 for the San Bernardino, California, Metrolink
project;
$31,500,000 for the San Diego Mission Valley East light
rail project;
$80,000,000 for the San Francisco BART extension to the
airport project;
$12,250,000 for the San Jose Tasman West light rail
project;
$75,000,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano project;
$1,500,000 for the Santa Fe-Eldorado, New Mexico, rail link
project;
$50,000,000 for the Seattle, Washington, central link LRT
project;
$4,000,000 for the Spokane, Washington, South Valley
corridor light rail project;
$1,000,000 for the St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink Cross
County connector project;
$60,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extension
project;
$8,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut, fixed guideway
corridor;
[[Page 21131]]
$6,000,000 for the Stockton, California, Altamont commuter
rail project;
$5,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways projects;
$50,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways--Hiawatha
corridor project;
$3,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail
project;
$7,500,000 for the Washington Metro-Blue Line extension-
Addison Road (Largo) project;
$2,000,000 for the West Trenton, New Jersey, rail project;
$2,500,000 for the Whitehall and St. George ferry terminal
projects;
$5,000,000 for the Wilmington, Delaware, downtown transit
corridor project; and
$1,000,000 for the Wilsonville to Washington County,
Oregon, commuter rail project:
Provided further, That any funds previously appropriated for
the Miami-Dade Transit east-west multimodal corridor project
and the Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue corridor project
remaining unobligated as of or deobligated after September
30, 2000, are to be made available for the South Miami-Dade
Busway Extension project: Provided further, That funds made
available under the heading ``Capital investment grants'' in
Division A, Section 101(g) of Public Law 105-277 for the
``Colorado-North Front Range corridor feasibility study'' are
to be made available for ``Colorado-Eagle Airport to Avon
light rail system feasibility study''; and that funds made
available in Public Law 106-69 under ``Capital investment
grants'' for buses and bus-related facilities that were
designated for projects numbered 14 and 20 shall be made
available to the State of Alabama for buses and bus-related
facilities.
Discretionary Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
previous obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C.
5338(b), $350,000,000, to remain available until expended and
to be derived from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway
Trust Fund.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178,
as amended, for necessary expenses to carry out section 3037
of the Federal Transit Act of 1998, $20,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no more than
$100,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for these
purposes: Provided further, That up to $250,000 of the funds
provided under this heading may be used by the Federal
Transit Administration for technical assistance and support
and performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants program.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of
those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $13,004,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Research and Special Programs
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Research and Special Programs Administration, $36,373,000, of
which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund, and of which $4,707,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2003: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees
collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided
further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to
be available until expended, funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources for expenses incurred for training, for
reports publication and dissemination, and for travel
expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials
exemptions and approvals functions.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $47,044,000, of which $7,488,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2003; of which
$36,556,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $23,837,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2003; and of which $3,000,000 shall be derived from
amounts previously collected under 49 U.S.C. 60301: Provided,
That amounts previously collected under 49 U.S.C. 60301 shall
be available for damage prevention grants to States.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c),
$200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That
not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2001 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, That none of
the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d)
shall be made available for obligation by individuals other
than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, $48,450,000: Provided, That the Inspector
General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out
the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended
(5 U.S.C. App. 3) to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made
available under this heading shall be used to investigate,
pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code:
(1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air
carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $17,954,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $900,000 from fees established by the Chairman
of the Surface Transportation Board shall be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections and used for
necessary and authorized expenses under this heading:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2001, to result in a final appropriation from the general
fund estimated at no more than $17,054,000.
TITLE II
RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
$4,795,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902)
$62,942,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2001 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 303. Hereafter, funds appropriated under this or any
other Act for expenditures by the Federal Aviation
Administration shall be available: (1) except as otherwise
authorized by title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), for expenses
of primary and secondary schooling for dependents of Federal
Aviation Administration personnel stationed outside the
continental United States at costs for any given area not in
excess of those of the Department of Defense for the same
area, when it is determined by the Secretary that the
schools, if any, available in the locality are unable to
provide adequately for the education of such dependents; and
(2) for transportation of said dependents between schools
serving the area that they attend and their places of
residence when the Secretary, under such regulations as may
be prescribed, determines that such schools are not
accessible by public means of transportation on a regular
basis.
[[Page 21132]]
Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 104 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision or political and Presidential appointees in an
independent agency funded in this Act may be assigned on
temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation or
such independent agency.
Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 308. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 309. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor
vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provide in 18 U.S.C. 2721 for
a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) 18 U.S.C. 2725 is amended by:
In paragraph (2) striking the word ``and''; and inserting
after paragraph 3:
``(4) `highly restricted personal information' means an
individual's photograph or image, social security number,
medical or disability information; and
``(5) `express consent' means consent in writing, including
consent conveyed electronically that bears an electronic
signature as defined in section 106(5) of Public Law 106-
229.''
(c) 18 U.S.C. 2721(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--A State department of motor vehicles,
and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, shall not
knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person
or entity:
``(1) personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
2725(3), about any individual obtained by the department in
connection with a motor vehicle record, except as provided in
subsection (b) of this section; or
``(2) highly restricted personal information, as defined in
18 U.S.C. 2725(4), about any individual obtained by the
department in connection with a motor vehicle record, without
the express consent of the person to whom such information
applies, except uses permitted in subsections (b)(1), (b)(4),
(b)(6), and (b)(9): Provided, That subsection (a)(2) shall
not in any way affect the use of organ donation information
on an individual's driver's license or affect the
administration of organ donation initiatives in the States.''
(d) 18 U.S.C. 2721(b) is amended by inserting before ``may
be disclosed'' ``, subject to subsection (a)(2),''.
(e) 18 U.S.C. 2721 is amended by inserting after subsection
(d):
``(e) Prohibition on Conditions.--No State may condition or
burden in any way the issuance of an individual's motor
vehicle record as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1) to obtain
express consent. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
to prohibit a State from charging an administrative fee for
issuance of a motor vehicle record.''
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code,
and paragraph (7) of this section, for the highway use tax
evasion program, and amounts provided under section 110 of
title 23, United States Code, excluding $128,752,000 pursuant
to subsection (e) of section 110 of title 23, as amended, and
for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal
year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less
the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and
sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title
23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in
subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of
the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 117 of title 23, United
States Code (relating to high priority projects program),
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of
1995, and $2,000,000,000 for such fiscal year under section
105 of title 23, United States Code (relating to minimum
guarantee) so that the amount of obligation authority
available for each of such sections is equal to the amount
determined by multiplying the ratio determined under
paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such section (except in the case of section 105,
$2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that
are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States
Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies
and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying
the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums
authorized to be appropriated for such program for such
fiscal year;
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that
amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for
such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian
development highway system program) that are apportioned by
the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the
ratio that--
(A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year; and
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after
determining the amount of funds to be allocated to the
surface transportation program, to the bridge program, to the
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program,
and to the Interstate and National Highway System program,
under section 110 of title 23, United States Code, deduct a
sum, in an amount not to exceed 1\1/6\ percent of the sum
made available to each program, to administer the provisions
of law to be financed from appropriations for the Federal-aid
highways program.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid Highways shall not apply to
obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States
Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under sections 131(b) and 131(
j) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; (5)
under sections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987;
(6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) under
section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8) under
section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year).
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall after
August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of the
obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if
a State will not obligate the amount distributed during that
fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those
States able to obligate amounts in addition to those
previously distributed during that fiscal year giving
priority to those States having large unobligated balances of
funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23,
United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under
section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of
1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, except that
obligation authority made available for such programs under
such limitation shall remain available for a period of 3
fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the distribution of obligation
limitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
distribute to the States any funds: (1) that are authorized
to be appropriated for such fiscal year for Federal-aid
highways programs (other than the program under section 160
of title 23, United States Code) and for carrying out
subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code,
and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of title 23,
United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary determines
will not be allocated to the States,
[[Page 21133]]
and will not be available for obligation, in such fiscal year
due to the imposition of any obligation limitation for such
fiscal year. Such distribution to the States shall be made in
the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority
under subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be
available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of
title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Rule.--Obligation limitation distributed for a
fiscal year under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a
section set forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available
until used and shall be in addition to the amount of any
limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
Sec. 311. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would
establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five
miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation
Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems
(along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway
visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and
performance specifications, the purchase of which was
assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport
development aid program or airport improvement program grant.
The Federal Aviation Administration shall accept such
equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and maintained
by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
Sec. 315. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to award a multiyear contract for production end items that:
(1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time
material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any 1 year
of the contract; (2) includes a cancellation charge greater
than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been
appropriated to the limits of the Government's liability; or
(3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the
contract during the second and subsequent years of the
contract without conditioning such performance upon the
appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does
not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government
incurs no financial liability from not buying additional
systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract
requirements.
Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made
available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this
Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not
obligated by September 30, 2003, and other recoveries, shall
be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2000, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 335 technical staff-years under the
federally funded research and development center contract
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center
for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year
2001.
Sec. 319. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account,
and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and
Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors
participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant
to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average
fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such
title, in any model year that differs from standards
promulgated for such automobiles prior to the enactment of
this section.
Sec. 321. Funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry
boats or ferry terminal facilities pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5309(m)(2)(B) may be used to construct new vessels and
facilities, or to improve existing vessels and facilities,
including both the passenger and vehicle-related elements of
such vessels and facilities, and for repair facilities:
Provided, That not more than $3,000,000 of the funds made
available to Hawaii pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(c)(2)(B) may
be used by the State of Hawaii to initiate and operate a
passenger ferryboat services demonstration project to test
the viability of different intra-island and inter-island
ferry routes.
Sec. 322. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data
products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways
account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such
expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction.
Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet
identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties; (b)
contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional
response or psychological stress in some participants; (c)
does not require prior employee notification of the content
and methods to be used in the training and written end of
course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content
associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems
or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2,
1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change,
participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the
workplace; or (f) includes content related to human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more
aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the
workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the
absence of express authorization by Congress, be used
directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegraph, telephone, letter, printed or
written material, radio, television, video presentation,
electronic communications, or other device, intended or
designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress or
of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or
otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress or a
State legislature after the introduction of any bill or
resolution in Congress proposing such legislation or
appropriation, or after the introduction of any bill or
resolution in a State legislature proposing such legislation
or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not prevent
officers or employees of the Department of Transportation or
related agencies funded in this Act from communicating to
Members of Congress or to Congress, on the request of any
Member, or to members of State legislature, or to a State
legislature, through the proper official channels, requests
for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary
for the efficient conduct of business.
Sec. 325. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available
in this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity
agrees that in expending the funds the entity will comply
with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
(b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 326. In addition to the funds limited in this Act,
$54,963,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account), shall be available for
section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240.
Sec. 327. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department from travel
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of
building space, and miscellaneous sources are to be credited
to appropriations of the Department and allocated to elements
of the Department using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until December 31, 2001.
Sec. 328. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule
or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to
the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the
payment to the Department of an amount determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 329. For necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform
Council authorized under section 203 of Public Law 105-134,
$750,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002:
Provided, That the duties of the Amtrak Reform Council
described in section 203(g)(1) of Public Law 105-134 shall
include the identification of Amtrak routes which are
candidates for closure or realignment, based on performance
rankings developed by Amtrak which incorporate information on
each route's fully allocated costs and ridership on core
intercity passenger service,
[[Page 21134]]
and which assume, for purposes of closure or realignment
candidate identification, that Federal subsidies for Amtrak
will decline over the 4-year period from fiscal year 1999 to
fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That these closure or
realignment recommendations shall be included in the Amtrak
Reform Council's annual report to the Congress required by
section 203(h) of Public Law 105-134.
Sec. 330. Item number 1473 in the table contained in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 311) is amended by striking ``Stony'' and
inserting ``Commerce''.
Sec. 331. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than
three full business days before any discretionary grant
award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement
totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or
its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary grant
program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the
emergency relief program; (2) the airport improvement program
of the Federal Aviation Administration; or (3) any program of
the Federal Transit Administration other than the formula
grants and fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided,
That no notification shall involve funds that are not
available for obligation.
Sec. 332. Of the funds provided for fiscal year 2001 in
section 232 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2000, as
enacted by section 1000(a)(5) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2000, $20,000,000 shall be available only
for fire and life safety improvements to enable the James A.
Farley Post Office in New York City to be used as a train
station and commercial center.
Sec. 333. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for planning, design, or construction of a light rail system
in Houston, Texas.
Sec. 334. Section 3030(b) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(72) Wilmington Downtown transit corridor.
``(73) Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit project.''.
Sec. 335. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act or any other Act shall be used (1) to adopt any
proposed rule or proposed amendment to a rule contained in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on April 24, 2000
(Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350-953), (2) to adopt any rule or
amendment to a rule similar in substance to a proposed rule
or proposed amendment to a rule contained in such Notice, or
(3) if any such proposed rule or proposed amendment to a rule
has been adopted prior to enactment of this section, to
enforce such rule or amendment to a rule: Provided, That
nothing in this section shall apply to issuing and
proceeding, through all stages of rulemaking other than
adoption of a final rule, under subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code on a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking to be issued in Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350-
953 that contains proposed rules and proposed amendments to
rules that take appropriate account of the information
received for filing in the docket on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350-953).
Sec. 336. Section 3038(e) of Public Law 105-178 is amended
by striking ``50'' and inserting ``90''.
Sec. 337. Item number 273 in the table contained in section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 105-178) is amended by striking ``Reconstruct I-
235 and improve the interchange for access to the MLKing
Parkway.'' and inserting ``Construction of the north-south
segments of the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in Des
Moines.''.
Sec. 338. Item number 328 in the table contained in section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 105-178) is amended by inserting before ``of''
the following: ``or construction''.
Sec. 339. Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (112 Stat. 256) is amended--
(1) by striking item number 63, relating to Ohio; and
(2) in item number 186, relating to Ohio, by striking
``3.75'' and inserting ``7.5''.
Sec. 340. (a) Of the funds apportioned to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3), and (b)(4) of section 104 and section 105 of title
23, United States Code, the Secretary shall withhold
obligation of Federal funds and all project approvals for the
Central Artery/Tunnel project in fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter unless the Secretary of the Department
of Transportation determines that the Commonwealth meets each
of the following criteria:
(1) The Commonwealth is in full compliance with the
partnership agreement that was executed on June 22, 2000,
between the Federal Highway Administration, the Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority, the Massachusetts Highway Department, and
the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction.
(2) The Commonwealth is in full compliance with the
balanced statewide program memorandum of understanding
entered into by the Massachusetts Highway Department, the
Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, and
metropolitan planning organizations in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
(3) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall spend no less
than $400,000,000 each year for construction activities and
specific transportation projects as defined in the Balanced
Statewide Program Memorandum of Understanding on projects
other than the Central Artery/Tunnel project.
(b) After June 22, 2000, the Secretary of Transportation
shall not approve new net advance construction for the
Central Artery/Tunnel project in an amount greater than
$222,000,000 and no conversion of advance construction to
obligation authority shall cause the Federal share of funding
for the Central Artery/Tunnel project to exceed
$8,549,000,000.
(c) Of the funds apportioned to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3), and (b)(4) of section 104 and section 105 of title
23, United States Code, the Secretary shall withhold
obligation of Federal funds and all project approvals for the
Central Artery/Tunnel project in fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter until the Inspector General of the
Department of Transportation finds the annual update of the
Central Artery/Tunnel project finance plan consistent with
Federal Highway Administration financial plan guidance and
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation approves
the annual update of the finance plan, except for fiscal year
2001 when approval of the annual update of the finance plan
will not be required until December 1, 2000.
(d) Total Federal contributions to the Central Artery/
Tunnel project shall not exceed $8,549,000,000.
(e) Should the Secretary withhold Federal funds apportioned
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under subsections
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of section 104 and section
105 of title 23, United States Code, for the Central Artery/
Tunnel project in any fiscal year for noncompliance with this
section, such funds shall be available to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for projects other than the Central Artery/
Tunnel project in that fiscal year.
(f) This section shall be in effect for each fiscal year in
which any Federal funds are made available to construct the
Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts.
(g) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this
section to the contrary, the Secretary is authorized to
approve conversion of advance construction to obligation
authority and otherwise make Federal funds available to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts without regard to the
requirement of the section, other than subsection (d), if and
only if to the extent necessary, as evidenced by a
certificate of the Secretary of Administration and Finance of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts satisfactory to the
Secretary, to enable the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to pay
all or any portion of the principal amount of notes issued by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to section 9
through 10D of chapter 11 of the Massachusetts acts of 1997,
as amended, to finance costs of the Central Artery/Tunnel
project in anticipation of the receipts of Federal funds:
Provided, That no funds derived from the sale of grant
anticipation notes shall be used to exceed the caps described
in subsections (b) and (d).
Sec. 341. Section 3027(c)(3) of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note; 112 Stat.
2681-477), relating to services for elderly and persons with
disabilities, is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,444,000''.
Sec. 342. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
unobligated balances from section 149(a)(45) and section
149(a)(63) of Public Law 100-17 and the Ebensburg Bypass
Demonstration Project of Public Law 101-164 may be used for
improvements along Route 56 in Cambria County, Pennsylvania,
including the construction of a parking facility in the
vicinity.
Sec. 343. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning, development, or construction of California
State Route 710 freeway extension project through South
Pasadena, California.
Sec. 344. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for engineering work related to an additional runway
at New Orleans International Airport.
Sec. 345. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to
$800,000 of unobligated balances from capital investment
grants available for Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal
facilities and buses in the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-
277) and the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-69) may be
made available for an intermodal parking facility in Cambria
County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 346. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol.
Sec. 347. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects
reductions from the previous year due to user fee proposals
that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission
of the budget
[[Page 21135]]
unless such budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fee
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2002
appropriations Act.
Sec. 348. In addition to the authority provided in section
636 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1997, as included in Public Law 104-208,
title I, section 101(f), as amended, beginning in fiscal year
2001 and thereafter, amounts appropriated for salaries and
expenses for the Department of Transportation may be used to
reimburse an employee whose position is that of safety
inspector for not to exceed one-half the costs incurred by
such employee for professional liability insurance. Any
payment under this section shall be contingent upon the
submission of such information or documentation as the
Department may require.
Sec. 349. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation or
weather reporting. The prohibition of funds in this section
does not apply to negotiations between the Agency and airport
sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-market'' rates for
these items or to grant assurances that require airport
sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air
traffic control facilities.
Sec. 350. None of the funds provided in this Act or prior
Appropriations Acts for Coast Guard ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' shall be available after the
fifteenth day of any quarter of any fiscal year beginning
after December 31, 2000, unless the Commandant of the Coast
Guard first submits a quarterly report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on all major Coast Guard
acquisition projects including projects executed for the
Coast Guard by the United States Navy and vessel traffic
service projects: Provided, That such reports shall include
an acquisition schedule, estimated current and year funding
requirements, and a schedule of anticipated obligations and
outlays for each major acquisition project: Provided further,
That such reports shall rate on a relative scale the cost
risk, schedule risk, and technical risk associated with each
acquisition project and include a table detailing unobligated
balances to date and anticipated unobligated balances at the
close of the fiscal year and the close of the following
fiscal year should the Administration's pending budget
request for the acquisition, construction, and improvements
account be fully funded: Provided further, That such reports
shall also provide abbreviated information on the status of
shore facility construction and renovation projects: Provided
further, That all information submitted in such reports shall
be current as of the last day of the preceding quarter.
Sec. 351. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Secretary shall withhold 2
percent of the amount required to be apportioned for Federal-
aid highways to any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3),
and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, if
a State has not enacted and is not enforcing a provision
described in section 163(a) of chapter 1 of title 23, United
States Code; in fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shall
withhold 4 percent of the amount required to be apportioned
for Federal-aid highways to any State under each of
paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23,
United States Code, if a State has not enacted and is not
enforcing a provision described in section 163(a) of title
23, United States Code; in fiscal year 2006, the Secretary
shall withhold 6 percent of the amount required to be
apportioned for Federal-aid highways to any State under each
of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title
23, United States Code, if a State has not enacted and is not
enforcing a provision described in section 163(a) of title
23, United States Code; and beginning in fiscal year 2007 and
in each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall withhold
8 percent of the amount required to be apportioned for
Federal-aid highways to any State under each of paragraphs
(1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United
States Code, if a State has not enacted and is not enforcing
a provision described in section 163(a) of title 23, United
States Code. If within four years from the date that the
apportionment for any State is reduced in accordance with
this section the Secretary determines that such State has
enacted and is enforcing a provision described in section
163(a) of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, the
apportionment of such State shall be increased by an amount
equal to such reduction. If at the end of such four-year
period, any State has not enacted and is not enforcing a
provision described in section 163(a) of title 23, United
States Code, any amounts so withheld shall lapse.
Sec. 352. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including the Surplus Property Act of 1944
(58 Stat. 765, chapter 479; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622 et seq.), the
Secretary of Transportation (or the appropriate Federal
officer) may waive, without charge, any of the terms
contained in any deed of conveyance described in subsection
(b) that restrict the use of any land described in such a
deed that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, is not
being used for the operation of an airport or for air
traffic. A waiver made under the preceding sentence shall be
deemed to be consistent with the requirements of section
47153 of title 49, United States Code.
(b) Deed of Conveyance.--A deed of conveyance referred to
in subsection (a) is a deed of conveyance issued by the
United States before the date of enactment of this Act for
the conveyance of lands to a public institution of higher
education in Oklahoma.
(c) Use of Lands Subject to Waiver.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the lands subject to a waiver under subsection (a) shall
not be subject to any term, condition, reservation, or
restriction that would otherwise apply to that land as a
result of the conveyance of that land by the United States to
the institution of higher education.
(2) Use of lands.--An institution of higher education that
is issued a waiver under subsection (a) may use revenues
derived from the use, operation, or disposal of that land
only for weather-related and educational purposes that
include benefits for aviation.
(d) Grants.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if an institution of higher education that is subject to
a waiver under subsection (a) received financial assistance
in the form of a grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration or a predecessor agency before the date of
enactment of this Act, then the Secretary of Transportation
may waive the repayment of the outstanding amount of any
grant that the institution of higher education would
otherwise be required to pay.
(2) Eligibility to receive subsequent grants.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) shall affect the eligibility of an institution
of higher education that is subject to that paragraph from
receiving grants from the Secretary of Transportation under
chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, or under any
other provision of law relating to financial assistance
provided through the Federal Aviation Administration.
Sec. 353. The table contained in section 1602 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is amended in
item 1006 (112 Stat. 294) by striking ``Extend NW 86th Street
from NW 70th Street'' and inserting ``Construct a road from
State Highway 141''.
Sec. 354. For the purpose of constructing an underpass to
improve access and enhance highway/rail safety and economic
development along Star Landing Road in DeSoto County,
Mississippi, the State of Mississippi may use funds
previously allocated to it under the transportation
enhancements program, if available.
Sec. 355. Section 1214 of Public Law 105-178, as amended,
is further amended by adding a new subsection to read as
follows:
``(s) Notwithstanding section 117 (c) of title 23, United
States Code, for project number 1646 in section 1602 of
Public Law 105-178, the non-Federal share of the project may
be funded by Federal funds from an agency or agencies not
part of the United States Department of Transportation.''.
Sec. 356. Hereafter, the New Jersey Transit commuter rail
station to be located at the intersection of the Main/Bergen
line and the Northeast Corridor line in the State of New
Jersey shall be known and designated as the ``Frank R.
Lautenberg Station'': Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation shall ensure that any and all applicable
reference in law, map, regulation, documentation, and all
appropriate signage shall make reference to the ``Frank R.
Lautenberg Station''.
Sec. 357. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the planning, development or construction of a multi-
lane, limited access expressway at section 800, Pennsylvania
Route 202 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 358. Item 131 in the table under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants'' in Public Law
106-69 is amended by adding after ``buses'' the following:
``, bus-related equipment and bus facilities''.
Sec. 359. Each executive agency shall establish a policy
under which eligible employees of the agency may participate
in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible without
diminished employee performance. Not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management shall provide that the
requirements of this section are applied to 25 percent of the
Federal workforce, and to an additional 25 percent of such
workforce each year thereafter.
Sec. 360. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, new
fixed guideway system funds available for the Jackson,
Mississippi, Intermodal Corridor in the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998,
Public Law 105-66, may be made available for obligation
during this fiscal year for studies to evaluate and define
transportation alternatives for this project, including an
intermodal facility at Jackson International Airport, and for
related preliminary engineering, final design or
construction.
Sec. 361. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to
$499,000 of the funds made available in item 760 of section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
shall be available for corridor planning studies between
western Baldwin County and Mobile Municipal Airport.
Sec. 362. Item number 78 in section 1107(b) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-240) is amended by inserting ``Akron
Innerbelt (State Route 59) corridor, Broadway viaduct
replacement, and High Street viaduct replacement,'' after
``extension,''.
Sec. 363. Section 117(c) of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the
following: ``; except that
[[Page 21136]]
the Federal share on account of the project to be carried out
under item 1419 of the table contained in section 1602 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
309), relating to reconstruction of a road and causeway in
Shiloh Military Park in Hardin County, Tennessee, shall be
100 percent of the total cost thereof''.
Sec. 364. Section 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c), by inserting ``,
original equipment,'' before ``or replacement equipment''
each place it appears; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting
appropriately;
(B) by striking ``A manufacturer'' and inserting the
following: ``(1) In general.--A manufacturer''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Duty of manufacturers.--For the purposes of paragraph
(1), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, original equipment,
or replacement equipment shall have a duty to review and
consider information, including information received from any
foreign source, to learn whether the vehicle or equipment
contains a defect or does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard.''.
Sec. 365. Funds appropriated to the Federal Transit
Administration under the heading ``Transit planning and
research'' for international activities in Public Law 106-69
shall be transferred to and administered by the Agency for
International Development for transportation needs in the
frontline states to the Kosovo conflict, as determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development.
Sec. 366. Under the heading ``Discretionary Grants'' in
Public Law 105-66, ``$4,000,000 for the Salt Lake City
regional commuter system project;'' is amended to read
``$4,000,000 for the transit and other transportation-related
portions of the Salt Lake City regional commuter system and
Gateway intermodal terminal;''.
Sec. 367. Of the amounts to be made available in fiscal
year 2001 under section 1404 (safety incentives to prevent
operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons) of Public
Law 105-178, $2,492,121 shall be made available to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for adopting a 0.08 blood alcohol
content standard. Thereafter the remaining funds shall be
distributed by formula to the eligible states, including
Kentucky.
Sec. 368. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Transportation shall waive repayment of any
Federal-aid highway funds expended by the City of Spokane,
Washington on the Lincoln Street Bridge Project.
Sec. 369. Items 218 and 219 in the table under ``Federal
Transit Administration, Capital investment grants'' in
Division A, section 101(g) of Public Law 105-277 and items
222 and 223 in the table under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants'' in Public Law
106-69 are amended by inserting ``and bus and bus
facilities'' at the end of each item.
Sec. 370. Item number 6 in the table contained in section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 105-178) is amended by inserting after
``Kaysville'', ``and within the amount provided, $2,000,000
for repair and reconstruction of the North Ogden Divide
Highway''.
Sec. 371. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402
of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema,
and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with
guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation. Any State
that uses funds for such public service messages shall submit
to the Secretary a report describing and assessing the
effectiveness of the messages.
Sec. 372. Notwithstanding section 402 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1982
(49 U.S.C. 10903 nt), Mohall Railroad, Inc. may abandon track
from milepost 5.25 near Granville, North Dakota, to milepost
35.0 at Lansford, North Dakota, and the track so abandoned
shall not be counted against the 350 mile limitation
contained in that section.
Sec. 373. Item number 163 in the table contained in section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 105-178) is amended by inserting before the
numeral ``which includes the study, design, and construction
related to local street improvements needed to complement the
extension of Kapkowski Road''.
Sec. 374. Item number 331 in the table contained in section
1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(112 Stat. 269) is amended by striking ``highway access'' and
inserting ``highway and freight rail access''.
Sec. 375. For capital costs associated with track
relocation, track construction and rehabilitation, highway-
rail separation construction activities including right-of-
way acquisition and utility relocation, and signal
improvements in Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield,
Alabama, $5,000,000 to the Alabama Department of
Transportation, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That obligation of federal funds is contingent upon a match
of no less than 75 percent from non-federal sources.
Sec. 376. For capital costs associated with track
acquisition and rehabilitation between Strasburg Junction and
Shenandoah Caverns, Virginia, $1,000,000 to Valley Trains and
Tours, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
obligation of federal funds is contingent upon an agreement
with Norfolk Southern Corporation on track usage and
financial support by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Sec. 377. Item 1135 of the table contained in section 1602
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112
Stat. 298) is amended by striking ``Replace Barton Road/M 14
interchange, Ann Arbor'' and inserting ``Conduct a study of
all possible alternatives to the current M-14/Barton Drive
interchange in Ann Arbor, including relocation of M-14/U.S.
23 from Maple Road to Plymouth Road, mass transit options,
and other means of reducing commuter traffic and improving
highway safety''.
Sec. 378. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
addition to amounts made available in this Act or any other
Act, the following sums shall be made available from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account):
$50,000,000 for the intelligent transportation infrastructure
program as authorized by section 5117(b)(3) of Public Law
105-178; $8,500,000 for construction of, and improvements to,
17th Avenue and 23rd Avenue highway ramps in Denver,
Colorado; $1,000,000 for engineering, construction of, and
improvements to, the Cascade Gateway Border Project in
Whatcom County, Washington; $100,000,000 for construction of,
and improvements to, Corridor D on the Appalachian
development highway system in the State of West Virginia;
$1,500,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to American Trade corridor
project, California; $4,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, Avenue G viaduct and connector roads in
Council Bluffs, Iowa; $34,100,000 for design and construction
of the Birmingham, Alabama Northern Beltline; $13,500,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, US 231 from Bowling
Green to Scottsville, Kentucky; $150,000 for improvements to
the Broad Street and Wyckoff Road intersection, including
traffic light upgrades, in the Borough of Eatontown, New
Jersey; $12,000,000 for construction of road expansion and
improvements to, the Broad Street Parkway in Nashua, New
Hampshire; $10,000,000 to construct interchanges US 281 at FM
2812, FM 162, FM 490, SP 122, and SH 186 in Texas;
$12,500,000 to construct interchanges US 77 at Business 77
North, FM 3186, FM 490, SP 122, and SP 413 in Texas;
$30,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Cooper River Bridge in South Carolina; $100,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, Corridor X on the
Appalachian development highway system in the State of
Alabama; $4,000,000 for construction, including related
activities, of an interchange at County Highway J and US 10
and to upgrade a segment of US 10 to a four-lane highway in
Portage County, Wisconsin; $5,000,000 for construction,
including related activities, of the Craig Road overpass
between I-15 and Lossee Road in the City of North Las Vegas,
Nevada; $30,200,000 for construction of, and improvements to,
bridges and other projects on the Dalton Highway, Alaska;
$3,200,000 for improvements to Dayton Road in Ames, Iowa;
$15,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Detroit, Michigan Ambassador Bridge Gateway project;
$24,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, FAST
Corridor in Washington; $10,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, the Fort Washington Way reconfiguration
project, Cincinnati, Ohio; $35,000,000 for construction of,
and improvement to, the Four Bears Bridge in North Dakota;
$50,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Glenn Highway/George Parks Highway interchange in Alaska;
$8,000,000 for preliminary design of the Interstate Route 69
Great River Bridge crossing the Mississippi at Bolivar
County, Mississippi; $8,000,000 for reconstruction of, and
other improvements to, Halls Mill Road in Freehold Township
and Monmouth County, New Jersey; $4,500,000 for construction
of, and improvements to, Hamakua-Hilo corridor road and
bridge projects, Hawaii; $35,000,000 for construction,
including related activities, of an extension of Highway 180
from the City of Mendota to I-5 in Fresno County, California;
$10,000,000 to upgrade Highway 36 in Marion County, Missouri,
to four-land divided highway; $9,750,000 for widening,
relocation of, and other improvements to South Carolina
Highway 5, including the removal and relocation of municipal
utilities, between Interstate 85 in Cherokee County, South
Carolina and Interstate 77 in York County, South Carolina;
$10,000,000 for upgrading Highway 60 in Shannon and Carter
counties, Missouri, to four-lane divided highway; $6,400,000
for Hoeven Valley corridor, Sioux City, road, intersection,
and rail crossing improvements, in Iowa; $20,000,000 for
environmental work, design, and construction of the Hoover
Dam bypass four-lane bridge; $13,500,000 for construction of,
and improvements to, I-15 between milepost 0 and milepost 16,
from the Utah border to Deep Creek, Idaho; $10,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, the I-15 Southbound
project, Nevada; $10,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, I-195 in Rhode Island; $6,400,000 for
municipality relocation costs for I-235 in Polk County, Iowa;
$12,000,000 for environmental work, preliminary survey and
design, and reconstruction of I-35 from Des Moines to Ankeny,
Iowa, $36,000,000 for construction, including related
activities, of the I-39/US 51/SH 29 corridor (Wausau
Beltline) in and around Wausau, Wisconsin; $94,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, I-49 in the State of
Arkansas; $18,400,000 for environmental work, preliminary
survey and design of I-69 in Tennessee;; $10,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, the I-80/US 395
interchange in
[[Page 21137]]
Reno, Nevada; $2,800,000 for border crossing improvements on
I-87, in New York; $8,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, the I-95 to Transitway access project in
Stamford, Connecticut; $4,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, U.S. Department of Transportation structure
numbered 289-961-H at FAS Route 37 in Illinois; $250,000 for
improvements at the Rosedal Road and Provinceline Road
intersection in the Township of Princeton, New Jersey;
$1,200,000 for improvements to County Route 605 in Delaware
Township and West Amwell Township, Hunterdon County, New
Jersey; $2,500,000 for improvements to the Route 9 and Route
520 intersection in Marlboro Township, New Jersey; $5,000,000
for improvement to US 73 from State Avenue North to Marxen
Road in Wyandotte County, Kansas; $5,000,000 for installation
of sound barriers along the Route 309 Expressway between
Limekiln Pike and State Route 63 in Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania; $8,700,000 for construction, including related
activities, of a new interchange on I-435 at Donahoo Road in
Wyandotte County, Kansas; $15,000,000 for construction of,
and improvements to, the intersection at 27th Street and
Airport Road in Billings, Montana; $5,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, Kahuku Bridges, Hawaii;
$5,500,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Kansas Lane Connector Road alignment project in Monroe,
Louisiana; $4,000,000 for construction of, and improvements
to, Kekaha, Kauai access roads, Hawaii; $10,000,000 for
planning, environmental work, and preliminary engineering of
highway, pedestrian vehicular, and bicycle access to the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in the District of
Columbia; $2,500,000 for construction of, and improvement to,
Kihei Road, Hawaii; $10,000,000 for Lafayette Street access
improvements from the US 202 Dannehower Bridge to the
Pennsylvania Turnpike, including extension of Lafayette
Street to the Conshohocken Road, intersection improvements
and bridge, reconstruction in Norristown, Pennsylvania;
$12,400,000 for widening and overlay/guard rail work on SR
789 between Lander and Hudson, Wyoming; $500,000 for
reconstruction of Lewisville Road in Lawrence Township, New
Jersey; $3,200,000 for construction of, and improvements to,
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge in Toledo, Ohio;
$9,300,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Midtown West intermodal ferry terminal, New York City, New
York; $5,000,000 for construction, including related
activities, of an extension of Mississippi Highway 44,
including a bridge over the Pearl River, in Lawrence County,
Mississippi; $13,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, the Missouri River pedestrian crossing in
Omaha, Nebraska; $5,000,000 for the NJCDC Training Facility
Project in Paterson, New Jersey; $16,000,000 for construction
of, and improvements to, North Shore Road in Swain County,
North Carolina; $3,500,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, the Norwich, Connecticut intermodal facility
project; $1,500,000 for construction of, and improvements to,
Padanaram and Little River Road bridge projects in Dartmouth,
Massachusetts; $11,000,000 for reconstruction activities on
the Potee Street Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland; $250,000 for
reconstruction of Institute Street, Lockwood Avenue, First
Street, Second Street, Third Street, Ford Avenue, Liberty
Street, and Bond Street in the Borough of Freehold, New
Jersey; $4,200,000 for relocation and related construction
activities thereto of MacArthur Boulevard in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; $1,200,000 for grade crossing eliminations along
Route 17 in Chemung County, New York; $4,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, Route 2 between St.
Johnsbury, Vermont and the New Hampshire State Line; $500,000
for improvements to Route 35 at Clinton Avenue and other
intersections in the Borough of Eatontown, Mew Jersey;
$500,000 for Route 35 corridor improvements, including signal
upgrades, in the Borough of Eatontown, New Jersey; $2,600,000
for construction of, and improvements to, the Niangua Bridge
on Route 5 in Camden County, Missouri; $1,000,000 for
improvements to Route 641 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey;
$25,000,000 for construction, including related activities,
of the Route 7 North bypass in Brookfield, Connecticut;
$6,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the
Route 9 Bennington Bypass, Vermont; $5,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, Saddle Road, Hawaii;
$1,200,000 for reconstruction of School Road East in Marlboro
Township, New Jersey; $29,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, a Southeast Connector Route between I-90 and
SD 79 in South Dakota; $5,000,000 for improvements, including
traffic signal system upgrades, to State Route 99 in
Shoreline, Washington; $500,000 for the Township of
Princeton, New Jersey municipal complex road improvements,
including improvements to the Valley, Mount Lucas, Terhune
and Cherry Hill roadways in the Township of Princeton, New
Jersey; $23,600,000 for construction of, and improvements to,
US 12 between Aberdeen and I-29 in South Dakota; $40,000,000
for construction of, and improvements to, US 19 in Pinellas
County, Florida; $25,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, US 50 Parkersburg bypass in West Virginia;
$10,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, US 63
in Jonesboro, Arkansas; $5,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, US 101 in Oregon; $4,000,000 for
construction of, and improvements to, US 54 in Kansas;
$100,000,000 for construction of, and improvements to, the US
82 bridge over the Mississippi River at Greenville,
Mississippi; $10,000,000 for construction of, and
improvements to, including widening, of US 95 between
Laughlin Cutoff and Railroad Pass, Nevada; $1,000,000 for
improvements to the Van Wyck Expressway, Queens County, New
York; and $20,000,000 for widening US 53 from two lanes to
four lanes from Minnesota Highway 169 north of Virginia,
Minnesota to Cook, Minnesota; Provided, That the amounts
appropriated in this section shall remain available until
expended and shall not be subject to, or computed against,
any obligation limitation or contract authority set forth in
this Act or any other Act.
Sec. 379. (a) Section 412(a) of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge Authority Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 627; 112 Stat. 159)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``There is'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Highway trust fund.--There is''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) General fund.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to amounts made available
under subparagraph (A), there is appropriated to pay the
costs described in subparagraph (A) $600,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001.
``(ii) Condition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the additional funds made available by clause (i) shall
be made available only when 1 or more of the Capital Region
jurisdictions accepts conveyance from the Secretary of all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
new Bridge.
``(iii) Manner of use.--The use of the additional funds
made available by clause (i) shall be subject to title 23,
United States Code.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Funds'' and inserting ``Except as
provided in paragraph (3), funds''; and
(B) by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''; and
(3) by striking ``Code; except that--'' and inserting the
following: ``Code.
``(3) Conditions.--With respect to funds authorized or
appropriated by this section--''.
(b) Section 412 of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Authority Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 627; 112 Stat. 159) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Limitation on Federal Contribution.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
aggregate of the amounts made available from the Highway
Trust Fund and the general fund of the Treasury under this
section shall not exceed $1,500,000,000.
``(2) Excluded amounts.--Amounts made available for the
Project under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
shall be excluded from the limitation established by
paragraph (1).''.
Sec. 380. Section 5309(g)(4) of title 49 United States Code
is amended by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'' and by adding
at the end the following:
``(B) For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the amount
equivalent to the last 2 fiscal years of funding authorized
under section 5338(b) for new fixed guideway systems and
extensions to existing fixed guideway systems referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall be the amount equivalent to the last 3
fiscal years of such authorized funding.
``(C) Any increase in the total estimated amount of future
obligations of the Government and contingent commitments to
incur obligations covered by all outstanding letters of
intent, full funding grant agreements, and early systems work
agreements as a result of application of subparagraph (B)
instead of subparagraph (A) shall be available as follows:
``(1) $269,100,000 for the Chicago, Illinois Metra commuter
rail project, that consists of the following elements: the
Kane County extension; the North Central double-tracking
project; and the Southwest corridor extension.
``(2) $565,600,000 for the Chicago Transit Authority
project that consists of the following elements: Ravenswood
Branch station and line improvements and the Douglas Branch
reconstruction project.
``(3) For new fixed guideways and extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems other than for projects referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2); except that for fiscal year 2001,
such increase under this paragraph shall not be available for
allocation by the department or for making future obligations
of the Government and contingent commitments until April 1,
2001.
``(D) Of the amount that would be available under
subparagraph (A) if subparagraph (B) were not in effect and
would have otherwise been allocated by the Federal Transit
Administration to those projects referred to in subparagraphs
(C)(1) and (C)(2) shall be available as follows:
``(1) $60,000,000 for the Minneapolis Hiawatha corridor
light rail project, which shall be in addition to amounts
otherwise allocated under subparagraph (A), for a total of
$334,300,000.
``(2) $217,800,000 for the Dulles corridor bus rapid
transit project, that consists of a light rail extension from
the West Falls Church metrorail station to Tysons Corner,
Virginia and bus rapid transit from Tysons Corner to the
Dulles International Airport.
``(E) Any amount that would be available under subparagraph
(A) if subparagraph (B) were not in effect and would have
otherwise been allocated by the Federal Transit
Administration to those projects referred to in subparagraphs
(C)(1) and (C)(2), shall not be available for allocation by
the department or for making future obligations of the
Government and contingent commitments until April 1, 2001,
except for those projects referred to in subparagraph (D)(1)
and (D)(2).
[[Page 21138]]
``(F) Future obligations of the Government and contingent
commitments made against the contingent commitment authority
under section 3032(g)(2) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the San Francisco
BART to the Airport project for fiscal years 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005 and 2006 shall be charged against section
3032(g)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991.
``(G) Any amount that would be available under subparagraph
(A) if subparagraph (F) were not in effect and would
otherwise have been allocated by the Federal Transit
Administration to the project in subparagraph (F) shall not
be available for allocation by the department or for making
future obligations of the Government and contingent
commitments until April 1, 2001.''.
Sec. 381. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
within one week from the date of enactment of this Act, the
Federal Transit Administrator shall sign a Full Funding Grant
Agreement for the MOS-2 segment of the New Jersey Urban
Core--Hudson Bergen project.
Sec. 382. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used to adjust the boundary of the Point
Retreat Light Station or to otherwise limit the property at
the Point Retreat Light Station currently under lease to the
Alaska Lighthouse Association: Provided, That any
modifications to the boundary of the Point Retreat Light
Station made after January 1, 1998 is hereby declared null
and void.
TITLE IV
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of the Public Debt
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
For deposit of an additional amount into the account
established under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States
Code, to reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.
TITLE V
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount in support of the Nation's
counterterrorism efforts, $6,424,000: Provided, That these
funds shall be for establishing a new interagency National
Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in the Office of Foreign
Assets Control: Provided further, That these funds may be
used to reimburse any Department of the Treasury organization
for costs of providing support for this effort.
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For an additional amount for the integrated Treasury
wireless network, $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That these funds shall be transferred to
accounts and in amounts as necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other
organizations: Provided further, That this transfer authority
shall be in addition to any other transfer authority
provided: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated shall be used to support or supplement the
Internal Revenue Service appropriations for Information
Systems.
Expanded Access to Financial Services
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For an additional amount to develop and implement programs
to expand access to financial services for low- and moderate-
income individuals, $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of these funds, such sums as may be
necessary may be transferred to accounts of the Department's
offices, bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further,
That this transfer authority shall be in addition to any
other transfer authority provided.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount to establish and operate a
metropolitan area law enforcement training center for the
Department of the Treasury, other Federal agencies, the
United States Capitol Police, and the Washington, D.C.,
Metropolitan Police Department, $5,000,000: Provided, That
the principal function of the center shall be for firearms
and vehicle operation requalification: Provided further, That
use of the center for training for other state and local law
enforcement agencies may be provided on a space-available
basis: Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursement from agencies receiving
training sponsored by the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, except that total obligations at the end of the
fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources
available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further,
That the costs of transportation to and from the center,
ammunition, vehicles, and instruction at the center shall be
funded either directly by participating law enforcement
agencies, or through reimbursement of actual costs to this
appropriation: Provided further, That of the funds provided,
no more than $1,500,000 may be obligated until a funding plan
for the center has been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That all Federal property
in the National Capital Region that is in the surplus
property inventory of the General Services Administration
shall be available for selection and use by the Secretary of
the Treasury as the site of such a metropolitan area law
enforcement training center. If the Secretary of the Treasury
identifies a parcel of such property that is appropriate for
use for such a center, the property shall not be treated as
excess property or surplus property (as those terms are used
in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949) and administrative jurisdiction over the property shall
be transferred to the Secretary for use for such a center.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
For an additional amount for design and construction of a
metropolitan area law enforcement training center, including
firearms and vehicle operations requalification facilities,
$25,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the funds provided, no more than $3,000,000 may be
obligated until a design and construction plan has been
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount, $4,148,000, for participation in
Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
United States Customs Service
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount, $18,934,000: Provided, That
$10,000,000 shall be for technology and infrastructure along
the northern border: Provided further, That $6,600,000 shall
be for hiring counterterrorism agents for deployment along
the northern border: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided for the northern border shall be obligated until the
Commissioner of the Customs Service submits for approval to
the Committees on Appropriations a plan for the deployment of
the resources and personnel: Provided further, That
$2,334,000 shall be for participation in Joint Terrorism Task
Forces.
Internal Revenue Service
Tax Law Enforcement
For an additional amount, $7,974,000: Provided, That
$3,135,000 shall be in support of the money laundering
strategy: Provided further, That $4,839,000 shall be for
participation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
Information Technology Investments
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service,
$71,751,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003,
for the capital asset acquisition of information technology
systems, including management and related contractual costs
of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated
with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That
none of these funds may be obligated until the Internal
Revenue Service submits to the Committees on Appropriations,
and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that (1)
meets the capital planning and investment control review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget, including Circular A-11 part 3; (2) complies with the
Internal Revenue Service's enterprise architecture, including
the modernization blueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal
Revenue Service's enterprise life cycle methodology; (4) is
approved by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of
the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; (5)
has been reviewed by the General Accounting Office; and (6)
complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government.
Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service
related to the hiring of new staff, $141,000,000: Provided,
That these funds shall be transferred to the appropriations
accounts for ``Processing, Assistance, and Management'',
``Tax Law Enforcement'', and ``Information Systems'' in
accordance with a staffing plan approved by the Department of
the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget:
Provided further, That none of these funds may be transferred
or obligated until such staffing plan is submitted to, and
approved by, the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That this transfer authority shall be in addition to
any other transfer authority provided.
United States Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount, $2,904,000, for participation in
Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For an additional amount, $7,000,000: Provided, That
$5,000,000 shall be available for continued operation of the
technology transfer program: Provided further, That
$2,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
available for counternarcotics research and development
projects, to be used for the continued development of a
wireless interoperability communication project in Colorado.
Unanticipated Needs
For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet
unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest,
security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during
the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108,
$3,500,000: Provided, That, of such amount, $2,500,000 shall
become available on March 31, 2001, and shall be provided to
the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of
[[Page 21139]]
Puerto Rico as a transfer to be used for objective, non-
partisan citizens' education and a choice by voters regarding
the islands' future status: Provided further, That none of
the funds described in the preceding proviso may be obligated
until 45 days after the Elections Commission of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico submits to the Committees on
Appropriations for approval an expenditure plan developed
jointly by the Popular Democratic Party, the New Progressive
Party, and the Puerto Rican Independence Party: Provided
further, That the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico shall include the expenditure plan additional
views from any party that does not agree with the plan.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
General Services Administration
Real Property Activities
Federal Buildings Fund
Limitations on Availability of Revenue
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For an additional amount to be deposited in, and to be used
for the purposes of, the Fund established pursuant to section
210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), $11,350,000:
Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be available for non-
prospectus construction: Provided further, That $8,350,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be available for
repairs and alterations.
Policy and Operations
For an additional amount, $13,789,000 of which $2,060,000
shall be for the electronic government initiative, of which
$2,000,000 shall be for the regulatory information service
center, of which $2,000,000 shall be for facilitating post
conveyance remediation to be performed by the City of
Waltham, Massachusetts, of which $2,000,000 shall be for a
grant to the Institute for Biomedical Science and
Biotechnology, of which $2,000,000 shall be for a grant to
the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, of
which $1,000,000 shall be for a grant to the Berwick,
Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority, of which
$1,000,000 shall be a grant to Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage
Authority in Ewing Township, New Jersey, of which $750,000
shall be for logistical support of the World Police and Fire
Games in Indiana, and of which $979,000 shall be for base
operations.
National Archives and Records Administration
Repairs and Restoration
For an additional amount for repairs to the John F. Kennedy
Presidential Library, $6,610,000, to remain available until
expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE
Sec. 501. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of
Personal Information on Use of Internet.--None of the funds
made available in the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001 may be used by any Federal agency--
(1) to collect, review, or create any aggregate list,
derived from any means, that includes the collection of any
personally identifiable information relating to an
individual's access to or use of any Federal government
Internet site of the agency; or
(2) to enter into any agreement with a third party
(including another government agency) to collect, review, or
obtain any aggregate list, derived from any means, that
includes the collection of any personally identifiable
information relating to an individual's access to or use of
any nongovernmental Internet site.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to --
(1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify
particular persons;
(2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable
information;
(3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or
supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
(4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a
system security action taken by the operator of an Internet
site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the
Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or
property of the provider of the Internet site.
(c) Relation to Other Provision.--Section 644 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(relating to Federal agency monitoring of personal
information on use of the Internet) shall not have effect.
(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to
implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
(2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the
agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety
and soundness, overall financial condition, management
practices and policies and compliance with applicable
standards as provided in law.
Sec. 502. (a) Clarification of Permissible Use of Facsimile
Machines and Electronic Mail to File Independent Expenditure
Statements.--Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d)(1) Any person who is required to file a statement
under subsection (c) of this section, except statements
required to be filed electronically pursuant to subsection
(a)(11)(A)(i) may file the statement by facsimile device or
electronic mail, in accordance with such regulations as the
Commission may promulgate.
``(2) The Commission shall make a document which is filed
electronically with the Commission pursuant to this paragraph
accessible to the public on the Internet not later than 24
hours after the document is received by the Commission.
``(3) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph,
the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a
signature on the document being filed) for verifying the
documents covered by the regulation. Any document verified
under any of the methods shall be treated for all purposes
(including penalties for perjury) in the same manner as a
document verified by signature.''.
(b) Treatment of Lines of Credit Obtained by Candidates as
Commercially Reasonable Loans.--Section 301(8)(B) of such Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (xiv) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xv) any loan of money derived from an advance on a
candidate's brokerage account, credit card, home equity line
of credit, or other line of credit available to the
candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable
law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person
making such loan makes loans derived from an advance on the
candidate's brokerage account, credit card, home equity line
of credit, or other line of credit in the normal course of
the person's business.''.
(c) Requiring Actual Receipt of Certain Independent
Expenditure Reports Within 24 Hours.--
(1) In general.--Section 304(c)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
434(c)(2)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph
(C)--
(A) by striking ``shall be reported'' and inserting ``shall
be filed''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5), the time at which the
statement under this subsection is received by the Secretary,
the Commission, or any other recipient to whom the
notification is required to be sent shall be considered the
time of filing of the statement with the recipient.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``or (4)(A)(ii)''
and inserting ``or (4)(A)(ii), or the second sentence of
subsection (c)(2)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January
2001.
Sec. 503. Of the amounts provided to the Office of National
Drug Control Policy for fiscal year 2001 for the anti-doping
efforts of the United States Olympic Committee, the Director
of such Office shall make direct payment of $3,300,000 to The
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Incorporated, for the conduct of
anti-doping activities: Provided, That these funds shall be
provided not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That of the funds
made available for this effort, The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
shall have the sole authority to obligate these funds for the
promotion of anti-doping efforts relating to United States
athletes in the Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic Games.
Sec. 504. Section 640 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (relating to Civil
Service Retirement System) shall not have effect.
Sec. 505. (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--The table
under section 8334(c) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the matter relating to an employee by striking:
``7.5........... January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
7............... After December 31,
2002.''
and inserting the following:
``7.............. After December 31,
2000.'';
(2) in the matter relating to a Member or employee for
Congressional employee service by striking:
``8.................... January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
7.5.................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``7.5................... After December 31,
2000.'';
(3) in the matter relating to a law enforcement officer for
law enforcement service and firefighter for firefighter
service by striking:
``8.................... January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
7.5.................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``7.5................... After December 31,
2000.'';
(4) in the matter relating to a bankruptcy judge by
striking:
``8.5.................. January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
8...................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``8..................... After December 31,
2000.'';
(5) in the matter relating to a judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for service as a judge
of that court by striking:
``8.5.................. January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
8...................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``8..................... After December 31,
2000.'';
[[Page 21140]]
(6) in the matter relating to a United States magistrate by
striking:
``8.5.................. January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
8...................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``8..................... After December 31,
2000.'';
(7) in the matter relating to a Court of Federal Claims
judge by striking:
``8.5.................. January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
8...................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``8..................... After December 31,
2000.'';
(8) in the matter relating to a member of the Capitol
Police by striking:
``8.................... January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
7.5.................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``7.5................... After December 31,
2000.'';
and
(9) in the matter relating to a nuclear materials courier
by striking:
``8.................... January 1, 2001 to
December 31, 2002.
7.5.................... After December 31, 2002.''
and inserting the following:
``7.5................... After December 31,
2000.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
(1) In general.--Section 8422(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for
civilian service shall be as follows:
``Employee....................... 7............... January 1, 1987, to
December 31, 1998.
7.25............ January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999.
7.4............. January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2000.
7............... After December 31,
2000.
Congressional employee........... 7.5............. January 1, 1987, to
December 31, 1998.
7.75............ January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999.
7.9............. January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2000.
7.5............. After December 31,
2000.
Member........................... 7.5............. January 1, 1987, to
December 31, 1998.
7.75............ January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999.
7.9............. January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2000.
8............... January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2002.
7.5............. After December 31,
2002.
Law enforcement officer, 7.5............. January 1, 1987, to
firefighter, member of the December 31, 1998.
Capitol Police, or air traffic
controller.
7.75............ January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999.
7.9............. January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2000.
7.5............. After December 31,
2000.
Nuclear materials courier........ 7............... January 1, 1987, to
October 16, 1998.
7.5............. October 17, 1998,
to December 31,
1998.
7.75............ January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999.
7.9............. January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2000.
7.5............. After December 31,
2000.''.
(2) Military service.--Section 8422(e)(6) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C).
(3) Volunteer service.--Section 8422(f)(4) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C).
(c) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System.--
(1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (50 U.S.C. 2021 note) is amended--
(A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
(B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that
follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
(2) Military service.--Section 252(h)(1)(A) of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2082(h)(1)(A)),
is amended--
(A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
(B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that
follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
(d) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.--
(1) In general.--Section 7001(d)(2) of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (22 U.S.C. 4045 note) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
(ii) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that
follows ``December 31, 2000.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
(ii) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that
follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 805(d)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(d)(1)) is amended, in the
table in the matter following subparagraph (B), by striking:
``January 1, 2001, 7.5
through December 31,
2002, inclusive.
After December 31, 2002.. 7''
and inserting the following:
``After December 31, 2000 7''.
(e) Foreign Service Pension System.--
(1) In general.--Section 856(a)(2) of the Foreign Service
Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071e(a)(2)) is amended by striking
all that follows ``December 31, 2000.'' and inserting the
following:
``7.5.................. After December 31,
2000.''.
(2) Volunteer service.--Section 854(c)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071c(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
(B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that
follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
(f) Civil Service Retirement System.--Notwithstanding
section 8334 (a)(1) or (k)(1) of title 5, United States Code,
during the period beginning on October 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2002, each employing agency (other than the
United States Postal Service or the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority) shall contribute--
(1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of an employee;
(2) 8 percent of the basic pay of a congressional employee,
a law enforcement officer, a member of the Capitol police, a
firefighter, or a nuclear materials courier; and
(3) 8.5 percent of the basic pay of a Member of Congress, a
Court of Federal Claims judge, a United States magistrate, a
judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, or a bankruptcy judge,
in lieu of the agency contributions otherwise required under
section 8334(a)(1) of such title 5.
(g) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System.--Notwithstanding section 211(a)(2) of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2021(a)(2)),
during the period beginning on October 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency shall
contribute 7.5 percent of the basic pay of an employee
participating in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System in lieu of the agency contribution
otherwise required under section 211(a)(2) of such Act.
(h) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.--
Notwithstanding any provision of section 805(a) of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(a)), during the
period beginning on October 1, 2002, through December 31,
2002, each agency employing a participant in the Foreign
Service Retirement and Disability System shall contribute to
the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund--
(1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of each participant
covered under section 805(a)(1) of such Act participating in
the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System; and
(2) 8 percent of the basic pay of each participant covered
under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 805(a) of such Act
participating in the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability System,
in lieu of the agency contribution otherwise required under
section 805(a) of such Act.
(i) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
upon the close of calendar year 2000, and shall apply
thereafter.
Sec. 506. Of the amount provided to the United States
Secret Service for fiscal year 2001 and specified for
activities related to investigations of exploited children,
$2,000,000 shall be available to the United States Secret
Service for forensic and related support of investigations of
missing and exploited children and shall remain available
until September 30, 2001.
Sec. 507. (a) Section 108 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2001 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 108. Chief Administrative Officer.--(a) In
General.--There shall be within the Capitol Police an Office
of Administration to be headed by a Chief Administrative
Officer as follows:
``(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Chief Administrative Officer shall
be appointed by the Chief of the Capitol Police after
consultation with the Capitol Police Board and the
Comptroller General, and shall report to and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief of the Capitol Police.
[[Page 21141]]
``(2) The Comptroller General shall evaluate the
performance of the Chief Administrative Officer in carrying
out the duties and responsibilities of the Office of
Administration as outlined in this section. The Comptroller
General shall meet with the Chief of the Capitol Police and
the Capitol Police Board at least quarterly to provide an
analysis of the performance of the Chief Administrative
Officer. The Comptroller General shall report the results of
the evaluation to the Chief of the Capitol Police, the
Capitol Police Board, the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate, the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.
``(3) The Chief of the Capitol Police shall appoint as
Chief Administrative Officer an individual with the knowledge
and skills necessary to carry out the responsibilities for
budgeting, financial management, information technology, and
human resource management described in this section.
``(4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall receive basic
pay at a rate determined by the Capitol Police Board, but not
to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for ES-2 of
the Senior Executive Service, as established under subchapter
VIII of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code (taking
into account any comparability payments made under section
5304(h) of such title).
``(5) The Capitol Police shall reimburse from available
appropriations any costs incurred by the Comptroller General
under this section, which shall be deposited to the
appropriation of the General Accounting Office then available
and remain available until expended.
``(b) Responsibilities.--The Chief Administrative Officer
shall have the following areas of responsibility:
``(1) Budgeting.--The Chief Administrative Officer shall--
``(A) prepare and submit to the Capitol Police Board an
annual budget for the Capitol Police; and
``(B) execute the budget and monitor through periodic
examinations the execution of the Capitol Police budget in
relation to actual obligations and expenditures.
``(2) Financial management.--The Chief Administrative
Officer shall--
``(A) oversee all financial management activities relating
to the programs and operations of the Capitol Police;
``(B) develop and maintain an integrated accounting and
financial system for the Capitol Police, including financial
reporting and internal controls, which--
``(i) complies with applicable accounting principles,
standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
``(ii) complies with any other requirements applicable to
such systems; and
``(iii) provides for--
``(I) complete, reliable, consistent, and timely
information which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is
responsive to financial information needs of the Capitol
Police;
``(II) the development and reporting of cost information;
``(III) the integration of accounting and budgeting
information; and
``(IV) the systematic measurement of performance;
``(C) direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and
oversight of Capitol Police financial management personnel,
activities, and operations, including--
``(i) the recruitment, selection, and training of personnel
to carry out Capitol Police financial management functions;
and
``(ii) the implementation of Capitol Police asset
management systems, including systems for cash management,
debt collection, and property and inventory management and
control; and
``(D) shall require annual financial statements for the
Capitol Police and provide for an annual audit of the
financial statements by an independent public accountant in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
``(3) Information technology.--The Chief Administrative
Officer shall--
``(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee the acquisition, use,
and management of information technology by the Capitol
Police;
``(B) promote and oversee the use of information technology
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs of
the Capitol Police; and
``(C) establish and enforce information technology
principles, guidelines, and objectives, including developing
and maintaining an information technology architecture for
the Capitol Police.
``(4) Human resources.--The Chief Administrative Officer
shall--
``(A) direct, coordinate, and oversee human resources
management activities of the Capitol Police;
``(B) develop and monitor payroll and time and attendance
systems and employee services; and
``(C) develop and monitor processes for recruiting,
selecting, appraising, and promoting employees.
``(c) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Personnel.--The Chief Administrative Officer is
authorized to select, appoint, employ, and discharge such
officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out the
functions, powers, and duties of the Office of
Administration, but shall not have the authority to hire or
discharge uniformed and operational police force personnel.
``(2) Resources of other agencies.--The Chief
Administrative Officer may utilize resources of another
agency on a reimbursable basis to be paid from available
appropriations of the Capitol Police.
``(d) Plan.--No later than 180 days after appointment, the
Chief Administrative Officer shall prepare and submit to the
Chief of the Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board, and
the Comptroller General, a plan--
``(1) describing the policies, procedures, and actions the
Chief Administrative Officer will take in carrying out the
responsibilities assigned under this section;
``(2) identifying and defining responsibilities and roles
of all offices, bureaus, and divisions of the Capitol Police
for budgeting, financial management, information technology,
and human resources management; and
``(3) detailing mechanisms for ensuring that the offices,
bureaus, and divisions perform their responsibilities and
roles in a coordinated and integrated manner.
``(e) Report.--No later than September 30, 2001, the Chief
Administrative Officer shall prepare and submit to the Chief
of the Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board, and the
Comptroller General, a report on the Chief Administrative
Officer's progress in implementing the plan described in
subsection (d) and recommendations to improve the budgeting,
financial, information technology, and human resources
management of the Capitol Police, including organizational,
accounting and administrative control, and personnel changes.
``(f) Submission to Committees.--The Chief of the Capitol
Police shall submit the plan required in subsection (d) and
the report required in subsection (e) to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and of the
Senate, the Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate.
``(g) Termination of Role.--As of October 1, 2002, the role
of the Comptroller General, as established by this section,
will cease.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2001.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
Following is explanatory language on H.R. 5394, as
introduced on October 5, 2000.
The conferees on H.R. 4475 agree with the matter included
in H.R. 5394 and enacted in this conference report by
reference and the following description of it. This bill was
developed through negotiations by the conferees on the
differences in H.R. 4475. References in the following
description to the ``conference agreement'' means the matter
included in the introduced bill enacted by this conference
report.
Congressional Directives
The conferees agree that Executive Branch propensities
cannot substitute for Congress' own statements concerning the
best evidence of Congressional intentions; that is, the
official reports of the Congress. The committee of conference
approves report language included by the House (House Report
106-622) or the Senate (Senate Report 106-309 accompanying
the companion measure S. 2720) that is not changed by the
conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating
some report language for emphasis, is not intended to negate
the language referred to above unless expressly provided
herein.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to funds provided for the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, the terms
``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for
which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act
(including joint resolutions providing continuing
appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying
conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the
committee of conference. In addition, the reductions made
pursuant to any sequestration order to funds appropriated for
``Federal Aviation Administration, Facilities and equipment''
and for ``Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'' shall be applied equally to each ``budget
item'' that is listed under said accounts in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations
Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports,
or joint explanatory statements of the committee of
conference. The conferees recognize that adjustments to the
above allocations may be required due to changing program
requirements or priorities. The conferees expect any such
adjustment, if required, to be accomplished only through the
normal reprogramming process.
Staffing Increases Provided by Congress
The conferees direct the Department of Transportation to
fill expeditiously any positions added in the conference
agreement, without regard to agency-specific staffing targets
which may have been previously established to meet the
mandated government-wide staffing reductions.
[[Page 21142]]
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement provides a total of $63,245,000
for salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising
the office of the secretary. Though both the House and Senate
had proposed to provide separate appropriations for the
individual offices within the office of the secretary, the
conference agreement provides a single, consolidated
appropriation. The conferees believe that the new
administration may wish to reorganize the offices of the
secretary to delete redundant and duplicative activities that
may be performed by other elements of the department or may
be of limited benefit to the office of the secretary; a
consolidated appropriation for the salaries and expenses for
the offices within the office of the secretary will provide
the new secretary greater flexibility to reorganize the
office.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001
appropriation for each OST office:
Conference
agreement
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................$1,827,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary........................587,000
Office of the General Counsel.................................9,972,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..................3,011,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs.....................................................7,289,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.....7,362,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs....2,150,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.........19,020,000
Office of Public Affairs......................................1,674,000
Executive Secretariat.........................................1,181,000
Board of Contract Appeals.......................................496,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........1,192,000
Office of Intelligence and Security...........................1,262,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................6,222,000
________________
Total, salaries and expenses, office of the secretary....63,245,000
Reprogramming guidelines.--While providing a consolidation
of office-by-office appropriations for OST, the conferees
still want to ensure that adequate Congressional oversight
and control is maintained over these expenses. Therefore, the
Secretary of Transportation is directed to notify the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing of any
change in funding greater than five percent from the office-
by-office levels approved by Congress for this appropriation.
The Secretary is further directed not to make such a change
without the approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
The conference agreement includes a provision that limits
the availability of funds appropriated under this heading to
no more than 52 percent and not more than 224 full-time
equivalent staff years funded through the end of the second
quarter of fiscal year 2001.
Reception and representation activities.--The conference
agreement includes a provision that increases to $60,000 the
amount of funds to be available for official reception and
representation activities. The conference agreement includes
a provision, as proposed by the Senate, that limits to
$15,000 the amount of funds that may be obligated for
official reception and representation costs prior to January
20, 2001.
Monthly reporting requirement.--The conferees direct the
office of the secretary to report monthly on the status of
all outstanding reports and reporting requirements, including
the status of delinquent Congressional mandated or requested
reports and an estimated completion and delivery date.
Administrative directives.--The conferees direct that the
department submit its fiscal year 2002 congressional
justification materials for the salaries and expenses of the
offices of the secretary at the same level of detail provided
in the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year
2001.
The conferees direct that assessments charged by the office
of the secretary to the modal administrations shall be for
administrative activities, not policy initiatives.
Immediate office of the secretary.--The conference
agreement provides a total of $1,827,000 for expenses of the
immediate office of the secretary for fiscal year 2001. Funds
to support a second deputy chief of staff or a contractor to
perform similar duties are deleted by this agreement
(-$150,000).
Office of the general counsel.--The conference agreement
provides a total of $9,972,000 for expenses of the office of
the general counsel. Within the funds provided, no more than
5 FTEs and $500,000 shall be available to support the
department's proposed ``Accessibility for All America''
initiative. Further, the conference agreement provides
sufficient resources for advisory or referral activities
related to aviation competition guidelines on the part of the
department.
Office of aviation and international affairs.--The
conference agreement disallows funding as proposed by the
House for a new position of special assistant to the
assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs
(-$120,000). Funding is provided to hire up to two additional
transportation industry analysts in fiscal year 2001.
The conferees are aware of, and applaud, the department's
efforts to promote foreign air carrier service to and through
Alaska. Alaska is uniquely positioned as an international air
cargo hub for efficient sorting and consolidation of cargo
moving between multiple United States and foreign points. The
conferees encourage the department to explore using Alaska as
a testing ground for even greater liberalization of foreign
and domestic air carriers' rights to carry international air
cargo on route legs between Alaska and other United States
points. Such liberalization would optimize the geographic
advantage of Alaska for air cargo transfer. In addition, such
steps would also optimize the flexibility that the department
has sought for Alaska as an international aviation hub.
Without vigorous initiative on the part of the department,
the United States stands to lose to foreign airports the
economic activity for labor, industry, and consumers that
increased domestic and foreign transfer authority could
generate for the United States.
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and
programs.--A total of $7,362,000 is provided for the office
of the assistant secretary for budget and programs. Within
the funds provided, not more than $100,000 is available for
workforce training activities to supplement existing training
expenditures.
Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--
Consistent with the actions of both the House and Senate, the
conference agreement does not provide funding for employee
development training (-$1,160,000); however, limited funds
have been provided to supplement existing training
activities, as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
Office of intelligence and security.--Funding provided for
the office of intelligence and security totals $1,262,000 and
excludes resources for infrastructure protection activities.
The conference agreement includes funds for these activities
within amounts appropriated to the Research and Special
Programs Administration.
Office of the chief information officer.--The conference
agreement provides a total of $6,222,000 for salaries and
expenses of the office of the chief information officer
(CIO). Funding is not provided to implement in fiscal year
2002 a pilot project that has yet to be defined or determined
by the department's architecture working group. Such funding
should be considered in the context of the department's
fiscal year 2002 appropriations request.
The conferees concur with the directions of the House that
no major information technology (IT) procurement within the
department occur until after a review by the CIO has been
conducted to determine system deficiencies, vulnerabilities,
compatibility with, and relative need of such systems
compared to other departmental systems requirements.
Furthermore, the conferees direct the CIO to approve all IT
and telecommunications infrastructure items and expenditures
for all systems that are non-mode specific (e.g., common
grants systems).
Office of intermodalism.--Funding for the office of
intermodalism is provided within amounts made available to
the Federal Highway Administration, as proposed by the House.
Fractional ownership demonstration program.--The conferees
encourage the Secretary of Transportation to execute a
demonstration program, to be conducted for a period of not to
exceed eighteen months, of the fractional ownership concept
for performing administrative support flight missions. The
purpose of this demonstration is to determine whether cost
savings, increased operational flexibility, and aircraft
availability can be realized by DOT through fractional
ownership compared to in-house ownership of aircraft. This
demonstration shall be competitive, and encompass a suite of
aircraft covering a majority of the department's support
missions, including those by the Coast Guard, FAA, and NASA
(to the extent those aircraft are currently operated by the
FAA). The Secretary is directed to report the results of this
project to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within three months of completing the evaluation. If the
Secretary does not conduct such an evaluation, the Secretary
is directed to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations providing a detailed explanation
of that decision.
office of civil rights
The conference agreement provides $8,140,000 for the office
of civil rights as proposed by the House instead of
$8,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
transportation planning, research, and development
The conference agreement provides $11,000,000 for
transportation planning, research, and development instead of
$3,300,000
[[Page 21143]]
as proposed by the House and $5,300,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The conferees, however, agree with the reductions
from the budget request proposed by the House. Funding
provided under this heading shall be available for the
following activities:
2001 Special Winter Olympics.................................$1,400,000
Ensuring consumer information and choice in the airline indust1,000,000
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake City Winter
Olympic Games (section 1223 of TEA21).......................2,000,000
Automotive workforce training.................................3,000,000
The conferees encourage the secretary and each of the modal
administrations to work with the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children and the transportation industry to
identify and implement initiatives to maximize the
transportation sector's involvement in the effort to relocate
missing children.
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake City
2002 Winter Olympic Games.--The conference agreement includes
$2,000,000 for transportation management planning for the
Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games, as authorized under
section 1223(c) of TEA21. These funds shall be available for
planning activities and related temporary and permanent
transportation infrastructure investments based on the
transportation management plan approved by the Secretary.
Radionavigation and positioning initiatives.--No funding is
provided for additional study activities described under
``GPS vulnerability study follow-on requirements'' and
``technical support of GPS spectrum protection and
coordination'' of the congressional justification as
additional funding and guidance is provided for similar
initiatives and activities elsewhere in the department.
Reprogramming requests in this area will be reviewed if
submitted and justified appropriately.
Automotive workforce training.--The conference agreement
includes $3,000,000 for development and implementation of a
workforce training program designed for specific issues
related to the automotive manufacturing industry.
Telework.--The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the
existing practices and infrastructure involved with telework
efforts in the greater New York metropolitan area and
determine if a telework program, supported by the federal
government, could provide significant incentives for
increasing the use of telework, thereby reducing vehicle
miles traveled and improving air quality. The assessment
should identify representatives from local government,
environmental organizations and transportation agencies who
would comprise a New York City design team for implementing a
telework program. Within six months, the Secretary shall
report to Congress on the findings of this study. To carry
out these activities, the conference agreement includes
$300,000.
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER
The conference agreement includes a limitation of
$126,887,000 on activities of the transportation
administrative service center (TASC) instead of $119,387,000
as proposed by the House and $173,278,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The conferees concur in the recommendations of the
House to disallow the proposed transfer of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography to the TASC
(-$43,963,000) and to disallow proposed new staffing
increases (-$461,000). The increase of $7,500,000 above the
House-passed level has been provided to accommodate solely
the anticipated increased workload stemming from creation of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM
The conference agreement includes a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $13,775,000, as proposed by the House,
instead of a limitation of $13,775,000 on direct loans as
proposed by the Senate. Further, the conference agreement
provides subsidy and administrative costs totaling
$1,900,000, as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
The conference agreement provides $3,000,000 for minority
business outreach activities, as proposed by both the House
and the Senate.
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
The conference agreement provides $3,192,000,000 for Coast
Guard operating expenses as proposed by the House instead of
$3,039,460,000 as proposed by the Senate. The agreement
specifies that $341,000,000 of the total is available only
for defense-related activities, as proposed by the House,
instead of $641,000,000 proposed by the Senate. The agreement
does not include language proposed by the Senate which would
have allowed a transfer of up to $100,000,000 from the FAA's
operating budget to augment the Coast Guard's drug
interdiction activities or OST's Office of Intelligence and
Security. The bill also does not include language proposed by
the Senate which would have required the Coast Guard to
reimburse the Office of Inspector General for Coast Guard-
related audits and investigations.
Specific adjustments.--The following table summarizes the
House and Senate's proposed adjustments to the Coast Guard's
budget request and the final conference agreement:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Senate Conference
Item and recommendation recommended recommended agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repricing of civilian PC&B................................... +$2,051,000 ............... ...............
Polar icebreaker reimbursement............................... +3,800,000 +$7,734,000 +7,734,000
International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS)-- -398,000 -398,000 -398,000
defer.......................................................
MTS leadership and coordination--defer....................... -801,000 -801,000 -801,000
CG workstation support--defer................................ -750,000 ............... ...............
NTIA fees--defer increase.................................... -426,000 ............... ...............
``One DOT'' initiatives--defer............................... -304,000 ............... -304,000
Aviation detachment support--defer........................... -3,904,000 ............... -3,904,000
Nonpay COLA--smaller increase................................ -6,268,000 ............... -1,363,000
Military pay and benefits.................................... ............... -1,004,000 ...............
Military health care......................................... ............... -105,000 ...............
Permanent change of station.................................. ............... -8,785,000 -3,000,000
Training and education....................................... ............... -7,484,000 -2,065,000
Atlantic area command........................................ ............... -193,000 -193,000
Headquarters directorates.................................... ............... -125,000 -
Headquarters-managed units................................... ............... -1,760,000 -706,000
Aircraft maintenance......................................... ............... -13,075,000 ...............
Electronic maintenance....................................... ............... -1,500,000 ...............
Shore facility maintenance................................... ............... -5,000,000 -2,000,000
Vessel maintenance........................................... ............... -4,315,000 ...............
Undistributed reduction...................................... ............... -122,729,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. -7,000,000 -159,540,000 -7,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot project on occupational and health hazards of Coast
Guard personnel.--The conferees agree to provide $1,000,000
for the pilot project, proposed by the Senate, regarding the
unique occupational and health hazards of Coast Guard
personnel. This project shall be conducted in coordination
with Tulane University and the University of Alabama--
Birmingham.
Boatracs systems.--The conferees understand that the Coast
Guard has purchased several ``boatracs'' systems in an effort
to address communications problems within the eighth
district. This text communications system is often the only
form of communication between the district headquarters and
cutters on patrol performing search and rescue missions. This
system could be used as an interim measure, before full
implementation of the National Distress and Response System
Modernization Project, which could save lives by providing
consistent and reliable communications among Coast Guard
assets. The Coast Guard is encouraged to evaluate the
boatracs system on this basis during fiscal year 2001.
Assessment of progress to replace single hull tanker fleet
with double hull ships.--The conferees direct the United
States Coast Guard, in consultation with the Maritime
Administration, to assess the status of replacement of single
hull tank vessels with double hull tank vessels, and report
the findings of this assessment to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. This report should include: (1)
a list of double hull vessels and their carrying capacity in
the U.S.-flag fleet; (2) a list of single hull vessels and
their carrying capacity and the year in which each single
hull vessel is scheduled to be phased out of service under
the Oil Pollution Act; and (3) the amount of oil transported
each year by domestic U.S.-flag tank vessels to meet the
energy needs of the United States. This report shall be
submitted by February 1, 2001.
Search and rescue station staffing.--The conferees are
concerned that, in the wake of the National Transportation
Safety Board report on the sinking of the sailboat Morning
Dew, the Coast Guard has still not implemented needed
staffing improvements at the nation's search and rescue (SAR)
stations. Even though a recent Coast Guard analysis concluded
that an additional 109 personnel were needed at these
centers, the Coast Guard advised the House that the service
``does not believe additional operation center staffing is
required in fiscal year 2001 and has not requested any be
provided''. The conferees reiterate the concerns expressed in
the House report regarding deficiencies in the Coast Guard's
search and rescue posture, and strongly encourage the service
to address the personnel shortfalls at search and rescue
stations within the funding levels provided for fiscal year
2001. In addition, the conferees direct the Office of
Inspector General, in consultation with the National
Transportation Safety Board, to conduct a thorough review of
readiness of the nation's SAR stations, including personnel
shortfalls, equipment adequacy, training adequacy, and the
relative support for SAR programs and activities in the Coast
Guard command structure. The conferees direct that this
report be completed and submitted to the appropriate
[[Page 21144]]
committees of the Congress no later than March 1, 2001.
Indonesian Coast Guard.--The conferees do not agree with
direction in the Senate report for the Coast Guard to work
with representatives of the Indonesian government on officer
training and to study turning over surplus vessels to improve
the capability of the Indonesian Coast Guard.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
The conference agreement includes $415,000,000 for
acquisition, construction, and improvement programs of the
Coast Guard instead of $515,000,000 as proposed by the House
and $407,747,660 as proposed by the Senate. Consistent with
past years and the House and Senate bills, the conference
agreement distributes funds in the bill by budget activity.
Great Lakes Icebreaker.--No procurement funding or
direction is provided in this Act for the Great Lakes
Icebreaker (Mackinaw replacement) project, as the full
estimated cost of this vessel has been provided in prior
appropriations Acts.
A table showing the distribution of this appropriation by
project as included in the fiscal year 2001 House bill,
Senate bill, and the conference agreement follows:
[[Page 21145]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.001
[[Page 21146]]
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
The conference agreement includes $16,700,000 for
environmental compliance and restoration as proposed by both
the House and Senate.
Alteration of Bridges
The conference agreement includes $15,500,000 for
alteration of bridges deemed hazardous to marine navigation
as proposed by the Senate instead of $14,740,000 proposed by
the House. The conference agreement distributes these funds
as follows:
Conference
Bridge and location agreement
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/HW Bridge.................$3,925,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge...................3,000,000
Charleston, SC, Limehouse Bridge..............................2,000,000
Mobile, AL, Fourteen Mile Bridge..............................3,000,000
Morris, IL, EJ&E Railroad Bridge..............................3,000,000
Oshkosh, WI, Fox River Bridge...................................575,000
________________
Total....................................................15,500,000
Florida Avenue Bridge.--The conferees agree to provide
$3,925,000 for this project, and direct that $500,000 of this
funding shall be made available to the Port of New Orleans to
cover the federal portion of a study of the feasibility of
development of the Millenium Port in south Louisiana.
Fox River Bridge.--Funding of $575,000 is provided for
removal of the bridge across the Fox River at mile point 56.9
in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
Retired Pay
The conference agreement includes $778,000,000 for Coast
Guard retired pay as proposed by both the House and the
Senate. This is scored as a mandatory program for federal
budget purposes. The conference agreement deletes language
proposed by the House authorizing these funds for the payment
of fifteen-year career status bonuses. The conferees do not
believe that retention bonuses paid to active duty personnel
are consistent with the purposes of this program, and have
seen no evidence that these payments constitute mandatory
expenditures of the Coast Guard, as are the other elements of
this mandatory appropriation. Sufficient funding is provided
under ``Operating expenses'' for payment of these bonuses to
qualified personnel.
Reserve Training
(Including Transfer of Funds)
The conference agreement provides $80,375,000 for reserve
training as proposed by the House instead of $80,371,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement allows the Reserves to
reimburse the Coast Guard operating account up to $22,000,000
for Coast Guard support of Reserve activities, as proposed by
the Senate, instead of $21,500,000 as proposed by the House.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
The conference agreement provides $21,320,000 for Coast
Guard research, development, test, and evaluation as proposed
by the Senate instead of $19,691,000 as proposed by the
House. The conferees agree that within the funding provided,
$500,000 is to address ship ballast water exchange issues,
instead of $1,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations
The conference agreement provides $6,544,235,000 for
operating expenses of the Federal Aviation Administration as
proposed by the House instead of $6,350,250,000 as proposed
by the Senate. These funds are in addition to amounts made
available as a mandatory appropriation of user fees in the
Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-264). Of the total amount provided,
$4,414,869,000 is to be derived from the airport and airway
trust fund, consistent with Public Law 106-181. The total
funding provided is $569,235,000 (9.5 percent) above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
Contract tower program funding.--The conference agreement
provides $55,300,000 for the contract tower program, which is
the amount assumed in the budget estimate. FAA is directed
not to reprogram these funds to any other activity or to
reduce them to satisfy budget shortfalls which may develop
throughout the fiscal year. In addition, the conference
agreement includes $5,000,000 for the contract tower cost-
sharing program.
Contract tower program extension.--The conferees agree with
Senate direction to the FAA Administrator to submit the
overdue report on this program, but do not agree with the
Senate direction that this report should include a timeline
for expanding the program. In addition, the report should
address recent findings and recommendations of the DOT
Inspector General regarding expansion of the contract tower
program.
Criteria for contract tower program eligibility.--The
conferees believe that FAA's contract tower program has
worked well from both the government's perspective and the
users' perspective. Through this program, many aircraft are
able to operate more efficiently and safely into airports
with contract towers, where FAA-operated towers would
otherwise not be available due to prohibitive costs. The
conferees are concerned, however, that the traffic counts
used to establish eligibility for the contract tower program,
and for establishment of certain navigation aids, are
erroneous in that certain part 121 operations, including
regional jets, are not being classified as air carrier
operations. After promulgation of FAA's ``one level of
safety'' rule, the conferees believe that such a distinction
is no longer justified. The FAA is urged to change promptly
its traffic count methodology to conform to the changes in
operator classification brought about by the one level of
safety rulemaking.
Specific designations for the contract tower program.--The
conferees do not agree with Senate direction to include
certain airports in the contract tower program. However, the
conferees understand that the Boca Raton, Olive Branch,
Henderson, and Tupelo Municipal airports are eligible for
this program, and encourage FAA to include those airports in
the program if they meet eligibility criteria.
Implementation of the whistleblower protection program.--
The conferees direct that, not later than eighteen months
after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation,
in conjunction with the Secretary of Labor, report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on measures to
assure effective implementation of section 519 of Public Law
106-181. This report shall include a description of the
initial implementation of the whistleblower protection
program and recommendations to strengthen the enforcement of
such provisions. The study shall be performed by a firm with
recent experience analyzing employee protection provisions in
the transportation sector.
Civil aviation security activities and operations.--
Continuing reports of the General Accounting Office, the DOT
Office of Inspector General, and the Surveys and
Investigations staff of the House Appropriations Committee
highlight a number of serious problems in FAA's civil
aviation security activities which need to be addressed. A
lack of strong management and planning has led to a haphazard
and minimal deployment of explosive detection systems at our
nation's airports, as well as underutilization of the
machines which are deployed; specifications for bomb
detection equipment driven by political considerations rather
than security expertise; unnecessary tension between FAA and
airport security officials in some locations; and lack of
management attention and corrective action after field tests,
including safety issues raised by FAA's special ``red team''
conducting undercover assessments at major airports. The
conferees cannot provide the entire funding increase
requested by this organization in the face of these
continuing problems, and expects FAA to address these
management issues expeditiously. The conference agreement
also directs FAA to submit a comprehensive strategic plan for
the civil aviation security program, as proposed by the
Senate. The FAA is encouraged to include comprehensive
details in this plan regarding specific goals and objectives
for the program for each of the next five years.
GPS implementation and procedures.--The conferees agree to
transfer to this account $2,200,000 from ``Facilities and
equipment''. This funding was budgeted for the development of
GPS approach procedures as part of the GPS wide area
augmentation system (WAAS) program. However, this activity is
apparently not related to development of WAAS, but is a
routine operating expense of the agency. As such, these
expenditures should be contained in the agency's operating
budget. In addition, the conference agreement includes
$3,000,000 only for implementation of a navigation database
with internet access for users.
Administration of potential shortfall due to EAS
transfer.--The conferees do not agree with House direction
specifying that any shortfall in operations funding due to
transfer of funds to the essential air service (EAS) program
should be borne by the ``Facilities and equipment''
appropriation.
Regulation of flight crew operating environment.--The
conferees are pleased that the FAA and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently initiated a
joint effort to consider whether OSHA workplace safety
standards can be applied to airline crewmembers during flight
operations. Enhancing workplace safety for flight crewmembers
is, of course, desirable. While the conferees recognize the
importance of FAA and OSHA working together to ensure that
one agency does not unnecessarily block application of the
other's regulations, the conferees believe it is imperative
that FAA maintain exclusive responsibility for the regulation
and enforcement of policies which affect the safety of flight
operations. If, in the FAA's view, an OSHA-proposed workplace
safety and health regulation would compromise the safe
operation of aircraft, in the overriding interest of aviation
safety, the FAA's view should predominate.
Airspace redesign.--The conference agreement includes
$8,500,000 for the New York/New Jersey airspace redesign and
concurs in the directive of the Senate regarding the
reprogramming of these funds.
[[Page 21147]]
The following table compares the conference agreement to
the levels proposed in the House and Senate bills by budget
activity:
[[Page 21148]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.002
[[Page 21149]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.003
[[Page 21150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.004
[[Page 21151]]
facilities and equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
The conference agreement provides $2,656,765,000 for
facilities and equipment as proposed by the House and the
Senate. This is the level authorized by Public Law 106-181,
and represents an increase of $581,765,000 (28 percent) above
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
The following table provides a breakdown of the House and
Senate bills and the conference agreement by program:
[[Page 21152]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.005
[[Page 21153]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.006
[[Page 21154]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.007
[[Page 21155]]
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The
conference agreement includes $56,600,000 for advanced
technology development and prototyping, to be distributed as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Senate Conference
Item recommended recommended agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items in budget.............................................. $40,620,000 $28,868,000 $40,000,000
Airport research............................................. 7,380,000 7,380,000 7,380,000
Concrete pavement research................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
UWB/GPS...................................................... 0 2,600,000 2,600,000
GPS anti-jamming............................................. 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Runway incursion activities.................................. 0 0 3,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 50,000,000 45,848,000 56,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference agreement includes $5,000,000 for the runway
incursion reduction program, compared to $1,500,000 in the
budget estimate. The additional funds are needed to address
nationwide technology initiatives recommended by the National
Runway Safety Summit in June 2000, and should not be
reprogrammed to any other project or activity. Of the funds
provided under ``Airport research'', $2,000,000 is for
airfield pavement improvement activities authorized under
sections 905 and 743 of Public Law 106-181.
The $2,600,000 for ultra-wide band (UWB)/GPS work is
provided to assess the vulnerability of aviation uses of the
GPS signal to interference from electronic devices. New
initiatives in this area should be coordinated with all
appropriate stakeholders in industry, the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency, the Department of
Defense, the U.S. Congress, and the Federal Communications
Commission. In addition, $1,000,000 is available for anti-
jamming initiatives, to improve the resilience of the GPS
signal to jamming through improved antennae, signal
processing technology, or other means.
Safe flight 21.--The conference agreement provides
$35,000,000 for the safe flight 21 program, as proposed by
the Senate, and agrees to the Senate's allocation of those
additional funds. The conferees direct that, of the funds
provided for the Ohio Valley portion of this program, not
less than $1,000,000 shall be for a safety study assessing
the relative safety benefits of ADS-B technology, including
an assessment of the use of ADS-B for conflict detection and
resolution. In addition, the conferees encourage FAA to
schedule a near-term evaluation of the potential use of ADS-B
technology to address the runway incursion problem.
Aviation weather services improvements.--The additional
$3,000,000 provided for this program is to support the
collaborative effort between FAA and NOAA's National Severe
Storms Laboratory to continue research and testing of phased
array radar technology and to incorporate airport/aircraft
tracking and weather information. Funding of $10,000,000 was
provided for this program in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000.
Aeronautical datalink applications.--The conferees do not
agree with Senate direction regarding the qualifications for
a contractor for air-to-ground communications.
Static transfer switches.--The conferees understand that
the FAA administrator has identified funding to complete
procurement under the existing contract to supply en route
centers with static transfer switches. These switches enable
the centers to switch in back-up power quickly enough to
prevent computers from ``crashing,'' and replace equipment
which lacks this important capability. The conferees support
funding for this procurement.
Free flight phase one.--Of the funds provided for this
program, $3,000,000 is to implement the departure spacing
program (DSP) to support Dulles International Airport, as
proposed by the House, and $4,500,000 is for the program
proposed by the Senate to implement DSP for the New York/New
Jersey metropolitan area. The amount provided includes the
sums necessary for the installation of bar-coded strips at
the airports identified in the Senate report. DSP funds
should not be reprogrammed to other regions or activities.
Terminal automation.--The conference agreement provides
$117,000,000 for this program, instead of $114,850,000
proposed by the House and $116,850,000 proposed by the
Senate. Funding is included to install and commission DBRITE
systems at Mid-Delta Airport in Mississippi, and at
Gainesville Regional and Boca Raton airports in Florida. The
conferees understand that existing DBRITE systems are
available for redeployment to new sites as a result of other
modernization activities.
Distance measuring equipment (DME).--The amount provided
above the request for this program shall be for the
installation of DME on runway 11 at Newark International
Airport.
En route communications and control facilities.--Of the
funds provided, $3,200,000 is only for relocation of RTR-A
and RTR-D radar facilities at Lambert-St. Louis International
Airport in Missouri.
Air traffic control tower and Tracon improvements.--Of the
funds provided, $1,500,000 is to continue the cable loop
relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport
in Missouri.
Instrument landing system establishment/upgrade.--Funding
provided for instrument landing systems (ILS) shall be
distributed as follows:
Location Amount
Activities in President's budget............................$16,000,000
National replacement program (categories I/II/III)...........22,325,000
Lonesome Pine Airport, VA.....................................1,000,000
Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA.......................................855,000
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA................................1,000,000
Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, GA.........................1,797,000
Buffalo Niagara, NY (ILS/MALSR)...............................3,798,000
Searcy Airport, AR............................................2,000,000
Dulles International, VA (DME)..................................300,000
Wichita MidContinent, KS......................................1,100,000
Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS..............................1,100,000
Cleveland Hopkins International, OH...........................4,000,000
Orlando International, FL (install category III)..............2,000,000
Meridian/Key Field, MS........................................2,000,000
Atlanta Hartsfield International, GA (5th runway).............4,000,000
Evanston Airport, WY..........................................2,500,000
Muscatine Municipal Airport, IA...............................1,600,000
Kalealoa Airport, HI..........................................2,300,000
Decatur Airport, AL...........................................1,000,000
Gulf Shores Municipal, AL.....................................1,300,000
Lehigh Valley International, PA...............................2,000,000
Klawock Airport, AK...........................................1,000,000
Mexico Airport, MO............................................2,000,000
Harry Browne Airport, MI......................................1,000,000
Wexford County Airport, MI....................................1,500,000
London-Corbin Airport, KY.....................................2,000,000
Somerset Airport, KY (localizer/NDB)............................500,000
Newport News-Williamsburg Airport, VA.........................2,000,000
Sierra Blanca Regional Airport, NM..............................350,000
Minneapolis-St. Paul International, MN (localizer/glideslope)...675,000
Total....................................................85,000,000
The FAA recently signed a multiyear contract for additional
instrument landing systems. The conferees direct FAA to
initiate no less than two ILS demonstration projects which
permit the manufacturer and airports expedited and full
procurement, project management, and installation authority.
This type of ``turnkey'' approach will allow an assessment of
the potential for added cost savings and schedule
efficiencies compared to traditional FAA acquisitions.
Runway visual range.--Of the $8,000,000 provided for this
program, $1,300,000 is for items cited in the Senate report,
$250,000 is for RVR equipment at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport in Minnesota, and $5,000,000 is for
continued acquisition of next generation RVR systems.
Voice switching and control system (VSCS).--The conference
agreement provides $2,700,000 in this budget line for
activities to address the audio clipping, automatic gain
control, and tone notching problems found in FAA voice
switches. The funding is designed, in part, to address
recommendations of FAA's AOS-510 organization in Oklahoma
City concerning the rapid deployment voice switch (RDVS), as
well as provide solutions for these problems in the ICSS,
ETVS, and VSCS switching systems. The conferees understand
that a single, commercial-off-the-shelf system may be
available to address these problems in all of the systems
mentioned.
Precision runway monitors.--The conference agreement does
not include funding to install a precision runway monitor
(PRM) at Newark International Airport as proposed by the
Senate. The conferees recognize that the procurement of this
equipment is premature at this time. The conferees note,
however, that one of the Administrator's new ``choke point''
initiatives includes measures to increase the efficiency of
air traffic flows and reduce airspace complexity for aircraft
destined to New York and New Jersey. This initiative will
facilitate the development of arrival procedures at Newark
International that could reduce ATC delays once a PRM with
accompanying LDA and glideslope is installed. As such, the
conferees direct the Administrator to continue to work with
the relevant aviation authorities in the region toward the
installation of a PRM and LDA with glideslope at Newark
International Airport once the ``choke points'' initiative is
fully implemented. Toward that end, the conferees expect the
Administrator to continue to work toward the completion of
all necessary environmental analyses so that this
installation can take place as soon as possible.
Terminal voice switch replacement.--The conferees agree to
provide $14,000,000 for this program, and direct FAA not to
reprogram any of those resources without Congressional
approval.
Houston area air traffic system.--The conference agreement
includes $12,000,000 in initial funding for the Houston area
air traffic system (HAATS). These funds shall be under
administrative control of the FAA Southwest Region, which is
the charter holder for
[[Page 21156]]
this important capacity enhancement program. Funds are
intended for instrument landing systems and other facilities
and equipment necessary to carry out the program, and shall
not be reprogrammed without Congressional approval. The
conferees are aware that FAA has approved the record of
decision for a major capacity expansion at Houston area
airports. To ensure that the required navigation and landing
aids, radar positions, and related equipment is provided in a
timely manner, FAA established a special charter for this
program, giving overall program responsibility to the
Southwest Region. This is similar to past charter programs in
Dallas, Atlanta, Austin, and Northern Virginia. In the case
of Houston, however, the FAA has neglected to provide funding
for the program. The conference agreement corrects this
oversight.
Low-cost airport surface detection equipment.--The
conferees agree to provide $8,400,000 for the low-cost
airport surface detection equipment (ASDE) program as
proposed by the Senate, instead of $15,000,000 as proposed by
the House, and do not agree with House direction regarding
contracting strategies for this program. The conferees agree
with the House that runway incursions are an urgent safety
issue which should be rapidly addressed, in part, through the
application of modern technology. Disappointingly, however,
the FAA has not put forward a viable or affordable program
worthy of Congressional support. In response to Congressional
direction to develop a low-cost alternative to today's ASDE-3
system, the agency proposes one twice as expensive and
designed for lower-activity airports. In response to
direction requiring ten systems in the field by September
2002, the agency proposes one reaching that capability three
years later. In addition to these programmatic concerns, the
conferees are not convinced of the agency's commitment to
this program. Although the FAA Administrator announced in
June 2000 that 25 low-cost ASDE systems would be acquired,
the agency's five-year capital plan submitted two months
later provides less than half the resources necessary to
accomplish that goal. In addition, the agency has steadfastly
refused to support the additional funding recommended by the
House for the coming fiscal year. The conferees cannot
responsibly provide additional first-year funding for this
program until the agency demonstrates the long-term
commitment of resources and the leadership needed to carry it
to fruition. In lieu of funds for an acquisition which the
agency does not yet support, the conferees have provided an
additional $3,500,000 in advanced development funds for
runway incursion technology initiatives.
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The
conference agreement includes $145,492,606 for replacement of
air traffic control towers and other terminal facilities. The
agreement distributes these funds as follows:
Location and Amount
Vero Beach, FL...............................................$5,600,000
Albert Whitted, FL...............................................75,000
Dayton International, OH......................................4,000,000
WK Kellogg, MI................................................2,000,000
Sky Harbor, AZ................................................9,000,000
Cleveland, OH.................................................3,000,000
Richmond, VA..................................................5,700,000
Martin State, MD..............................................1,000,000
Medford, OR...................................................1,000,000
Billings Logan, MT............................................2,000,000
Grand Canyon, AZ................................................267,000
Missoula, MT....................................................500,000
Pangborn, WA..................................................1,000,000
Paine Field, WA...............................................1,000,000
McArthur Airport, NY............................................750,000
Rogue Valley, OR..............................................1,425,500
Fort Wayne, IN................................................2,000,000
Cheyenne, WY..................................................1,450,000
Morristown, NJ................................................2,500,000
Oakland, CA..................................................23,912,347
LaGuardia, NY................................................23,440,000
Boston, MA...................................................24,936,914
Savannah, GA..................................................7,741,015
Topeka, KS....................................................4,361,840
St. Louis, MO.................................................3,317,000
Newark, NJ....................................................2,407,500
Roanoke, VA...................................................2,140,000
Birmingham, AL................................................1,359,540
Pt. Columbus, OH..............................................1,000,000
Wilkes-Barre, PA................................................959,200
Houston Hobby, TX...............................................818,550
Champaign, IL...................................................749,000
Little Rock, AR.................................................642,000
Bedford, MA.....................................................535,000
Newburgh, NY..................................................1,000,000
Merrill Field, AK...............................................321,000
Wilmington, DE..................................................305,000
Salina, KS......................................................267,500
N. Las Vegas, NV................................................214,000
Orlando, FL.....................................................177,900
Atlanta, GA.....................................................167,900
Chantilly, VA....................................................75,000
Gulfport, MS.....................................................75,000
Kalamazoo, MI....................................................75,000
Deer Valley, AZ..................................................75,000
Broomfield, CO...................................................75,000
Miami, FL........................................................51,900
Seattle, WA......................................................25,000
Total.................................................... 145,492,606
Richmond airport traffic control tower, VA.--The Richmond
International Airport is in the midst of a terminal expansion
program which requires a new airport control tower to be
operational by 2002. While the FAA supports construction of a
new tower, the agency estimates that, using its normal
procedures, the agency would not complete the tower until the
year 2004, delaying the capacity expansion program by two
years. Since Richmond believes it can meet the schedule if it
manages this project, the conferees direct FAA to explore
construction of the replacement tower under a construction
agreement or other transaction authority with the Richmond
International Airport, pursuant to which the airport would
construct the tower, using predominantly FAA funding, and FAA
would own, operate, and maintain the facility.
Morristown airport traffic control tower, NJ.--The
conference agreement includes $2,500,000 for the construction
of a replacement air traffic control tower at the Morristown,
New Jersey airport. The conferees recognize that the current
tower is deteriorating rapidly and needs to be replaced as
soon as possible. Toward that end, the conferees direct the
FAA Administrator to enter into a reimbursable agreement with
the airport through which the remaining construction costs
borne by the airport will be reimbursed by the FAA over the
next few years.
Airport surveillance radar (ASR-9).--The conferees provide
$11,122,000 for this program as proposed by the House, of
which $4,000,000 is for the radar system specified in the
House report for Palm Springs Airport in California. The
conferees agree not to specify additional systems for
acquisition at this time, but direct the FAA to initiate or
continue preliminary site surveys and other necessary studies
for locations cited in the Senate report as well as Cherry
Capital Airport in Michigan, Gainesville Regional Airport in
Florida, and Jackson Hole Airport in Wyoming. Funds for these
studies may be derived either from this budget line or from
funds provided for terminal digital radar (ASR-11)
implementation. The conferees understand that the FAA has
committed to installing a TARDIS unit at the Gainesville
Regional Airport and direct the FAA to move expeditiously to
install this equipment as an interim solution to the
airport's radar needs. In addition, $2,400,000 of the funding
provided is for removal and relocation of the existing ASR-9
radar system at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in
Missouri.
Puget Sound radar shortcomings.--The conferees direct the
FAA Administrator to conduct a study assessing the best means
of correcting shortcomings related to deficient radar
coverage in the southern Puget Sound airspace in the State of
Washington.
Voice recorder replacement program.--The conference
agreement provides $3,632,000 for this program as proposed by
the Senate instead of $2,632,000 as proposed by the House.
With these additional funds, the FAA is directed to conduct
the study cited in the Senate report regarding deployable
flight data recorders and support the FAA Technical Center's
``integrated aircraft data collection and reporting'' project
to develop an improved method of collecting, storing, and
analyzing critical aircraft flight data by ground-based
means.
Automated surface observing system (ASOS).--The conferees
agree to provide $11,500,000 for this program instead of
$8,213,900 proposed by the House and $13,213,900 proposed by
the Senate. Of the funds provided, $80,000 is for
installation of an automated weather observing system at
Monticello Airport in Wayne County, Kentucky and $100,000 is
for installation of an AWOS III system at Dexter Airport in
Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Funding is also included for
installation of an automated weather sensor system (AWSS) for
Owensboro-Daviess County Airport in Kentucky.
Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The
conference agreement provides $30,000,000 for this program,
to be distributed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location House Senate Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activities in President's budget............................. $1,040,000 $1,100,000 $1,040,000
ALSF-2 acquisition........................................... 9,575,000 ............... 3,400,000
MALSR acquisition............................................ 3,500,000 ............... 2,025,000
ALSIP Newport & North Bend, OR............................... 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
ALSF-2 Cleveland Intl, OH.................................... 3,000,000 ............... 3,000,000
ALSF-2 Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl, MN......................... ............... ............... 1,500,000
MALSR Starkville, MS......................................... 560,000 ............... 560,000
MALSR, Millington, TN........................................ 425,000 ............... 425,000
MALSR install runway 34L, Salt Lake City, UT................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
MALSR/REIL Monroe Cty, NC.................................... 1,000,000 ............... 1,000,000
Meridian/Key Field MALSR, MS................................. ............... 2,300,000 2,300,000
Atlanta Hartsfield, GA....................................... ............... 2,300,000 1,500,000
Juneau Airport, AK........................................... ............... 2,000,000 1,500,000
Las Cruces International, NM................................. ............... 2,750,000 1,600,000
Bethel Airport, AK........................................... ............... 2,000,000 1,500,000
Saginaw MBS Intl, MI......................................... ............... 500,000 500,000
MALSR, Baton Rouge, LA....................................... ............... 2,000,000 1,500,000
Taxiway lighting system, Gadsden Airport Industrial Park, AL. ............... ............... 150,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 26,100,000 21,450,000 30,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation access, remote locations in Alaska.--The conferees
note that most remote Alaska villages do not have access to
hospitals or clinics because they are not connected to the
road system. Therefore, they must rely on
[[Page 21157]]
aircraft medevacs in the event of a medical emergency. The
conferees have been informed that an air evacuation of a
heart attack victim was delayed for three days because the
village of Hoonah lacked navigational aids, and that medevacs
in winter months are restricted to just a few hours of
daylight because communities lack runway lights. The
Administrator is directed to work with the Indian Health
Service and the Coast Guard to determine the extent of this
problem, and similar access problems in other remote
communities, and make recommendations to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2001 on what steps
should be taken.
Explosive detection systems.--The conferees agree to
provide $99,500,000 for the acquisition and deployment of
explosive detection systems at airports as proposed by the
Senate instead of $136,417,606 as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement distributes funds as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 budget Conference
Activity estimate agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk EDS systems.................... $31,200,000 $40,000,000
Trace detection systems............. 15,200,000 12,000,000
Threat image projection (TIP) 25,320,000 22,000,000
systems............................
Threat containment units............ 750,000 ................
Computer-based training (CBT) ................ 2,000,000
systems............................
System integration.................. 25,030,000 21,500,000
SAFPAS.............................. ................ 2,000,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 97,500,000 99,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk explosive detection systems.--The conferees agree with
the concern of the House that FAA has not been successful at
developing a viable second source for the acquisition of bulk
EDS systems, several years after the program was initiated.
Competition among vendors is critical for minimizing
government costs and lowering technical risk, and FAA's lack
of enthusiasm for second source development continues to be
disappointing. A recent investigation of the House
Appropriations Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff
concluded that FAA has failed to use consistent criteria in
evaluating different vendors; has failed to formally document
test criteria and the basis for test decisions; and has
applied different performance standards to different vendors.
Some vendors have been allowed to deploy equipment to
airports without FAA certification; some have been required
to receive certification; and still others have not been
approved until completion of post-certification operational
tests. In all, it is clear that FAA has neither effectively
promoted competition nor evaluated different vendors fairly
against a single performance and testing standard. This has
resulted in a single vendor receiving contracts for an
overwhelming majority of systems, several years after
attempts were begun to develop a second source. The conferees
will not continue to provide funding for these important
machines unless a level playing field is established.
Although the conference agreement includes $40,000,000 for
bulk explosive detection systems, an increase of $8,800,000
above the budget estimate, the conferees direct that these
funds shall be made available in equal amounts to procure
explosive detection systems from both certified sources.
Further, the FAA shall not unduly delay contract awards to
either vendor, by ensuring that the timing of contract awards
to the two vendors are paired to the greatest extent
practicable.
Strategic Alliance for Passenger Airline Safety.--As
proposed by the Senate, the conference agreement includes
$2,000,000 for the Strategic Alliance for Passenger Airline
Safety (SAFPAS) to conduct development, integration,
evaluation, and testing of the concept of remote airline
passenger check-in and baggage drop-off. If successful, this
could enhance airline passenger check-in efficiency as well
as enhance security by distributing the baggage screening
load across time and locations, allow for a more measured
flow of baggage and more time per bag for screening. This
could also reduce the pressure at airport security
checkpoints by reducing the number of bags being presented
immediately before flight departures.
Center for advanced aviation systems development.--Within
the amount made available for this activity, adequate funding
has been provided to continue development of flight
management system procedures for Newark and Teterboro
airports, New Jersey.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $187,000,000 for FAA
research, engineering, and development instead of
$184,366,000 as proposed by the House and $183,343,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The following table shows the distribution of funds in the
House and Senate bills and the conference agreement:
[[Page 21158]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.008
[[Page 21159]]
Security research.--The conferees encourage FAA's research
organization to work with the OST Office of Intelligence and
Security to consider FAA financial support of aviation-
related activities conducted through that office. The Office
of Intelligence and Security is tasked with certain
responsibilities regarding critical infrastructure protection
and awareness. Since the large majority of DOT's critical
infrastructure is in the FAA, it may be appropriate for the
agency to support these activities financially.
Strobe light evaluation.--The conferees direct FAA to
provide, out of available funds, up to $500,000 to conduct a
test program comparing how various runway approach lighting
systems affect a pilot's visual effectiveness during the
landing phase. FAA data indicate that ``steady burning''
approach lights can cause temporary changes in pilot visual
acuity, which can affect the ability of the pilot to
determine objects at a distance.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--Of the funds provided,
$1,500,000 is for the minimum octane fuel research cited in
the House report and $1,500,000 is for the Specialty Metals
Processing Consortium cited in the Senate report.
Explosives and weapons detection.--The conference agreement
includes $42,606,000 as proposed by the Senate instead of
$37,460,000 as proposed by the House and included in the
budget estimate. Of this amount, $6,000,000 is to continue
development of the pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo
inspection system, as proposed by the Senate. No funds are
allocated to the Safe Skies initiative. Further, the
conference agreement provides $1,000,000 for the FAA to fund
dual use X-ray technology development at Huntsville
International Airport, Alabama, to facilitate the movement of
large amounts of palletized cargo through scanning systems
with very high levels of contraband and threat detection.
Aging aircraft.--The conference agreement provides
$33,384,000 for this program instead of $29,384,000 as
proposed by the House and $34,684,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is for the National
Institute for Aviation Research. The conferees have included
an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget request for the
Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR); $1,000,000
above the budget request for activities of the engine
titanium consortium effort; and $10,000,000 for the
activities of the Airworthiness Assurance Center of
Excellence, including research at the non-destructive
inspection validation center.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement includes a liquidating cash
appropriation of $3,200,000,000, as proposed by the House and
the Senate.
Obligation limitation.--The conferees agree to an
obligation limitation of $3,200,000,000 for the ``Grants-in-
aid for airports'' program as proposed by the House and the
Senate. This is the amount authorized by Public Law 106-181.
High priority projects.--Of the funds covered by the
obligation limitation in this bill, the conferees direct FAA
to provide not less than the following funding levels, out of
available discretionary resources, for the following projects
in the corresponding amounts:
[[Page 21160]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.009
[[Page 21161]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.010
[[Page 21162]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.011
[[Page 21163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.012
[[Page 21164]]
The conferees further direct that the specific funding
allocated above shall not diminish or prejudice the
application of a specific airport or geographic region to
receive other AIP discretionary grants or multiyear letters
of intent.
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, OH.--The conferees
are aware of the need for further noise mitigation at
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and of the City of
Cleveland's residential sound insulation program to address
this issue. Although the city is currently limited to caps
for residential and institutional noise set-aside funding, it
is expected that these caps will be withdrawn by the FAA
because of the significant increase being made available in
noise set-aside funding. Accordingly, the conferees urge FAA
to give strong consideration to the city's request for multi-
year noise set-aside funding to address sound insulation
needs for homes and facilities around the airport.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, MN.--The
conferees provide $10,000,000 for noise mitigation activities
for the westside of the new Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport north/south runway, pending FAA's
review of the noise impacts of the project.
Denver noise mitigation study.--In House report 105-648,
the House Committee on Appropriations instructed FAA to work
with the Denver International Airport Study Coordination
Group, the DIA noise abatement office, and other affected
Colorado communities to identify measures, including changes
in flight patterns, which would reduce aircraft noise. In
addition to considering average noise levels (particularly in
communities with average noise levels over 65 LDN), the FAA
was instructed to address the specific altitude of Colorado
communities. The conferees urge FAA to continue to work with
these entities to resolve their concerns. The conferees
direct FAA to provide a letter report detailing its findings
and recommended actions to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than August 1, 2001.
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA.--The
conference agreement provides discretionary funding of
$3,000,000 only for the Joseph M. McDade terminal facility at
the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport in
Pennsylvania.
Letters of intent.--The conferees urge the FAA to award
letters of intent for multiyear capital projects at the
following airports:
Location:
Memphis International, TN
Lambert-St. Louis International, MO
Clearwater-St. Petersburg International, FL
Piedmont Triad International, NC
Anchorage International, AK
George Bush Intercontinental, TX
Orlando International, FL
Baltimore-Washington International, MD
Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA
Alliance Airport, TX
Oakland Pontiac International, MI
North Las Vegas, NV
Cherry Capital Airport, MI
Houston area letter of intent.--The conferees urge FAA to
give priority consideration to the letter of intent
application from the City of Houston. The city has proposed a
major expansion of airside capacity, with positive effects on
system delay and a favorable benefit-cost ratio, as part of a
larger airport expansion program largely financed by locally-
generated funds.
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.--The conferees
encourage the FAA Administrator to award a supplemental
letter of intent for Lambert-St. Louis International Airport
in Missouri and include within the conference agreement
$10,000,000 in discretionary funding for the new W-1W runway
and related improvements at this airport.
Piedmont Triad International Airport runway project.--The
Conferees direct the FAA to give full and immediate
consideration to the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's
application for a letter of intent for construction of a
parallel runway (5L-23R) and related improvements. These
improvements will provide substantial capacity, safety and
economic benefits and will facilitate committed expansion of
operations at the airport.
Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport.--The conferees
are aware of the capacity and safety benefits that will
accrue from the addition of a fifth runway at Hartsfield-
Atlanta International Airport. The conferees direct FAA to
give full and immediate consideration to the airport
authority's application for a letter of intent for
construction of a fifth runway.
GPS approach development.--The confererence agreement does
not include the Senate's direction to make available
$4,500,000 of administrative funds only for the development
of GPS approaches. Funding for this activity is provided in
other appropriations.
grants-in-aid for airports
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission of contract authorization)
The conference agreement includes a rescission of unused
contract authority totaling $579,000,000, as proposed by both
the House and the Senate. These funds are above the annual
obligation ceiling for fiscal year 2000, and remain
unavailable to the program.
aviation insurance revolving fund
The conference agreement retains language authorizing
expenditures and investments from the Aviation Insurance
Revolving Fund for aviation insurance activities, as proposed
by both the House and the Senate. This provision has been
carried in appropriations Acts for many years.
Federal Highway Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
The conference agreement limits administrative expenses of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to $295,119,000,
instead of $290,115,000 as proposed by the House and
$386,658,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides that certain sums be made
available under section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C. to carry
out specified activities, as follows: $4,000,000 shall be
available for commercial remote sensing products and spatial
information technologies under section 5113 of Public Law
105-178, as amended; $10,000,000 shall be available for the
national historic covered bridge preservation program under
section 1224 of Public Law 105-178, as amended; $5,000,000
shall be available for the construction and improvement of
the Alabama State Docks; $10,000,000 shall be available to
Auburn University for the Center for Transportation
Technology; $7,500,000 shall be made available for ``Child
Passenger Protection Education Grants'' under section 2003(b)
of Public Law 105-178, as amended; and $25,000,000 shall be
available for the transportation and community and system
preservation program under section 1221 of Public Law 105-
178, as amended.
The recommended distribution by program and activity of the
funding provided for FHWA's administrative expenses is as
follows:
FHWA administrative expenses...............................$315,834,000
Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses.........-1,000,000
Defer information technology increases pending CIO review....-2,400,000
Defer increases for workplace development....................-4,330,000
Delete funding requested for rural transportation planning in-1,000,000
Eliminate funding for climate change center..................-1,000,000
Deny funding for national rural development partnership program-500,000
Delete funding for the Garret A. Morgan program................-688,000
Delete funding for 2 new FTE for small and disadvantaged business
activities...................................................-230,000
Deny funding for development of regional transportation plan for the
Mississippi River Delta initiative.........................-1,000,000
Delete funding for ``working better together'' activities......-500,000
Provide $1,000,000 for the office of intermodalism.............-317,000
Deny increases for technology transfer and sharing activities-5,000,000
Disallow funds for the national personal transportation surve-4,750,000
Congestion mitigation and suburban mobility initiative.......+2,000,000
National personal transportation survey.--The conference
agreement does not include additional resources for the
national personal transportation survey within FHWA's
limitation on administrative expenses. Funds have been
provided within policy research and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to continue the national personal
transportation survey in fiscal year 2001.
International trade data systems.--The conference agreement
includes $1,620,000, as requested, for international trade
data systems. The conferees agree with the direction of the
House to provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2001 a detailed cost estimate
for the development and deployment of the complete system,
including cost sharing by other participating federal, state
and local agencies, and a schedule for full deployment. The
conferees encourage the FHWA within the funds provided for
this activity to conduct a study on transportation issues
emerging from NAFTA with the University of Texas at El Paso
and Dowling College of Long Island, New York, and to work
with the Arctic Council to identify opportunities for
international cooperation and development in the circumpolar
region.
Research and development administrative expenses.--The
level provided for administrative expenses of the FHWA shall
include funding, as proposed by the House, to support various
administrative activities that were requested within the
research and technology programs.
Inspector General cost reimbursements.--The conference
agreement provides up to $3,524,000 for Inspector General
audit cost reimbursements. These funds are transferred from
FHWA's administrative takedown as
[[Page 21165]]
authorized under section 104(a) of title 23 to the office of
the inspector general.
Corporate average fuel economy.--Up to $1,000,000 is
provided under this heading to conduct a study of corporate
average fuel economy standards. This study is more fully
discussed under ``National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Operations and research.''
Dual logos on interstate signs.--The conferees understand
that in response to the establishment of shared facilities
for restaurants and other services along interstate highways,
there is growing interest in the placement of dual logos on
interstate signs to provide information to the traveling
public. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is considering a
demonstration project that would allow for the use of dual
logos in one slot on interstates marking gas, food and
lodging facilities. The conferees believe this proposal has
merit and direct the FHWA to approve Kentucky's request,
should it be submitted.
New Jersey turnpike tremley point interchange.--The
conferees are aware of a proposal to construct a new truck-
only interchange at exit 12A of the New Jersey Turnpike to
provide commercial vehicle access and to alleviate congestion
in Linden, New Jersey. The conferees stand in support of this
initiative and encourage the appropriate transportation
officials in the State of New Jersey to expedite construction
of this critically needed congestion mitigation project.
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.--The conferees direct the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
to remove lead-based paint from the St. Georges Bridge in
Delaware, to repaint the bridge, and to conduct an assessment
for rehabilitation of the bridge using available ``Operations
and maintenance'' general funds from Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts.
limitation on transportation research
The conference agreement deletes the limitation on
transportation research of $437,250,000 proposed by the
House. Funding for transportation research programs and
activities is included within the overall limitation on
federal-aid highways, as proposed by the Senate.
federal-aid highways
The conference agreement limits obligations for the
federal-aid highways program to $29,661,806,000 as proposed
by both the House and the Senate. The conference agreement
also includes the following limitations within the overall
limitation on obligations for the federal-aid highways
program as proposed by the Senate: $437,250,000 for
transportation research; $25,000,000 for the magnetic
levitation transportation technology deployment program;
$31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and
$218,000,000 for intelligent transportation systems. Within
the funds provided for magnetic levitation, not to exceed
$1,000,000 shall be available to the Federal Railroad
Administration for administrative expenses associated with
the program; not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be available to
the Federal Railroad Administration for ``Safety and
operations''; and not more than $1,000,000 shall be available
for low-speed magnetic levitation research and development.
The House bill contained no similar sub-limitations.
The conference agreement also includes a provision which,
after deducting $156,486,491 for high priority projects;
$25,000,000 for the Indian reservation roads program;
$18,467,857 for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; $10,000,000 for
commercial driver's license program under motor carrier
safety grants; and $1,735,039 for the Alaska Highway,
distributes revenue aligned budget authority directly to the
states consistent with each state's individual guaranteed
share under section 1105 of Public Law 105-178. This approach
is similar to the policy enacted for fiscal year 2000 and
maximizes the resources flowing to individual states.
The conference agreement includes several provisions that
stipulate how funds apportioned under section 110 of title
23, U.S.C. to the states of Oklahoma, Mississippi, New York,
Nebraska, Alabama and California are to be allocated within
those states. The FHWA is directed to ensure that the state
departments of transportation of these states in no way
diminish their annual planned expenditures from their regular
federal-aid apportionment on the projects specified in this
conference agreement.
Commonwealth of Kentucky.--The conferees expect the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to pre-finance the right-of-
way phase for the Pennyrile Parkway Extension from
Hopkinsville to I-24 in Christian County, which is to be
funded from the state's annual allotment of federal national
highway system funds.
Environmental streamlining pilot program.--The conferees
direct the Secretary of Transportation to designate the New
Hampshire I-93 corridor project (from Manchester to Salem) as
an environmental streamlining pilot project to demonstrate
timely identification and resolution of issues, flexible
mitigation strategies, and balanced decision-making. The
conferees further expect the FHWA's New Hampshire Division
Administrator, the Federal Transit Administration's Region 1
Administrator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Region 1 Administrator, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Northeast District Engineer, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service Regional Director to serve on this project's board of
directors and as principal partners for the duration of this
project. This pilot may serve as a model for the application
of ``project partnering'' to implement section 1309 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
232-234).
surface transportation research
Within the funds provided for surface transportation
research, the conference agreement includes $66,000,000 for
highway research and development for the following
activities:
Safety......................................................$15,000,000
Pavements....................................................15,000,000
Structures...................................................15,000,000
Environment...................................................6,200,000
Policy........................................................4,600,000
Planning and real estate......................................4,100,000
Advanced research...............................................900,000
Highway operations and asset management.......................5,200,000
________________
Total....................................................66,000,000
Within the funds provided for highway research and
development, the conferees encourage the FHWA to provide up
to $250,000 for continuation of the PM-10 study.
Safety.--The conference agreement includes $15,000,000 for
safety research. FHWA is required to implement a
comprehensive research and technology program that will
ensure safety R&D and deployment activities receive at least
the same amount of funds that were provided in fiscal year
2000. Within the funds provided for safety research, the
conferees encourage the FHWA to expand its efforts to improve
traffic safety at various types of intersections. In
addition, the conferees encourage the FHWA to provide: up to
$500,000 to explore traffic striping technology improvements
which enhance reflectivity in heavy rain; up to $2,000,000 to
determine the effectiveness of Freezefree anti-icing systems;
up to $2,000,000 for cooperative research at the Western
Washington University Vehicle Research Institute for safety
and related initiatives; and up to $500,000 for rural bridge
safety research in cooperation with the Vermont Agency of
Transportation. Lastly, the conferees encourage the FHWA to
provide up to $1,800,000 to the Transportation Research
Institute at the George Washington University for multi-modal
crash analysis, simulation, and modeling for occupant
protection and human survivability; and for advanced research
into improving performance and safety of transportation
networks, including but not limited to information,
communications, command and control, and logistics at the
physical, operational and information levels.
Pavements.--The conference agreement provides $15,000,000
for pavements research. Within the funds provided for
pavements research, the conferees encourage the FHWA to
provide: up to $750,000 for cement concrete pavement research
at Iowa State University's Transportation Research and
Education Center; up to $2,000,000 for alkali silica
reactivity research with lithium based technologies; up to
$2,000,000 for further research into the GSB-88 emulsified
sealer/binder treatment; up to $2,500,000 for the National
Center for Asphalt Technology Pavement Research at Auburn
University; up to $2,000,000 for a cooperative polymer
additive demonstration involving South Carolina State
University and Clemson University; and up to $1,000,000 for
geosynthetic material pavement research at the Western
Transportation Institute.
Structures.--The conference agreement provides $15,000,000
for structures research. Within the funds provided for
structures research, the conferees encourage the FHWA to
provide: up to $2,000,000 for research at the Center for
Advanced Bridge Engineering at Wayne State University; up to
$2,000,000 for nondestructive testing research at the Utah
Transportation Center; up to $1,500,000 for advanced sensor
and inspection research at the New Mexico State University
Bridge Research Center; up to $2,000,000 for earthquake
hazards mitigation research at the University of Missouri-
Rolla; up to $2,000,000 for related engineering research at
West Virginia University; up to $2,000,000 for polymer matrix
composite research for wood structures at the University of
Maine; up to $2,000,000 for a rustproofing and paint
technology transfer project using the I-110 bridge from I-10
to U.S. 90; and up to $1,500,000 for cooperative work with
the Transportation Research Center at the Washington State
University.
Environment.--The conference agreement provides $6,200,000
for environmental research. Within the funds provided for
this research activity, the FHWA is encouraged to provide: up
to $1,000,000 for the Sustainable Transportation Systems Lab
and the National Center for Transportation Technology for
mitigation research for heavily-trafficked national parks; up
to $1,500,000 for a dust and persistent particulate abatement
demonstration study in Kotzebue, Alaska; and up to $1,000,000
to facilitate the air quality work at the National
Environmental Respiratory Center.
Policy.--The conference agreement includes $4,600,000 for
policy research. Sufficient funding provided under this
activity, together with resources provided to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, shall
[[Page 21166]]
allow for continued, undiminished work on the national
personal transportation survey. The conference agreement
deletes funding to continue or to revise the truck size and
weight study, as well as funding requested for research
cooperation with various international organizations. Both
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations expect to
be consulted before future international agreements are
consummated by the department that are likely to require
financial support by the FHWA.
Highway operations and asset management.--The conference
agreement provides $5,200,000 for highway operations and
asset management. Within the funds provided for this
activity, the conferees encourage the FHWA to provide: up to
$800,000 for innovative infrastructure financing best
practices research ongoing at the University of Southern
California; up to $1,000,000 for the road life research
program in New Mexico; and up to $2,000,000 for the Center
for Advanced Simulation Technology in New York and Auburn
University for continued work on a transportation management
plan.
intelligent transportation systems
The conference agreement includes a total of $218,000,000
for intelligent transportation systems (ITS), of which
$118,000,000 is available for ITS deployment and $100,000,000
is for ITS research and development. Within the funds
available for intelligent transportation systems deployment,
the conference agreement provides that not less than the
following sums shall be available for intelligent
transportation projects in these specified areas:
Conference
Project agreement
Alameda-Contra Costa, California...............................$500,000
Aquidneck Island, Rhode Island..................................500,000
Austin, Texas...................................................250,000
Automated crash notification system, UAB......................1,000,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana........................................1,000,000
Bay County, Florida...........................................1,500,000
Beaumont, Texas.................................................150,000
Bellingham, Washington..........................................350,000
Bloomington Township, Illinois..................................400,000
Calhoun County, Michigan........................................750,000
Carbondale, Pennsylvania......................................2,000,000
Cargo Mate, New Jersey..........................................750,000
Charlotte, North Carolina.......................................625,000
College Station, Texas........................................1,800,000
Commonwealth of Kentucky......................................1,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia......................................5,500,000
Corpus Christi, Texas (vehicle dispatching)...................1,000,000
Delaware River Port Authority.................................1,250,000
DuPage County, Illinois.........................................500,000
Fargo, North Dakota...........................................1,000,000
Fort Collins, Colorado........................................1,250,000
Hattiesburg, Mississippi........................................500,000
Huntington Beach, California..................................1,250,000
Huntsville, Alabama...........................................3,000,000
I-70 West project, Colorado.....................................750,000
Inglewood, California...........................................600,000
Jackson, Mississippi..........................................1,000,000
Jefferson County, Colorado....................................4,250,000
Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania.....................................1,500,000
Kansas City, Missouri.........................................1,250,000
Lake County, Illinois...........................................450,000
Lewis & Clark trail, Montana....................................625,000
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania...............................2,000,000
Moscow, Idaho...................................................875,000
Muscle Shoals, Alabama........................................1,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee............................................500,000
New Jersey regional integration/TRANSCOM......................3,000,000
North Central Pennsylvania......................................750,000
North Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................1,800,000
Norwalk and Sante Fe Springs, California........................500,000
Oakland and Wayne Counties, Michigan..........................1,500,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission..............................1,500,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania......................................500,000
Puget Sound regional fare collection, Washington..............2,500,000
Rensselaer County, New York.....................................500,000
Rochester, New York...........................................1,500,000
Sacramento County, California...................................875,000
Sacramento to Reno, I-80 corridor...............................100,000
Sacramento, California..........................................500,000
Salt Lake City (Olympic Games), Utah..........................1,000,000
San Antonio, Texas..............................................100,000
Santa Teresa, New Mexico........................................500,000
Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.................................400,000
Seabrook, Texas...............................................1,200,000
Shreveport, Louisiana.........................................1,000,000
South Dakota commercial vehicle, ITS..........................1,250,000
Southeast Michigan..............................................500,000
Southhaven, Mississippi.........................................150,000
Spokane County, Washington....................................1,000,000
Springfield-Branson, Missouri...................................750,000
St. Louis, Missouri.............................................500,000
State of Alaska...............................................2,350,000
State of Arizona..............................................1,000,000
State of Connecticut..........................................3,000,000
State of Delaware.............................................1,000,000
State of Illinois.............................................1,000,000
State of Indiana (SAFE-T).....................................1,000,000
State of Iowa (traffic enforcement and transit)...............2,750,000
State of Maryland.............................................3,000,000
State of Minnesota............................................6,500,000
State of Missouri (rural).......................................750,000
State of Montana................................................750,000
State of Nebraska.............................................2,600,000
State of New Mexico.............................................750,000
State of North Carolina.......................................1,500,000
State of North Dakota...........................................500,000
State of Ohio.................................................2,000,000
State of Oklahoma.............................................1,000,000
State of Oregon.................................................750,000
State of South Carolina.......................................2,000,000
State of Tennessee............................................1,850,000
State of Utah.................................................1,500,000
State of Vermont................................................500,000
State of Wisconsin............................................1,000,000
Texas border phase I, Houston, Texas............................500,000
Tucson, Arizona...............................................1,250,000
Tuscaloosa, Alabama...........................................2,000,000
Vermont rural ITS.............................................1,500,000
Washington, DC area...........................................1,250,000
Washoe County, Nevada...........................................200,000
Wayne County, Michigan........................................5,000,000
Williamson County/Round Rock, Texas.............................250,000
Projects selected for funding shall contribute to the
integration and interoperability of intelligent
transportation systems, consistent with the criteria set
forth in TEA21.
District of Columbia.--The conference agreement includes
$1,250,000 for intelligent transportation systems in the
national capital region. Within the amount provided, the
conferees urge funding be made available to develop with
George Mason University a system which coordinates ITS
responses to major capital projects in Northern Virginia.
Commonwealth of Virginia.--Within the $5,500,000 provided
for ITS projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia, $3,000,000
shall be for the I-81 corridor in the Shenandoah Valley and
southwestern Virginia to improve safety. The conferees are
encouraged by the opportunities to improve safety with ITS
programs such as the collection and distribution of real time
information, installation of dynamic message signs and safety
monitors, coordination of emergency response, and other
systems. The conferees expect the Virginia Department of
Transportation, working in partnership with Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, James Madison University, and George
Mason University, to accelerate timely solutions to improve
safety on the I-81 corridor.
The conference agreement provides $100,000,000 for ITS
research and development activities, to be distributed by
activity as follows:
Research and development....................................$48,680,000
Operational tests............................................11,820,000
Evaluations...................................................7,750,000
Architecture and standards...................................13,750,000
Integration...................................................9,000,000
Program support...............................................9,000,000
________________
Total...................................................100,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests and
development.--Within the $100,000,000 provided for ITS
standards, research, operational tests and development, the
conference agreement includes, as proposed by the House,
$7,300,000 for commercial vehicle research and $30,000,000
for intelligent vehicle initiative research, of which
$5,000,000 shall be available for the initial phase of an
operational test to advance collision avoidance technologies
in the light vehicle platform. The conference agreement
deletes $600,000 identified in the Senate report to initiate
the design, engineering and installation of intelligent
transportation systems at railroad-highway crossings on rail
corridors.
FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
Within the funds available for ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities, funds are to be available for the
following projects and activities:
Project Conference
Baylink ferry service, Vallejo, California...................$1,000,000
Broward County, Florida.......................................2,300,000
Cherry Grove, Long Island ferry boat dock, New York.............360,000
Curtis vessel replacement for Rockland and Vinal Haven, Maine...250,000
Dorena Ferry Mississippi River Crossing, Mississippi............500,000
Gees Bend ferry, Alabama......................................1,000,000
Greenport and Sag Harbor, New York, ferry service...............400,000
Jamaica Bay transportation hub, New York........................680,000
Fishers Island ferry terminal expansion, New London, Connectic1,250,000
Penns Landing dock improvements, Pennsylvania...................800,000
Port of Corpus Christi (North Harbor) ferry facility, Texas...1,000,000
[[Page 21167]]
Potomac river ferry, Virginia...................................660,000
Providence and Newport ferry, Rhode Island....................1,000,000
Provincetown, Massachusetts, terminal improvements..............300,000
Sandusky, Ohio, river ferry.....................................500,000
Savannah water taxi, Georgia....................................400,000
St. Johns River water taxi, Jacksonville, Florida...............500,000
State of Ohio ferries...........................................500,000
Treasure Island ferry service initiation and pier reconstruction, San
Francisco, California.......................................1,000,000
magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment program
The conference agreement provides a total of $25,000,000
for the high-speed magnetic levitation (maglev) technology
deployment program. Of this total, $1,000,000 is for the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to administer the
program; $1,500,000 is transferred to FRA for safety and
operations activities; and $1,000,000 is for low-speed maglev
development.
The conferees direct that $21,500,000 be transferred to FRA
for the deployment of high-speed maglev projects. Of this
total, the conference agreement recommends the following
amounts be made available for pre-construction planning and
environmental impact assessments:
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh
International Airport link.................................$5,000,000
Maryland Department of Transportation: Baltimore-Washington
International Airport-Washington, D.C. link.................1,000,000
California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission: Las Vegas, NV to
Anaheim, CA.................................................1,000,000
Georgia/Atlanta Regional Commission: Atlanta, GA to Chattanoog1,000,000
Southern California Association of Governments: Los Angeles
International Airport to March Air Force Base...............1,000,000
Florida Department of Transportation..........................1,000,000
Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission.....................1,000,000
The remaining funding ($10,500,000) shall be reserved for
the projects that the Department of Transportation selects
from among the seven candidates to continue in fiscal year
2001.
Low-speed maglev program.--A total of $6,000,000 has been
allocated for low-speed maglev programs in fiscal year 2001.
This funding is comprised of $1,000,000 transferred from the
high-speed maglev program, instead of $3,000,000 as proposed
by the Senate, and $5,000,000 from section 3015(c) of Public
Law 105-178. This funding is to be allocated as follows:
Segmented rail phased induction electric magnetic motor (SERAPHIM)
project....................................................$2,000,000
Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority Airport link p2,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airborne shuttle system..............2,000,000
national corridor planning and development program
Within the funds available for the national corridor
planning and development program, funds are to be available
for the following projects and activities:
Project Conference
Anniston Evacuation corridor, Calhoun County, Alabama........$3,000,000
Avalon Boulevard/405 Freeway interchange, Carson, California....875,000
Boca Raton traffic calming, Florida.............................500,000
City of North Ridgeville, Lorain County, Ohio grade crossing
improvements..................................................600,000
Coalfields expressway Virginia................................4,000,000
Coalfields expressway, West Virginia.........................10,000,000
Downtown Fitchburg Route 12 extension, Massachusetts..........2,000,000
Hatcher Pass (phase I), Alaska................................2,000,000
I-25 corridor from Alameda to Logan, Colorado.................4,000,000
I-29 Port of Entry, Union County, South Dakota................2,000,000
I-35 corridor expansion, Waco, Texas..........................1,325,000
I-5 South Medford interchange and Delta Park, Oregon..........1,000,000
I-65 upgrade, Clark County, Indiana...........................1,350,000
I-66, Somerset to London, Kentucky............................5,000,000
I-69 corridor, Louisiana......................................2,300,000
I-69 corridor, Texas..........................................3,000,000
I-74 bridge, Moline, Illinois.................................5,600,000
Madison County, KY 21 and I-75, Kentucky......................1,000,000
New Boston Road improvements, Mercer County, Illinois.........3,000,000
Radio Road overpass, City of Sulphur Springs, Texas...........1,350,000
Route 104, Virginia...........................................1,000,000
South Shore industrial safety overpass, Indiana...............4,750,000
Stevenson expressway, Illinois................................3,800,000
US 19, Florida...............................................10,000,000
US 25 improvements, Kentucky..................................2,000,000
US 321 and US 74, Gasden and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.500,000
US 395 North Spokane corridor, Washington.....................1,000,000
US 43, Alabama................................................4,000,000
US 51 widening, Decatur, Illinois.............................1,350,000
US 95 (Milepost 522 to Canadian border), Idaho................1,900,000
US Route 2, New Hampshire.....................................1,500,000
US-61 (Avenue of the Saints), Missouri........................4,000,000
WI 29 (Chippewa Falls bypass, Wisconsin)......................3,000,000
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
The conference agreement includes a total of $50,000,000
for the transportation and community and system preservation
program, of which $25,000,000 is derived from funds provided
under section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code. Within
the funds made available for the transportation and community
and system preservation program, funds are to be distributed
to the following projects and activities:
Project Conference
20/20 vision project in Concord, New Hampshire.................$500,000
Arkansas River, Wichita, Kansas, pedestrian transportation fac1,000,000
Bangor, Maine, intermodal hub facility planning, railroad crossing
signalization, bike and pedestrian trails.....................600,000
Bedford, New Hampshire, corridor planning.......................250,000
Billings, Montana, open/green space improvement project.........775,000
Bowling Green, Kentucky, Riverfront Development transportation
enhancements................................................1,000,000
Buckeye Greenbelt parkway beautification, Toledo, Ohio..........250,000
Burlington, Vermont, North Street and Church Street improvemen1,100,000
Chantry Flats Road, Sierra Madre, California....................600,000
Charleston, West Virginia, Kanawha Boulevard Walkway project..2,000,000
City of Angola and Steuben City, Indiana, bike path.............325,000
City of Bedminster, New Jersey, bike path.......................500,000
City of Coronado, California, mobility improvements.............600,000
City of Ferndale, Michigan, traffic signals......................50,000
Claiborne County, Mississippi, access road from US 61 to new port
facility......................................................400,000
Clay/Leslie County, Kentucky..................................2,000,000
Clovis, New Mexico, street revitalization.......................750,000
Community and environmental transportation acceptability process,
California..................................................1,000,000
Delong Mountain Alaska, airport access and related planning.....300,000
Downtown Omaha, Nebraska, access and redevelopment project......300,000
East Redoubt Avenue improvements, Soldotna, Alaska..............725,000
El Segundo, California, intermodal facility improvements......1,000,000
Elwood bicycle/pedestrian bridge, County of Santa Barbara, Calif250,000
Fairbanks, Alaska, downtown transit and cultural integration pla450,000
Fairfax cross county trail/Potomac National Heritage Scenic Trail,
Virginia......................................................500,000
Flint, Michigan, transportation planning and origin & destination
shipping study................................................150,000
Fort Worth, Texas, trolley study................................750,000
Heritage Corridor Project study, Illinois.......................200,000
[[Page 21168]]
High capacity transportation system study, Albuquerque, New Mexi500,000
Houston, Texas, Main Street Connectivity Project................750,000
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, New Jersey...................2,000,000
Huffman Prairie Flying Field Pedestrian and Multimodal Gateway
Entrance, Dayton, Ohio........................................700,000
Humboldt Greenway project, Hennepin County, Minnesota.........1,000,000
Jackson traffic congestion mitigation planning, Mississippi.....600,000
Johnstown, Pennsylvania, pedestrian and streetscape improvements400,000
Kansas City, Missouri, Illus Davis Mall enhancements............350,000
Las Cruces, New Mexico railroad and transportation museum.......200,000
Lincoln Parish transportation plan, Louisiana.................1,500,000
Lodge freeway pedestrian overpass, Detroit, Michigan..........9,000,000
Manchester, Vermont, pedestrian initiative......................375,000
Marked Tree, Arkansas, to I-55 along U.S. Highway 63 improvements and
controlled access lanes.......................................600,000
Minnesota Trunk Highway 610/10 interchange construction at I-91,650,000
Mitchell Marina development, Greenport, New York................250,000
Mobile, Alabama, GM&O intermodal center/Amtrak station..........650,000
Montana DOT/Western Montana College statewide geological sign pr200,000
Montana statewide rail grade separation study and environmental 400,000
New Bedford, Massachusetts, North Terminal......................200,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, intermodal transportation research......950,000
NW 7th Avenue corridor improvement project, Miami, Florida......100,000
Ohio and Erie Canal corrdior trail development, Ohio..........1,000,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, Washington.............................580,000
Owensboro riverfront development project........................300,000
Palmer, Alaska, urban revitalization............................200,000
Park Avenue realignment, Borough of Flemington, New Jersey....1,175,000
Pedestrian and bicycle route projects, City of Henderson, Nevada375,000
Pedestrian improvements, Lake Cumberland Trail, Kentucky........100,000
Pioneer Courthouse Square lobby renovation project, Portland Ore400,000
Puget Sound freight mobility systems team project................20,000
Quincy, Illinois, 18th Street Bridge project....................300,000
Raton, New Mexico, rail depot/intermodal center redevelopment...750,000
Roberto Clemente Park pedestrian improvements, Pittsburgh, Penns600,000
Rockville, Maryland, Town Center accessibility improvement plan.250,000
Roseville, California, historic district revitalization project.500,000
Route 16 improvements, Ellenboro and Harrisville, West Virginia.250,000
Route 522 construction, Town of South Brunswick, New Jersey.....250,000
Satsop Development Park road improvements, Grays Harbor, Washi1,700,000
Soundview Greenway in the Bronx, New York, New York...........1,000,000
South Kingshighway business district pilot program, St. Louis Mi100,000
Springfield, Missouri, center city plan.........................750,000
SR 99 corridor improvements, Shoreline, Washington............1,000,000
Talkeetna, Alaska, parking lot/pedestrian safety access.........400,000
Tulsa/Sapula Union Railraod overpass at Oakridge Elementary School,
Oklahoma......................................................400,000
Uptown transportation management program, New Mexico............500,000
Utah-Coloralo ``Isolated Empire'' rail connector study..........500,000
Van Buren and Russelville, Arkansas, environmental assessments and
improvements................................................1,000,000
Virginia Beach, Virginia, bike trail............................400,000
Virginia weigh stations.......................................1,000,000
Walkable edgewater initiative, Chicago, Illinois................100,000
West Baden Springs preservation project, Indiana..............1,000,000
Wheeling, West Virginia, Victorian Village Transportation Initia500,000
Weigh stations, Virginia.--Funding has been provided in the
conference agreement for two mobile weigh stations for the
Commonwealth of Virginia to curb illegal overweight trucks
using U.S. Route 50 and U.S. 17 (Crooked Run Valley) to
bypass the permanent weigh station on I-81. The conferees
expect that one such portable weigh station will be used in
this region, which includes Fauquier, Clarke and Loudoun
counties.
BRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM
Within the funds available for the bridge discretionary
program, funds are to be available for the following projects
and activities:
Project Conference
14th Street Bridge, Virginia.................................$5,000,000
Chouteau Bridge, Jackson County, Missouri.....................5,000,000
Clement C. Clay Bridge replacement, Morgan/Madison counties, A1,000,000
Fairfield-Benton-Kennecbec River Bridge, Maine................4,000,000
Florida Memorial Bridge, Florida.............................10,000,000
Historic Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Mississippi...................3,200,000
Missisquoi Bay Bridge, Vermont................................3,500,000
Oaklawn Bridge, South Pasadena, California......................500,000
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge replacement, Connecticut.........3,200,000
Powell County Bridge, Montana.................................1,500,000
Santa Clara Bridge, Oxnard, California........................6,500,000
Star City Bridge, West Virginia...............................6,500,000
US 231 bridge over Tennessee River, Alabama...................8,900,000
US 54/US 69 Bridge, Kansas....................................2,000,000
Waimalu Bridge replacement on I-1, Hawaii.....................3,400,000
Washington Bridge, Rhode Island...............................6,000,000
FEDERAL LANDS
Within the funds available for the federal lands program,
funds are to be available for the following projects and
activities:
Project Conference
14th Street Bridge, Washington DC/Virginia...................$2,500,000
Acadia National Park trails and road projects...................500,000
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road....................950,000
Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refugee paving project..........2,500,000
Broughton Bridge, Clay County, Kansas...........................100,000
Charles M. Russell/Fort Peck Roads coalition access project.....500,000
Chincoteague Refuge, Virginia...................................500,000
Chugach Road, Alaska............................................250,000
Clark Fork River bridge replacement, phase 2, Idaho...........1,500,000
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge access road, Nebraska....500,000
Cumberland Gap, Kentucky........................................900,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky................................1,000,000
Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area..........................1,000,000
Forest Highway 26...............................................650,000
Fort Baker, California..........................................100,000
Giant Springs Road relocation L&C interpretive center, Great Falls,
Montana.......................................................800,000
Highway 323 between Elzada and Ekalaka........................1,000,000
Highway 419 reconstruction....................................2,600,000
Historic Kelso depot, Mojave National Preservation, California2,500,000
Iditarod (Millenium trail)....................................1,100,000
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and Hanalei Valley Scenic Lookout on
Kauai.......................................................1,500,000
Lake Cumberland access road and improvements....................750,000
Lake Tahoe Binwall repair and drainage improvement..............500,000
[[Page 21169]]
Lowell National Historic Park, western canal walkway improvement500,000
Manassas Battlefield access.....................................500,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road..................................1,250,000
Milford Lake replacement bridge (Corps of Engineers lake).......250,000
Mongap Visitor Center--Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational Ri900,000
Mount Saint Helen's National Park access from Coldwater's visitor's
center to US 12, Randall, Washington..........................100,000
Natchez Trace Parkway multi-use trail...........................300,000
New Mexico Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass..........................300,000
New River Gorge National River road and safety improvements...3,000,000
Old Lock I park access road...................................1,000,000
Pasagshak Road realignment and improvement......................500,000
Rampart Road Eureka connector...................................500,000
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge visitor's center, Clark County,
Washington....................................................200,000
Route 600, Virginia...........................................1,550,000
Sawtooth National Forest access (phase 2), Idaho................500,000
SD 240 loop, Cedar Pass landslide stabilization, Badlands National
Monument....................................................1,700,000
Second access road for Fort Eustis, Virginia..................1,750,000
Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge public roads..............500,000
Soldier Hallow, Utah..........................................1,200,000
Teton Trail Pass (phase 3), Idaho...............................500,000
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Florida..............450,000
Traffic circle at Mount Vernon, Virginia........................250,000
US 26 upgrade, Oregon.........................................1,500,000
Utah Trail, Joshua Tree National Park, California.............1,500,000
The conferees direct that the funds allocated above are to
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary
program, and not from funds allocated to the Fish and
Wildlife Service's and National Park Service's regions.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
The conference agreement provides $31,000,000 for the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), as proposed by
both the House and the Senate. Within the funds provided to
BTS, $600,000 shall be available for statistical analysis of
the National Quality Initiative, and up to $4,750,000 may be
allocated for the national personal transportation survey. As
noted earlier in this report, the funding provided herein,
supplemented with funding provided within the policy research
activity, shall be sufficient to continue work on the
national personal transportation survey in fiscal year 2001.
Federal-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The conference agreement provides a liquidating cash
appropriation of $28,000,000,000 for the federal-aid highways
program as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
EMERGENCY RELIEF HIGHWAYS
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The conference agreement includes an appropriation of
$720,000,000 to fund the backlog of requests for damage
repairs necessary due to disasters. Since the beginning of
fiscal year 1999, the emergency relief program has been
facing heavy demand for on-going funding needs from events in
prior years. This, coupled with requests for funding to
address events which occurred in fiscal year 1999 such as
Hurricanes Floyd and Dennis, has led to the current backlog
of requests. The funding needs far exceed the annual
authorization of $100,000,000 for the emergency relief
program. Consistent with the purpose of these funds, the
entire amount has been designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended.
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The conference agreement under title III provides an
appropriation of $54,963,000 from the highway trust fund for
the Appalachian development highway system. The following
table reflects the estimated distribution of funds by state:
Alabama......................................................$6,051,799
Georgia.......................................................2,418,532
Kentucky......................................................5,551,582
Maryland........................................................946,351
Mississippi.....................................................678,682
New York......................................................1,304,379
North Carolina................................................3,563,079
Ohio..........................................................2,729,017
Pennsylvania.................................................14,797,439
South Carolina..................................................296,470
Tennessee.....................................................6,784,784
Virginia......................................................1,426,067
West Virginia.................................................8,414,819
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor Carrier Safety
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
The conference agreement includes $92,194,000 for
administrative expenses of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Of this total, $82,344,000 is for operating expenses and
$9,850,000 is for research. The following adjustments are
made to the budget request:
High-risk, intrastate carrier information.....................-$500,000
Contract for vision exemption program..........................-638,000
Personnel adjustments...........................................+38,000
Crash collection data (section 225e)...........................+225,000
Operation Respond..............................................+375,000
Research and technology........................................+200,000
Motor carrier safety advisory committee........................+100,000
Uniform carrier registration...................................+200,000
High-risk, intrastate carrier information.--The conference
agreement deletes funding for the high-risk intrastate
carrier information program under the operating expense
account and recommends funding for this activity under the
national motor carrier safety grant program because of its
direct relevance to state motor carrier safety.
Personnel adjustments.--A total of 119 new, full-time
employees (FTE) have been approved for fiscal year 2001, one
FTE more than requested. Changes to the personnel budget
request are as follows: vision exemption specialists (+3),
information systems analysts (+1), international specialist
(-1), technology specialist (-1), motor carrier safety grant
personnel (+1), and executive secretariat (-2). Also, the
conference agreement approves the 20 new border inspectors
requested in the budget.
Crash collection data.--The conference agreement provides
$2,975,000 to ensure that FMCSA fully implements section
225(e) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
These funds should be used to improve data collection on
motor carrier crashes, strengthen data analysis, link driver
citation information with other information databases, help
train state employees and motor carrier safety enforcement
officials, and ensure an increased focus on problem drivers
through the integration of driver and crash data.
Research and technology.--A total of $9,850,000 has been
provided for research and technology initiatives, an increase
of $200,000 above the budget request. The additional funding
permits an increased effort on the ``share the road'' and
``no-zone'' initiatives.
School transportation study.--FMCSA shall continue funding
the school transportation study required by section 4030 of
TEA21 at the same level provided in fiscal year 2000.
Motorcoach driver fatigue.--The conferees note that the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has acknowledged
in its notice of proposed rulemaking on trucking hours-of-
service that little is known about the operations of over-
the-road buses and motorcoaches. The conferees believe that
there should be additional study of the operations, driver
practices and driver fatigue issues specific to over-the-road
buses before any revisions to the existing trucking hours-of-
service rules are finalized, and encourage the Secretary to
conduct such studies to inform additional regulatory
proposals in this area.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides a liquidating cash
appropriation of $177,000,000 for the national motor carrier
safety program as proposed by the House and the Senate.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement includes a limitation on
obligations of $177,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants
proposed by the House and the Senate. This agreement
allocates funding in the following manner:
Basic motor carrier safety grants..........................$130,000,000
Performance-based incentive grants............................7,500,000
Border assistance.............................................8,000,000
Priority initiatives..........................................8,000,000
State training and administration.............................1,500,000
Crash causation (section 224f)................................5,000,000
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives.........17,000,000
Information systems.........................................(3,700,000)
Motor carrier analysis......................................(2,300,000)
Implementation of PRISM.....................................(5,000,000)
Driver programs.............................................(1,000,000)
Data collection and analysis................................(5,000,000)
Total...................................................177,000,000
Commercial driver's license (CDL) program.--In addition to
the funding provided under
[[Page 21170]]
this account, a total of $10,000,000 has been provided from
funds authorized under section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C.
This funding shall only be available for the commercial
driver's license program. Within the funds provided, FMCSA
should work with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead
MCSAP agencies, and licensing agencies to establish a working
group to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition,
FMCSA should consider sponsoring one or two pilot projects
involving law enforcement and drivers licensing agencies to
explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers who
have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate
during the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA
should continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial
outreach effort. FMCSA shall submit a letter to both the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1,
2001 summarizing efforts to increase quality control in the
CDL program and efforts taken to provide technical and
training assistance to the states.
Automated brake testing equipment.-- According to 1999
data, the most common out-of-service violations were brake-
related (37 percent). Virginia has been researching and
exploring opportunities to use infrared brake inspection
equipment and has found one new technology that could
significantly help to identify brake deficiencies in a timely
manner. Within the high priority allocation, sufficient
funding should be provided for the Commonwealth of Virginia
to install and test infrared brake inspection equipment (both
fixed and hand held) at a few weigh stations.
Covert operations.--Within funding provided for high
priority activities, $500,000 shall be used to conduct covert
operations and survey the extent of this problem. FMCSA shall
report on the survey results by May 1, 2001, outlining the
extent to which out-of-service notices are being violated.
This survey should be conducted on a sufficiently large
sample size so that the scope and nature of the challenge are
fully made known to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and Research
The conference agreement provides $116,876,000 from the
general fund for highway and traffic safety activities
instead of $107,876,000 as proposed by the House. The Senate
did not provide a general fund appropriation for NHTSA's
operations and research activities. Instead, the Senate
provided the same amount ($107,876,000) from the highway
trust fund for these activities. The additional $9,000,000
provided above the House and Senate levels shall be available
to supplement the Office of Safety Defects and for other
tire-related initiatives in the wake of the Firestone recall.
A total of $85,321,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2003 instead of $77,671,000 as proposed by the
House and $77,670,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement includes a provision carried since fiscal
year 1996 that prohibits NHTSA from obligating or expending
funds to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemakings that
would add requirements pertaining to tire grading standards
that are not related to safety performance. This provision
was contained in both the House and Senate bills.
The conference agreement includes a provision that
prohibits NHTSA from purchasing a vehicle to conduct new car
assessment program crash testing at a price that exceeds the
manufacturer's suggested retail price, as proposed by the
Senate. The House bill contained no similar provision. If
this provision unduly limits NHTSA's ability to test a new
vehicle expeditiously, the Secretary may seek a waiver of
this language from the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
The conference agreement modifies a provision proposed by
the Senate that would have prohibited rollover testing using
static stability factors. The agreement allows NHTSA to move
forward with the rollover rating proposal while the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) studies static versus dynamic
testing. NHTSA shall then be required to review the findings
of the NAS study and propose any appropriate revisions to its
testing procedures within 30 days of receiving the study.
Operations and Research
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Limitation on Obligatoins)
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $72,000,000 from the
highway trust fund to carry out provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403
as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The following table summarizes the conference agreement for
operations and research (general fund and highway trust fund
combined) by budget activity:
Salaries and benefits.......................................$57,130,000
Travel........................................................1,276,000
Operating expenses...........................................19,810,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance..........................................7,366,000
Safety assurance...........................................15,987,000
Highway safety programs....................................41,776,000
Research and analysis......................................57,536,000
General administration........................................645,000
Grant administration reimbursements.........................-10,650,000
________________
Total...................................................190,876,000
Operating expenses.--A total of $19,810,000 has been
provided for operating expenses. Within this total,
sufficient funds should be provided for computer-related
expenses for all administrative functions, including civil
rights, public affairs, counsel, planning and policy, and
administration. However, computer support should be funded at
the fiscal year 2000 level. The conferees believe that this
level of funding is adequate, and urge NHTSA to adopt a more
cost-effective approach to managing computer support
expenses. A detailed report on fiscal year 2000 computer
support expenditures, as requested by the House, shall be
provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
by December 31, 2000.
New car assessment program (NCAP).--The conference
agreement provides $5,556,000 for the new car assessment
program. This fully funds the budget request for this
program, except for the small dummy component, and provides
sufficient funding to support a National Academy of Sciences
study of the proposed rollover rating based on the static
stability factor. A total of $500,000 has been included in
the research and analysis contract program to crash 14
passenger vehicles with a small stature dummy to acquire
essential test data and to assure that these dummies are
satisfactorily developed for compliance testing associated
with the new air bag rule in 2004. The agency has informed
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that it
will not release the results of crashes conducted to test the
small stature dummy as part of NCAP.
Safety defects.--The conference agreement defers $145,000
requested to monitor and investigate recreational, transit,
and emergency vehicles, as proposed by the Senate.
Auto hotline.--A total of $1,232,000 has been provided for
the auto safety hotline, consistent with actions in the House
and Senate reports.
Safe communities.--Funding has been deleted for the safe
communities program, consistent with action taken by both the
House and the Senate.
National occupant protection program.--The conference
agreement provides $11,000,000 for the national occupant
protection program. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000
shall be used to implement an innovative demonstration
program for locally developed initiatives to increase seat
belt usage, as proposed by the Senate.
The conferees direct the department's Inspector General to
analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of the occupant
protection program managed by the office of traffic safety
programs. This review should consider the scope and direction
of NHTSA's efforts to increase seat belt use rates and
whether the agency is allocating funds to partnerships,
demonstration projects, and other activities that are most
likely to achieve the department's performance goals. The
review also should consider the quality and nature of the
technical assistance provided by NHTSA's regional staff to
states and local governments that benefit from highway
traffic safety grants programs.
Section 157 program.--NHTSA shall conduct a review of the
procedures and processes used to administer the section 157
innovative grant program and submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 1, 2000, that
details how grant administration will be improved and grant
awards made more expeditiously within the constraints of
existing law.
Emergency medical services head injury research.--A total
of $2,250,000 has been provided for emergency medical
services. Of this amount, $750,000 shall be provided to the
Brain Trauma Foundation to continue phase three of the
guidelines for pre-hospital management of traumatic brain
injury.
Aggressive driving.--A total of $750,000 has been provided
to develop and implement a regional education and driver
modification program to combat aggressive driving in
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Funding
should be allocated as specified in the House report.
Rural trauma.--The conference agreement allocates $250,000
to the University of Vermont's College of Medicine and
Fletcher Allen Health Care to determine if the survival rate
of rural vehicular accidents could be improved through the
application of advanced mobile video telecommunications links
between a level 1 trauma center and ambulance crews, as
proposed by the Senate.
The agreement also includes $500,000 to continue a project
at the University of South Alabama on rural vehicular trauma
victims, as proposed by the Senate.
School bus occupant protection.--Within contract funds,
$250,000 is allocated to Mercer University Research Center to
support a school bus safety initiative, as proposed by the
Senate. The House contained no similar provision.
Biomechanics.--At a minimum, NHTSA should continue to
support the biomechanics program at the fiscal year 2000
level. The conferees are very supportive of the work being
conducted by the crash injury research and engineering
network (CIREN) and are
[[Page 21171]]
encouraged that private sector interests have agreed to fund
two additional CIREN centers. Because of this commitment, no
federal funding should be provided to expand the number of
federally funded centers in fiscal year 2001.
In addition, the conferees agree to provide $1,000,000 to
the Injury Control Research Center at the University of
Alabama to conduct research related to cervical spine and
paralyzing neck injuries that result from motor vehicle
accidents.
Special crash investigations.--The private sector has
agreed to fund 300 special crash investigations per year to
collect and analyze real world crash data as proposed by
National Transportation Safety Board. This will double the
number of investigations conducted in fiscal year 2000.
However, the conferees agree that, despite where such
contributions are derived (i.e. from the public or private
sector) to conduct these investigations, the results are to
be treated as public data and no conditions shall be attached
to their release.
Side glazing.--In 1991, NHTSA was required to address
deaths and injuries resulting from accidents caused by motor
vehicle rollovers, primarily focusing on the use of advanced
glazing for vehicle windows, to prevent occupant ejection
during rollovers. Since 1991, NHTSA has issued two interim
reports concluding that advanced side glazing in passenger
vehicles could save up to 1,300 lives per year, but NHTSA has
yet to complete a final report. Therefore, the conferees
direct NHTSA to complete and issue a final report on advanced
side glazing by the end of calendar year 2000.
Grant administration.--Under TEA21, NHTSA may withhold up
to five percent of the funding for the grant program for
administrative costs. The conference agreement reflects a
five percent draw down (-$10,650,000).
CAFE language.--A general provision (Sec. 320) is included
that prohibits the use of funds to prepare, prescribe, or
promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards
for automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. In
addition, the conferees request the National Academy of
Sciences, in consultation with the Department of
Transportation, to conduct a study to evaluate the
effectiveness and impacts of CAFE standards. The study shall
examine, among other factors, those considerations outlined
in 49 U.S.C. section 32902(F); the impact of CAFE standards
on motor vehicle safety; disparate impacts on the U.S.
automotive sector; the effect on U.S. employment in the
automotive sector; and the effect of requiring CAFE
calculations for domestic and non-domestic fleets. The
National Academy of Sciences shall complete this study no
later than July 1, 2001, and submit it to the appropriate
committees of the Congress and the Department of
Transportation. Section 320 of this Act should not be
interpreted as preventing the Department of Transportation
from providing the National Academy of Sciences with
pertinent data and technical guidance and expertise, as
necessary. As noted previously in the Federal Highway
Administration's ``Limitation on administrative expenses'',
up to $1,000,000 has been allocated for this study.
National Driver Register
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $2,000,000 for the
National Driver Register as proposed by both the House and
the Senate. Of this funding, up to $250,000 may be used for
the technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of
TEA21.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement provides $213,000,000 to liquidate
contract authorizations for highway traffic safety grants, as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
The conference agreement limits obligations for highway
traffic safety grants to $213,000,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate. A total of $10,650,000 has been
provided for administration of the grant programs as proposed
by both the House and the Senate. Of this total, not more
than $7,750,000 of the funds made available for section 402;
not more than $650,000 of the funds made available for
section 405; not more than $1,800,000 of the funds made
available for section 410; and not more than $450,000 of the
funds made available for section 411 shall be available to
NHTSA for administering highway safety grants under chapter 4
of title 23. This language is necessary to ensure that each
grant program does not contribute more than five percent of
the total administrative costs.
As noted within the Federal Highway Administration, the
conference agreement provides $7,500,000 for child passenger
protection education grants. The amount is the same as
proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no similar
appropriation.
The conference agreement retains bill language, proposed by
both the House and Senate, that limits technical assistance
to states from section 410 to $500,000.
The conference agreement prohibits the use of funds for
construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for
office furnishings and fixtures for state, local, or private
buildings or structures, as proposed by both the House and
the Senate.
The bill includes separate obligation limitations with the
following funding allocations:
State and community grants.................................$155,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.........................13,000,000
Alcohol incentive grants.....................................36,000,000
State highway safety data grants..............................9,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and Operations
The conference agreement appropriates $101,717,000 for
safety and operations instead of $102,487,000 as proposed by
the House and $99,390,000 as proposed by the Senate. None of
this funding is to be offset from user fees. Of the total
amount, $5,899,000 shall remain available until expended
instead of $5,249,000 as proposed by the House and $4,957,000
as proposed by the Senate.
In addition to the funding provided for safety and
operations, $2,500,000 is provided to the Federal Railroad
Administration from funds made available under section 1218
of Public Law 105-178. These funds shall be used to
administer the magnetic levitation program, for Operation
Lifesaver, for Alaska Railroad liabilities, and for track
inspection activities. Of this total, no more than $1,000,000
shall be for administration of the maglev program.
The following adjustments were made to the budget estimate:
Deny new staff positions......................................-$564,000
Reduce funding for travel......................................-250,000
Reduce information technology initiative.......................-594,000
Decrease new employee development funding......................-360,000
Deny new outreach initiative...................................-500,000
Decrease funding for program evaluation........................-200,000
Operation Respond..............................................-100,000
Operation Lifesaver............................................+425,000
Southeast transportation center................................+350,000
Fatigue countermeasures program................................+200,000
Blakeley Island connector study................................+100,000
Operation Lifesaver.--A total of $1,025,000 has been
provided to Operation Lifesaver. Of this total, not less than
$300,000 shall be used to deploy its national public service
campaign.
Southeast transportation center.--The conference agreement
provides $350,000 to establish an intermodal emergency
response training center for the southeast region of the
country, to be located in Meridian, Mississippi. These funds
shall be used for equipment and program costs associated with
establishment of the center, to include rail passenger
equipment and track, a functional rail-highway grade
crossing, rail and motor carrier hazardous material vehicles
and containers, and other passenger rescue and hazardous
materials training facilities. Federal funds provided for the
center shall be matched with funding and in-kind
contributions from industry, local governments, and other
organizations.
Fatigue countermeasures.--A total of $500,000 has been
provided for fatigue countermeasures. Of this amount,
$250,000 shall be used to develop and implement educational
and training programs designed to increase the awareness of
fatigue throughout the rail industry and $250,000 shall be
used to perform validation testing of controlled light eye
reaction testing devices in order to establish a body of
fatigue testing data and to assist in developing effective
fatigue countermeasures.
Blakeley Island connector study.--The conference agreement
provides $100,000 for a grant to Alabama State Docks, a
state-owned facility, for a study of the cost and economic
benefits of restoring rail service on Blakeley Island in
Mobile Bay.
Illinois rail-grade crossings.--The State of Illinois, and
in particular, northeastern Illinois, has the largest number
of rail-grade crossings and quiet zones in the country. The
conferees recognize Illinois' efforts to reduce accidents at
these grade crossings and encourage FRA to work with
communities in northeastern Illinois to further improve rail-
grade crossing safety. This work should include offering
technical assistance, identifying federal funding sources,
and establishing federal-state-local task forces to improve
safety and reduce accidents in this region. FRA should pay
particular attention to enforcement enhancements and improved
educational outreach in its efforts to help reduce risks to
motorists and pedestrians.
The conference agreement deletes bill language contained in
the Senate bill requiring FRA to reimburse the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General $1,500,000 for the costs
associated with rail audits and investigations. The House
bill contained no similar provision.
The conference agreement includes a provision that
authorizes the Secretary to receive payments from the Union
Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them to the first
deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of trust.
These funds may be
[[Page 21172]]
advanced by the Administrator from unobligated balances
available to the Federal Railroad Administration and must be
reimbursed from payments received by the Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation. Both the House and Senate bills
contained these provisions.
Railroad Research and Development
The conference agreement provides $25,325,000 for railroad
research and development instead of $26,300,000 as proposed
by the House and $24,725,000 as proposed by the Senate. None
of this funding is to be offset from user fees. The following
table summarizes the conference agreement by budget activity:
Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials..............$11,450,000
Train occupant protection.................................(5,350,000)
Rolling stock safety assurance............................(1,287,000)
Human factors.............................................(2,978,000)
Hazardous materials transportation........................(1,000,000)
Grade crossings--human factors..............................(835,000)
Track and vehicle track interaction...........................8,300,000
Track and components study................................(4,150,000)
Track-train interaction safety............................(3,050,000)
Grade crossing infrastructure...............................(600,000)
Marshall/Nebraska project...................................(500,000)
Railroad systems safety.......................................4,650,000
Safety of high-speed ground transportation................(4,400,000)
Performance-based regulations...............................(250,000)
Research and development facilities and equipment...............925,000
T-6 vehicle.................................................(500,000)
Transportation Test Center..................................(425,000)
________________
Total......................................................25,325,000
Higher capacity rail cars on light density tracks.--Within
the funds provided, FRA should continue to conduct a study on
track and bridge requirements for the handling of 286,000-
pound rail cars as specified in the House report.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
both the House and Senate specifying that no new direct loans
or loan guarantee commitments shall be made using federal
funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during
fiscal year 2001. No federal appropriation is required since
a non-federal infrastructure partner may contribute the
subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in
the form of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily
established investigation charges are immediately available
for appraisals and necessary determinations and findings.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations for the Rhode Island rail development
project in fiscal year 2001 total $17,000,000, as proposed by
the House. The Senate bill allocated, within funds available
to the Department of Transportation, $10,000,000 to the Rhode
Island rail development project. With this appropriation, the
federal commitment to this project is completed.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
The conference agreement provides $25,100,000 for the next
generation high-speed rail program instead of $22,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $24,900,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The following table summarizes the conference
agreement by budget activity:
Train control projects: $11,000,000
Illinois project.........................................(7,000,0000)
Michigan project..........................................(3,000,000)
Digital radio network vehicle tracking system...............(500,000)
Transportation safety research alliance.....................(500,000)
Non-electric locomotives: 6,800,000
Advanced locomotive propulsion system.....................(3,800,000)
Prototype locomotives.....................................(3,000,000)
Grade crossings and innovative technologies: 4,300,000
North Carolina sealed corridor..............................(700,000)
Mitigating hazards........................................(2,500,000)
Low-cost technologies.....................................(1,100,000)
Track and structures..........................................1,300,000
Corridor planning activities..................................1,700,000
Total....................................................25,100,000
Transportation safety research alliance.--The conference
agreement provides $500,000 for the Transportation Safety
Research Alliance (TSRA) instead of $2,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The conferees direct FRA to ensure that TSRA uses
appropriated funds to deliver a positive train control
component product that is usable as a stand alone system
without the need for proprietary software and that this
software is accompanied by adequate user documentation.
Funding for this project should continue to be matched on a
dollar-for-dollar basis by TSRA.
Sealed corridor initiative.--A total of $700,000 has been
provided for North Carolina's sealed corridor initiative. The
report and associated funding, proposed by the Senate, has
been deleted.
Cant deficiency speed study.--Within funds provided, FRA
shall analyze the safety impact from operations of passenger
trains on freight rail trackage at up to five inches of cant
deficiency for speeds between 80 and 110 miles per hour, as
outlined in the Senate report. FRA should provide a report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by November
30, 2000.
Corridor planning.--A total of $1,700,000 has been provided
for corridor planning activities to be distributed as
follows:
Midwest regional rail initiative, preliminary engineering and design
and eligible right-of-way improvements.....................$1,000,000
Boston, MA to Burlington, VT high-speed corridor feasibility stu200,000
Southeast corridor extension from Charlotte, NC to Macon, GA....200,000
Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor from Mobile, AL to New Orlea300,000
Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 is made
available each year for the elimination of rail-highway
crossing hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are
eligible for these funds. Of these set-aside funds, the
following allocations were made:
High-speed rail corridor, Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA.....$750,000
High-speed rail corridor, Mobile, AL to New Orleans, LA.......1,500,000
Salem, OR.....................................................1,500,000
Atlanta to Macon, GA............................................125,000
Eastern San Fernando Valley, CA.................................125,000
Keystone high-speed rail corridor, Harrisburg to Philadelphia, P500,000
High-speed rail corridor, Milwaukee to Madison, WI..............500,000
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN to Chicago, IL high-speed rail corridor
(Minneapolis/St. Paul to LaCrescent, MN)......................250,000
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
The conference agreement provides $20,000,000 for the
Alaska Railroad as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar appropriation. This funding should be
used to continue ongoing track rehabilitation ($10,000,000),
signalized automated siding access between Wasilla and Potter
Marsh, and track relocation/highway crossing eliminations.
West Virginia Rail Development
The conference agreement provides $15,000,000 for capital
costs associated with track, signal, and crossover
rehabilitation and improvements on the MARC Brunswick line in
West Virginia, as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
The conference agreement provides $521,476,000 for capital
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) as proposed by the House instead of $521,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Bill language, as proposed by the
House, is retained that limits the Secretary from obligating
more than $208,590,000 of the funding provided prior to
September 30, 2001. The Senate bill limited the obligation
rate to $208,400,000.
Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.--Amtrak continues to
make progress in enhancing safety along the tracks where
high-speed rail will soon be operating. For example, almost
35,000 linear feet of chain-link fencing has been installed
in Massachusetts to reduce trespassing along the railroad
right-of-way. Earlier this year, the town of Mansfield asked
for an additional 12,710 linear feet of fencing to be
installed (phase III). On March 15, 2000, the President of
Amtrak made a commitment to complete the installation of the
fencing that has been requested before high-speed rail is
operational. While the conferees recognize that Amtrak has
limited funds and must balance many competing capital
investment priorities, the conferees believe Amtrak should
install the remaining 12,710 feet of fencing that was
requested by Mansfield prior to Amtrak's March 15, 2000
testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. The same
kind of fencing should be installed as was installed
previously. If Mansfield and Amtrak agree that there is a
need for more secure fencing within phase III, then they may
seek a waiver of this limitation from the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. Should the community identify
additional areas in need of fencing (phases IV and V), then
those costs shall be borne solely by these communities.
Rail service in western Virginia.--The Commonwealth of
Virginia and Amtrak have been in discussions about the
reestablishment of service between Washington, D.C., Bristol,
Virginia, and Richmond, Virginia. Amtrak is encouraged to
continue working with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
[[Page 21173]]
appropriate freight railroads to identify and address costs,
infrastructure improvements, and operational needs to
initiate such a service.
Alliance, Ohio.--Amtrak shall work with the City of
Alliance, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and the State of Ohio
to devise a plan to improve accessibility, visibility, safety
and information at the Alliance, Ohio station. This report
should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
South end infrastructure improvements.--Amtrak is directed
to provide quarterly reports, beginning on December 31, 2000,
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the
Senate Committee on Commerce, and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure regarding (1) the cost-
sharing arrangements agreed to among the users of the
southern end of the Northeast Corridor, and (2) ongoing work
to implement recommendations contained in the south end
corridor infrastructure improvement plan.
Federal Transit Administration
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides $64,000,000 for
administrative expenses of the Federal Transit Administration
as proposed by both the House and the Senate. Within the
total, the conference agreement appropriates $12,800,000 from
the general fund, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
The conference agreement includes a provision that
transfers $1,000,000 from project management oversight funds
to the Inspector General for reimbursement of audit and
financial reviews of major transit projects as proposed by
the House. The Senate bill proposed that $3,000,000 from
funds under this heading shall be used to reimburse the
Inspector General for costs associated with audits and
investigations of all transit-related issues and systems. The
conference agreement also includes a provision that not to
exceed $2,500,000 for the National Transit Database shall
remain available until expended.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The conference
agreement provides that the FTE level in fiscal year 2001
shall not rise in excess of 495 FTE. Additional staffing
increases may be considered by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations through the regular
reprogramming process.
Information technology activities.--The conference
agreement deletes funds requested for several technology
programs pending the office of the secretary's chief
information officer review and full identification of out-
year costs (-$650,000). Sufficient funding has been included
under this heading for infrastructure data protection,
continued operation of the transportation electronic award
and management application program, and annual electronic
procurement life cycle maintenance, licenses and core
operations.
Other items.--The conference agreement provides sufficient
funds for workforce planning and training and equipment and
office renovation. In addition, the conferees have included
$250,000 for regional and state-based grantee workshops.
National Transit Database.--Funding of $2,500,000 for
operation of the National Transit Database has been included
under this heading, rather than in the research and
development account as proposed by the Senate. The conferees
further direct that none of the funds made available in this
Act for project management oversight activities may be used
to supplement funds herein for the National Transit Database.
Project management oversight.--The conferees agree that
funding made available for project management oversight shall
include at least $21,900,000 for project management oversight
reviews and $4,500,000 for financial management reviews.
The conferees direct that the FTA submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General
and the General Accounting Office the quarterly financial
management oversight and project management oversight reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
With the likelihood of an increasing number of transit
projects requiring project oversight, the conferees are
concerned that the funds available to finance these oversight
activities may soon be insufficient to monitor adequately all
large-dollar projects. In fact, the FTA anticipates that a
funding shortfall of about $5,000,000 will occur in fiscal
year 2002, and that it will then have to make difficult
choices as to how it will apply limited oversight funds. FTA
has yet to identify the level of funding shortfalls that may
occur beyond fiscal year 2002 and how it will address any
shortfalls. In order to address FTA's oversight needs and to
protect the federal investment in these transit projects, the
conferees direct the FTA to develop a plan to (1) determine
the amount of funds needed to maintain an adequate level of
oversight for all projects requiring oversight and the level
of funding that likely will be available for this purpose;
(2) identify options to cover any projected funding
shortfalls; and (3) identify steps to respond to any
shortfalls that may occur. The FTA should provide this plan
with the 2002 budget submission to the Congress for
consideration.
Full funding grant agreements.--TEA21, as amended, requires
that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Banking 60 days before executing a full funding grant
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the conferees direct the FTA to
include therein the following: (a) a copy of the proposed
full funding grant agreement; (b) the total and annual
federal appropriations required for that project; (c) yearly
and total federal appropriations that can be reasonably
planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year
through 2003; (d) a detailed analysis of annual commitments
for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program
authorization; and (e) a financial analysis of the project's
cost and sponsor's ability to finance, which shall be
conducted by an independent examiner and shall include an
assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan,
the source and security of all public- and private-sector
financial instruments, the project's operating plan which
enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership
forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks associated
with the project.
The conferees also direct the FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before approving scope
changes in any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence
relating to scope changes shall include any budget revisions
or program changes that materially alter the project as
originally stipulated in the full funding grant agreement,
and shall include any proposed change in rail car
procurements.
FORMULA GRANTS
The conference agreement provides a total program level of
$3,345,000,000 for transit formula grants, as proposed by
both the House and the Senate. Within this total, the
conference agreement appropriates $669,000,000 from the
general fund as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The conference agreement provides that the general fund
appropriation shall be available until expended.
The conference agreement provides that funding made
available for the clean fuel formula grant program under this
heading shall be transferred to and merged with funding
provided for the replacement, rehabilitation and purchase of
buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
related facilities under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants''.
The conference agreement includes a provision that sets
aside $60,000,000 from the formula grants program to fund the
Salt Lake City Olympic transit program, instead of
$40,000,000 as proposed by the House. The Senate bill
contained no similar provision. Funds shall be available for
grants for the costs of planning, delivery, and temporary use
of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and
construction of permanent and temporary transportation
facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the VII
Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake City,
Utah. In allocating the funds, the Secretary shall make
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and
such grants shall not be subject to any local share
requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this
Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended. This
appropriation is similar to one provided in support of the
Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia in the fiscal year
1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
The FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment of
new rail extension or busway projects, shall consider the
extent to which projects' sponsors have used the appreciable
increases in the formula grants apportionment for alternative
analyses and preliminary engineering activities of such
systems.
The conferees expect the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority to use the appreciable increases in its
section 5307 apportionment and the transportation
infrastructure finance and innovation act (TIFIA) loan
provided to WMATA to ensure that fire communications are in
place in WMATA's tunnels.
UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
The conference agreement provides a total program level of
$6,000,000 for university transportation research as proposed
by both the House and the Senate. Within the total, the
conference agreement appropriates $1,200,000 from the general
fund as proposed by both the House and the Senate. The
conference agreement provides that the general fund shall be
available until expended.
TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH
The conference agreement provides a total program level of
$110,000,000 for transit planning and research as proposed by
both the House and the Senate. Within the total, the
conference agreement appropriates $22,200,000 from the
general fund as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The conference agreement provides that the general fund
appropriation shall be available until expended.
Within the funds appropriated for transit planning and
research, $5,250,000 is provided for rural transportation
assistance; $4,000,000 is provided for the National Transit
Institute; $8,250,000 is provided for the transit cooperative
research program; $52,113,600 is
[[Page 21174]]
provided for metropolitan planning; $10,886,400 is provided
for state planning; and $29,500,000 is provided for the
national planning and research program.
The conference agreement deletes a provision proposed by
the Senate that would have set aside $3,000,000 for Great
Cities Universities consortium from funds made available for
transit cooperative research. Funding for this activity is
provided under the national planning and research account.
Transit cooperative research program.--Within the funds
provided for transit cooperative research, $1,500,000 is
allocated for phase 2 redesign activities of the national
transit database.
National planning and research.--Within the funding
provided for national planning and research, the Federal
Transit Administration shall make available the following
amounts for the programs and activities listed below:
Conference
Agreement
Mid-America regional council coordinated transit planning, Kansas City
metro area...................................................$750,000
Sacramento area council of governments regional air quality planning
and coordination study........................................250,000
West Virginia University fuel cell technology institute propulsion and
ITS testing.................................................1,000,000
University of Rhode Island, Kingston traffic congestion study co150,000
Trans-lake Washington land use effectiveness and enhancement rev450,000
State of Vermont electric vehicle transit demonstration.........500,000
Acadia Island, Maine explorer transit system experimental pilot 150,000
Center for Composites manufacturing.............................950,000
Southern Nevada air quality study...............................800,000
Project ACTION (TEA21)........................................3,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced propulsion control
system (TEA21)..............................................3,000,000
Fairbanks extreme temperature clean fuels research..............800,000
Safety and security programs..................................6,100,000
National rural transit assistance program.......................750,000
Mississippi State University bus service expansion plan.........100,000
CALSTART/WESTART..............................................3,000,000
Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota...........1,000,000
Electric transit vehicle institute, Tennessee...................500,000
South Amboy, New Jersey transit study...........................200,000
Great Cities Universities consortium..........................2,000,000
Long Island, New York transportation land use projects..........250,000
JOBLINKS......................................................1,050,000
The conference agreement deletes funding requested for the
Garrett A. Morgan program (-$200,000).
Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program.--None of the
funds available under this heading shall supplement funding
provided under section 3015(b) of Public Law 105-178 for the
fuel cell bus and bus facilities program.
Safety and security programs.--The conference agreement
includes $6,100,000 for safety and security programs. The
conferees direct that these funds are to be wholly
administered by the office of safety and security to advance
safety programs and are not to be transferred to other
offices to support lesser priority activities.
TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The conference agreement provides $5,016,600,000 in
liquidating cash for the trust fund share of transit expenses
as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The conference agreement provides a total program level of
$2,646,000,000 for capital investment grants, as proposed by
both the House and Senate. Within the total, the conference
agreement appropriates $529,200,000 from the general fund as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Within the total program level, $1,058,400,000 is provided
for fixed guideway modernization; $529,200,000 is provided
for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses
and related equipment and the construction of bus-related
facilities; and $1,058,400,000 is provided for new fixed
guideway systems, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate. Funds derived from the formula grants program
totaling $50,000,000 are to be transferred and merged with
funds provided for the replacement, rehabilitation and
purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction
of bus-related facilities under this heading. In addition to
the $1,058,400,000 provided in this Act for new starts, the
conference agreement reallocates $26,994,048 to other new
start projects contained in this Act. Reallocated funds are
derived from unobligated balances from the following new
start projects:
Burlington to Gloucester, New Jersey (Public Law 103-331)....$1,488,750
Orlando, Florida Lynx light rail project.....................20,521,470
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airport busway project (Public Law 104,983,828
The conference agreement deletes language proposed by the
Senate that would have required the Administrator of the
Federal Transit Administration, not later than February 1,
2001, to submit individually to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the recommended grant funding
levels for the respective buses and bus-related facilities
and new fixed guideway projects listed in the Senate bill and
accompanying report. The House bill contained no similar
provisions.
The conference agreement also deletes language proposed by
the Senate that listed new fixed guideway systems and
extensions to existing systems that are eligible to receive
funding for final design and construction or are eligible to
receive funding for alternatives analysis and preliminary
engineering. The House bill contained no similar provision.
The conference agreement includes a provision that makes
funds appropriated to the Miami-Dade east-west multimodal and
the Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue corridor projects in
previous Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Acts available to the Miami, Florida south
busway project.
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate that makes funds appropriated in Public Law 105-
277 for the Colorado-North Front Range corridor feasibility
study available for the Colorado-Eagle Airport to Avon light
rail system feasibility study. The House bill contained a
provision that would have returned these funds to the new
starts program for reallocation to other new start projects
in fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by
the Senate that makes funds appropriated in Public Law 106-
69, the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, for certain bus and bus
facilities projects in the state of Alabama available to the
state of Alabama for buses and bus facilities. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
Three-year availability of section 5309 discretionary
funds.--The conference agreement includes a provision that
permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new
start and bus facilities funds from projects which remain
unobligated after three years. The conferees, however, direct
the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in the 1997 and 1998
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Acts for the following projects:
New starts
Burlington--Essex, Vermont commuter rail
Cleveland Berea Red Line extension
Colorado Roaring Fork Valley rail project
Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor
Galveston, Texas rail trolley system project
New York St. George ferry terminal project
New Orleans Canal Street corridor project
New Orleans Desire Streetcar project
North Carolina Triangle Transit project
Salt Lake City, Utah commuter rail project
San Bernardino Metrolink project
San Diego Mid-Coast project
Virginia Railway Express--Woodbridge station improvement
project
Buses and bus facilities
Arlington, Virginia Clarendon canopy project
Buena Park, California bus facilities
Burlington, Vermont multimodal center
Chatham, Georgia bus facility
Columbia, South Carolina buses and bus facilities
Corvalis, Oregon buses and bus facilities
Dulles, Virginia buses
El Paso, Texas demand response facility
Everett, Washington multimodal center
Folsom, California multimodal facility
Galveston, Texas buses and bus facilities
Jackson, Mississippi maintenance facility
King County, Washington park and ride expansion
Lake Tahoe, California intermodal transit center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin intermodal facility
Minnesota Metro Council Transit Operators, buses and bus
facilities
Mobile, Alabama buses and intermodal facilities
Modesto, California bus maintenance facility
Monroe, Louisiana buses
New Castle, Delaware buses and bus facilities
New Haven, Connecticut multimodal center
North Carolina buses and bus facilities
Red Rose Transit Authority, Pennsylvania
Rialto, California Metro Link depot
Sacramento, California bus facility
[[Page 21175]]
Saint Tammany Parish, buses and bus facilities
Salt Lake City, Ogden and West Valley, Utah intermodal
facilities
San Joaquin, California buses and bus facilities
Santa Clara, California buses and bus facilities
Seattle, Washington Kingdome intermodal facility
Sonoma County, California park and ride facility
Staten Island, New York mobility project
Tampa, Florida buses and bus facilities
Tucson, Arizona intermodal facility
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania mobility project
The conferees agree that when the Congress extends the
availability of funds that remain unobligated after three
years and would otherwise be available for reallocation at
the discretion of the administrator, such funds are extended
only for one additional year, absent further congressional
direction.
The conferees direct the FTA to reprogram funds from
recoveries and previous appropriations that remain available
after three years and are available for reallocation to only
those section 3 new starts that have full funding grant
agreements in place on the date of enactment of this Act, and
with respect to bus and bus facilities, only to those bus and
bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying
reports of the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days
prior to any such proposed reallocation.
Bus and bus facilities.--The conference agreement provides
$529,200,000, together with $50,000,000 transferred from
``Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants'' and merged
with funding under this heading, for the replacement,
rehabilitation and purchase of buses and related equipment
and the construction of bus-related facilities. Funds
provided for buses and bus facilities are to be distributed
as follows:
Conference
State of Alabama:
Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight facili$1,000,000
Birmingham--Jefferson County Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities................................................1,000,000
Dothan--Wiregrass Transit Authority buses and bus facilities..750,000
Huntsville Space and Rocket Center intermodal center........2,000,000
Hunstville, intermodal facility...............................500,000
Huntsville International Airport intermodal center..........5,000,000
Lanett, vans..................................................250,000
Mobile Waterfront Terminal..................................5,000,000
Montgomery--Moulton Street Intermodal Facility..............3,000,000
Montgomery, civil rights trail trolleys.......................250,000
Shelby County, vans...........................................200,000
Staewide, bus and bus facilities............................1,500,000
Tuscaloosa interdisciplinary science building parking and intermodal
facility..................................................9,500,000
University of Alabama Birmingham fuel cell buses............2,000,000
University of North Alabama, bus and bus facilities.........2,000,000
University of South Alabama, buses and bus facilities.......2,500,000
State of Alaska:
Alaska State Fair park and ride and passenger shuttle system1,000,000
Denali Depot intermodal facility............................3,000,000
Fairbanks Bus/Rail Intermodal Facility......................3,100,000
Fairbanks parking garage and intermodal center..............1,100,000
Homer Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge intermodal and welcome c850,000
Port McKenzie intermodal facilities.........................7,500,000
Ship Creek pedestrain and bus facilities and intermodal center/
parking garage............................................5,000,000
State of Arizona:
Mesa bus maintenance facility--Regional Public Transportation
Authority.................................................2,000,000
Phoenix, bus and bus facilities.............................4,500,000
South Central Avenue transit center.........................2,000,000
Tucson intermodal transportation center at Union Pacific Dep3,000,000
Tucson, bus and bus facilities..............................1,000,000
State of Arkansas:
Central Arkansas Transit Authority, bus and bus facilities..1,055,000
Hot Springs--national park intermodal parking facility........500,000
Nevada County, vans and mini-vans..............................90,000
Pine Bluff, buses.............................................290,000
River Market and College Station Liviable Communities Progra1,100,000
State of Arkansas, small rural and elderly and handicapped transit
buses and bus facilities..................................3,000,000
State of California:
AC Transit zero-emissions fuel cell bus deployment demonstration
project...................................................1,000,000
Alameda Contra Costs Transit District, buses and bus facilitie500,000
Anaheim, Buses and Bus facilities.............................250,000
Brea, buses...................................................150,000
Calabasas, buses..............................................500,000
Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection), buses.....500,000
City of Livemore, park and ride facility......................500,000
Commerce, buses.............................................1,000,000
Compton, buses and bus-related equipment......................250,000
Culver City, buses............................................750,000
Davis, buses................................................1,000,000
El Dorado, buses..............................................500,000
El Segundo, Douglas Street gap closure and intermodal facili2,100,000
Folsom, transit stations....................................1,500,000
Foothill Transit, buses and bus facilities..................2,500,000
Fresno, intermodal facilities.................................500,000
Humboldt County, buses and bus facilities.....................500,000
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, bu4,500,000
Marin County, bus facilities..................................910,000
Modesto, bus facility.........................................250,000
Monrovia, electric shuttles...................................580,000
Monterey Salinas Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities..500,000
Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, buses................2,000,000
Oceanside, intermodal facility..............................2,000,000
Placer County, buses and bus facilities.......................500,000
Playa Vista, Shuttle buses and bus-related equipment and fac3,000,000
Redlands, trolley project.....................................800,000
Rialto, intermodal facility...................................550,000
Riverside County, buses.......................................500,000
Sacramento, buses and bus facilities........................1,000,000
San Bernardino, intermodal facility.........................1,600,000
San Bernardino, train station.................................600,000
San Diego, East Village station improvement plan............1,000,000
San Francisco, MUNI buses and bus facilities................2,000,000
Santa Barbara County, mini-buses..............................240,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, buses............500,000
Santa Clarita, maintenance facility.........................2,000,000
Santa Cruz, buses and bus facilities........................1,550,000
Sonoma County, buses and bus facilities.....................1,000,000
Sunline transit agency, buses...............................1,000,000
Temecula, bus shelters........................................200,000
Vista, bus center.............................................300,000
State of Colorado:
Statewise bus and bus facilities...........................10,000,000
State of Connecticut:
Bridgeport, intermodal center...............................5,000,000
Hartford/New Britain busway...................................750,000
New Haven, trolley cars and related equipment...............1,000,000
New London, parade project transit improvements.............2,000,000
Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access..................1,000,000
Waterbury, bus garage.......................................1,000,000
State of Delaware:
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................3,500,000
State of Florida:
Statewide bus and bus facilities...........................15,500,000
State of Georgia:
Atlanta, buses and bus facilities...........................2,000,000
Chatham, buses and bus facilities...........................2,000,000
[[Page 21176]]
Cobb County, buses..........................................1,250,000
Georgia Regional Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities3,000,000
State of Hawaii:
Honolulu bus and bus facility improvements..................6,000,000
State of Idaho:
Statewide, bus and bus facilities...........................3,500,000
State of Illinois:
Harvey, intermodal facilities and related equipment...........250,000
Statewide, bus and bus facilities...........................6,000,000
State of Indiana:
Evansville, buses and bus facilities........................1,500,000
Gary--Adam Benjamin intermodal Center.........................800,000
Greater Lafayette Public Corporation--Wabash Landing buses and bus
facilities................................................1,500,000
Indianapolis, buses and bus-related equipment...............2,500,000
South Bend, buses...........................................3,000,000
West Lafayette, buses and bus facilities....................2,100,000
State of Iowa:
Ames maintenance facility...................................1,200,000
Cedar Rapids intermodal facility............................1,200,000
Clinton facility expansion....................................500,000
Des Moines park and ride......................................700,000
Dubuque, buses and bus facilities.............................560,000
Iowa City intermodal facility...............................1,200,000
Mason City, bus facility......................................905,000
Sioux City multimodal ground transportation center..........2,000,000
Sioux City Trolley system.....................................700,000
Statewide, bus and bus facilities...........................2,500,000
Waterloo, buses and bus facilities............................537,000
State of Kansas:
Johnson County, buses.........................................250,000
Kansas City, buses..........................................2,000,000
Kansas City, JOBLINKS.........................................250,000
Kansas Department of Transportation, rural transit buses....3,000,000
Lawrence bus and bus facilities...............................500,000
Topeka, transit facility......................................600,000
Wichita, buses and ITS related equipment....................3,000,000
Wyandotte County, buses.......................................250,000
Commonwealth of Kentucky:
Audubon Area Community Action.................................190,000
Bluegrass Community Action, buses and bus-related equipment...160,000
Central Community Action......................................100,000
Community Action of Southern Kentucky.........................100,000
Fulton County, vans and buses.................................140,000
Hardin County, buses..........................................300,000
Kentucky Department of Transportation.........................500,000
Kentucky (southern and eastern) transit vehicles............3,000,000
Lexington, LexTran, buses and bus facilities................3,500,000
Louisville, bus and bus facilities..........................3,000,000
Maysville, bus-related equipment...............................64,000
Morehead, buses and bus-related equipment......................39,000
Murray/Calloway County, buses and bus related equipment........60,000
Northern Kentucky Transit Agency, vans.........................42,000
Paducah Transit Authority, bus and bus facilities...........2,000,000
Pennyrile, vans and related equipment.........................200,000
Pikeville, transit facility.................................2,000,000
State of Louisiana:
Lafeyette multi-modal facility..............................1,250,000
Plaquemines Panish ferry....................................1,000,000
St. Bernard Parish intermodal facilities....................1,250,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................2,500,000
State of Maine:
Bangor intermodal transportation center.....................1,500,000
Statewide, bus, bus facilities and ferries..................4,000,000
State of Maryland:
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................8,000,000
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Attleboro, intermodal facilities............................1,000,000
Berkshire, buses and bus facilities.........................1,000,000
Beverly and Salem, intermodal station improvements............600,000
Brockton, intermodal center.................................1,000,000
Lowell, transit hub.........................................1,250,000
Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, bus facility.....500,000
Montachusett, bus facilities, Leominister.....................250,000
Montachusett, intermodal facilty, Fitchburg.................1,375,000
Pioneer Valley, Pratransit vehicles and equipment...........1,000,000
Springfield, intermodal facility..............................500,000
Woburn, buses and bus facilities..............................250,000
State of Michigan:
Detroit, buses and bus facilities...........................3,000,000
Flint, buses and bus facilities...............................500,000
Lapeer, multi-modal transportation facility....................50,000
SMART community transit, buses and paratransit vehicles.....4,125,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities........................11,000,000
Traverse City, transfer station.............................1,000,000
State of Minnesota:
Greater Minnesota buses and bus facilities..................1,250,000
Metro Transit, buses and bus facilities....................13,500,000
St. Cloud, buses and bus facilities.........................2,125,000
State of Mississippi:
Brookhaven multimodal transportation center.................1,000,000
Coast Transit Authority multimodal facility and shuttle serv3,000,000
Harrison county, multimodal center..........................1,500,000
Jackson, buses..............................................1,000,000
Picayune multimodal center....................................650,000
State of Mississippi rural transit vehicles and regional transit
centers...................................................3,000,000
State of Missouri:
Bi-State Development Agency, buses..........................3,000,000
Dunklin, Mississippi, Scott, Ripley, Stoddard and Cape Ciradeau
counties, buses and bus facilities........................1,000,000
Excelsior Springs bus replacement.............................200,000
Jefferson City van and equipment purchase.....................250,000
Kansas City, buses and bus facilities.......................1,300,000
OATS buses and vans.........................................2,000,000
Southeast Missouri Transportation Service bus and bus facili1,000,000
Southwest Missouri State University, intermodal facility....1,000,000
St. Joseph bus replacement..................................1,000,000
State of Missouri bus and bus facilities....................3,000,000
State of Montana:
Billings buses and intermodal facility......................4,000,000
Blackfoot Indian Reservation bus facility.....................500,000
Great Falls Transit district buses and bus facilities.......1,000,000
Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association buses..750,000
State of Nebraska:
Missouri River pedestrian crossing--Omaha...................4,000,000
State of Nevada:
Clark County bus passenger intermodal facility--Henderson...2,000,000
Clark County, bus rapid transit.............................3,500,000
Lake Tahoe CNG buses and fleet conversion...................2,000,000
Reno and Sparks, buses and bus facilities...................1,000,000
Washoe County buses and bus facilities......................3,000,000
State of New Jersey:
Elizabeth Ferry Project.......................................500,000
New Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses...................4,000,000
Newark Arena bus improvements...............................4,000,000
Trenton, train/intermodal station...........................5,000,000
State of New Mexico:
Albuquerque automatic vehicle monitoring system (SOLAR).....2,000,000
Albuquerque bus replacement.................................1,250,000
Albuquerque, transit facility...............................5,000,000
Angel Fire Bus and Bus Facilities.............................750,000
Carlsbad, intermodal facilities...............................630,000
[[Page 21177]]
Clovis, buses and bus facility..............................1,625,000
Las Cruces, buses.............................................500,000
Santa Fe buses and bus facilities...........................2,000,000
Valencia County, transportation station improvements........1,250,000
State of New York:
Buffalo, buses..............................................2,000,000
Buffalo, intermodal facility..................................500,000
Eastchester, Metro North facilities...........................250,000
Greenport and Sag Harbor, ferries and vans.....................60,000
Highbridge pedestrian walkway.................................100,000
Jamaica, intermodal facilities................................250,000
Larchmont, intermodal facility..............................1,000,000
Long Beach, bus maintenance facility..........................750,000
Midtown West intermodal ferry terminal......................7,000,000
Nassau County, buses........................................2,300,000
New Rochelle, intermodal transportation center..............1,000,000
Oneida County, buses........................................1,000,000
Rensselaer County, intermodal facility........................500,000
Rochester, buses and bus facilities.........................2,000,000
Saratoga County, buses........................................650,000
Suffolk County, senior and handicapped vans...................500,000
Sullivan County, buses, bus facilities, and related equipmen1,250,000
Syracuse, buses.............................................3,175,000
Tompkins County, intermodal facility..........................625,000
Weschester County, buses....................................1,000,000
Weschester and Duchess counties, vans.........................200,000
State of North Carolina:
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................8,500,000
State of North Dakota:
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................2,500,000
State of Ohio:
Cincinnati--intermodal improvements.........................1,000,000
Cincinnati Riverfront Transit Center........................3,000,000
Columbus Near East transit center...........................1,000,000
Dayton--Second and Main Multimodal Transportation Center......625,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities...........................14,000,000
State of Oklahoma:
Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority pedestrian and streetscape
improvements..............................................2,500,000
Oklahoma City bus transfer center...........................2,500,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities............................4,000,000
State of Oregon:
Albany bus purchase--Linn-Benton transit system...............200,000
Basin Transit System buses....................................160,000
Columbia County ADA buses.....................................110,000
Coos County buses..............................................70,000
Corvallis Transit System operations facility..................260,000
Hood River County bus and bus facility........................240,000
Lakeview buses.................................................50,000
Lane Transit District buses and bus facility................1,000,000
Philomath buses................................................40,000
Redmond, buses and vans........................................50,000
Rogue Valley buses............................................960,000
Salem Area Transit District buses...........................1,500,000
Sandy buses...................................................220,000
South Clackamas Transportation District bus....................90,000
South Corridor Transit Center and park and ride facilities in
Clackamas County..........................................1,500,000
Sunset Empire Transit District improvements to Clatsop County
Intermodal Facility.........................................800,000
Tillamook County District transit facilities..................160,000
Union County bus...............................................44,000
Wasco County buses.............................................96,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County, buses.......................................250,000
Area Transit Authority, ITS related activities..............1,800,000
Beaver County, buses........................................1,000,000
Berks County, buses and bus facilities......................1,000,000
Bethlehem intermodal facility...............................1,500,000
Bradford County, buses and bus facilities...................1,000,000
Bucks County, intermodal facility improvements..............1,250,000
Cambria County Transit Authority, maintenance facilities......750,000
Centre Area Transportation Authority, buses.................1,600,000
Fayette County, maintenance facilities........................500,000
Indiana, maintenance facilities...............................350,000
Lancaster, buses............................................1,000,000
Lycoming County, buses and bus facilities...................2,000,000
Mid County Transit Authority, buses...........................135,000
Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority, buses.......................250,000
Monroe County, buses and bus facilities.....................1,000,000
Philadelphia--Frankford Transportation Center...............3,500,000
Philadelphia, Callowhill bus garage...........................250,000
Phoenixville, transit related improvements..................1,250,000
Somerset County, ITS related equipment........................100,000
Westmoreland County, buses and related equipment..............240,000
Wilkes-Barre intermodal transportation center...............1,000,000
State of Rhode Island:
Statewide, buses and bus facilities.........................4,000,000
State of South Carolina:
Statewide, buses and bus facilities.........................6,675,000
State of Tennessee:
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation, buses.......2,000,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities.........................4,000,000
State of Texas:
Austin, buses.................................................500,000
Brazos Transit District, buses................................500,000
Corpus Christi, buses and bus facilities....................1,000,000
Dallas, buses...............................................2,000,000
El Paso, buses..............................................1,000,000
Fort Worth, intermodal transportation center................3,500,000
Fort Worth, buses and bus facilities........................3,000,000
Galveston, buses and bus facilities...........................250,000
Harris County, buses and bus facilities.....................2,000,000
Houston Metro, Main Street Transit Corridor improvements....1,000,000
Lubbock, buses and bus facilities...........................1,000,000
Texas Rural Transit Vehicle Fleet Replacement Program.......4,000,000
Waco, maintenance facility..................................1,650,000
State of Utah:
Statewide Olympic bus and bus facilities...................10,000,000
State of Vermont:
Burlington multimodal transportation center.................1,500,000
Bellows Falls Multimodal....................................1,500,000
Brattleboro multimodal center...............................2,500,000
Central Vermont Transit Authority buses and bus facilities..1,500,000
Chittenden County transportation authority, buses...........1,000,000
Vermont Statewide paratransit...............................1,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Statewide bus and bus facilities...........................15,464,000
State of Washington:
Clallam County, transportation center.........................500,000
Clark County, intermodal facilities.........................1,000,000
Ephrata, buses................................................440,000
Everett, buses..............................................1,500,000
King County Metro Eastgate Park and Ride....................3,000,000
King County Metro transit bus and bus facilities............2,000,000
Renton/Port Quendall transit project..........................500,000
Richland, bus maintenance facility..........................1,000,000
Snohomish County, buses and bus facilities..................1,000,000
Sound Transit, regional express buses.......................2,000,000
Statewide combined small transit system request--bus and bus
facilities................................................1,250,000
Thurston County, bus-related equipment......................1,250,000
State of West Virginia:
Statewide buses and bus facilities..........................2,000,000
State of Wisconsin:
Statewide bus and bus facilities...........................14,000,000
State of Wyoming:
Cheyenne transit and operation facility.......................920,000
[[Page 21178]]
State of Alabama.--The conference agreement provides a
total of $1,500,000 for buses and bus facilities within the
State of Alabama. Within the funds provided to the state,
$25,000 shall be available for Lamar County vans.
State of Florida.--The conferees direct that the funds
provided to the State of Florida for buses and bus facilities
are to be allocated to all providers within the state,
including Tallahassee.
Hot Springs, Arkansas.--Up to $560,000 of the funds
allocated for the transportation depot and plaza project in
Hot Springs, Arkansas in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act may be
available for buses and bus facilities.
Commonwealth of Kentucky.--The conference agreement
includes $500,000 for buses and bus facilities for the
Kentucky Department of Transportation, to be allocated as
follows: $88,000 for the city of Frankfort for minibuses;
$64,000 for Community Action of Fayette/Lexington for
cutaways and lifts; and $102,400 for Lexington Red Cross for
minibuses.
State of Louisiana.--The conference agreement includes
$2,500,000 for buses and bus facilities in the State of
Louisiana. These funds are to be allocated as follows:
Alexandria buses and vans, $40,000; Baton Rouge buses and bus
equipment, $50,000; Jefferson Parish buses and bus related
facilities, $20,000; Lafayette buses and bus related
facilities, $300,000; Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development vans, $135,000; Monroe buses and bus related
facilities, $135,000; New Orleans bus lease-maintenance,
$1,510,000; Shreveport buses, $295,000; and St. Tammany
Parish park and ride, $15,000.
State of Michigan.--The conference agreement includes
$11,000,000 for statewide buses and bus facilities. These
funds are to be allocated only for the following transit
agencies: Holland, Cadillac/Wexford, Grand Haven, Ludington,
Manistee County, Yates Township, Muskegon area transit
authority, Barry County, Ionia, Ionia transit authority,
Alma, Big Rapids, Clare County, Crawford County transit
commission, Gladwin County, Greenville, Isabella County
transit commission, Midland, Midland County, Ogemaw County,
Roscommon County, Shiawassee, Twin Cities, Berrien County,
Cass County, Dowagiac DAR, Kalamazoo County, Van Buren
County, Battle Creek, Adrian, Branch area transit authority,
Eaton County, Mecosta County, Lenawee County, Bay Metro and
Saginaw.
Nassau County, New York.--The conference agreement includes
$2,300,000 for bus and bus facilities in Nassau County, New
York. Of that amount, not less than $400,000 shall be made
available for service to and from the Nassau County Medical
Center and its community health centers.
State of Utah.--The conference agreement includes
$10,000,000 for Olympic buses and bus facilities in the State
of Utah. These funds are to be available for temporary and
permanent bus and bus facility investments to satisfy the
transportation requirements of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
These funds are to be allocated by the Secretary based on the
approved transportation management plan for the Salt Lake
City 2002 Winter Olympic Games and the Secretary shall make
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation.
Commonwealth of Virginia.--The conference agreement
includes $15,464,000 for the Commonwealth of Virginia for
buses and bus facilities which shall be distributed as
follows: Loudoun Transit multi-modal facility, $1,500,000;
Hampton Roads bus and bus facilities, $2,500,000; Prince
William County fleet replacement, $3,000,000; Fair Lakes
League, $500,000; Springfield station improvements, $500,000;
Fairfax County Transportation Association of Greater
Springfield, $500,000, Falls Church Bus Rapid Transit
terminus, $1,000,000; Lynchburg bus and bus facility,
$1,500,000; Jamestown/Yorktown and Williamsburg CNG bus,
$1,500,000; Danville bus replacement, $58,000; Farmville bus
and bus facilities, $100,000; Charlottesville bus and bus
facilities, $1,000,000; City of Richmond bus and bus
facilities, $2,000,000.
New fixed guideway systems.--In total, the conference
agreement provides $1,085,394,048 for new fixed guideway
systems, of which $1,058,400,000 is from new appropriations
and $26,994,048 is derived from funds made available in
previous appropriations acts that have been reprogrammed to
new starts funding in fiscal year 2001. The conference
agreement provides for the following distribution of the
recommended funding for new fixed guideway systems as
follows:
Project Conference level
Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects.............................$10,400,000
Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project............500,000
Atlanta--MARTA north line extension project..................25,000,000
Austin Capital Metro light rail project.......................1,000,000
Baltimore central LRT double track project....................3,000,000
Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor..........................5,000,000
Boston--South Boston Piers transitway project................25,000,000
Boston Urban Ring project.....................................1,000,000
Burlington-Bennington (ABRB), Vermont commuter rail project...2,000,000
Calais, Maine branch line regional transit program............1,000,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project..................2,000,000
Central Florida commuter rail project.........................3,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina, north corridor and south corridor transitway
projects....................................................5,000,000
Chicago--METRA commuter rail projects........................35,000,000
Chicago--Ravenswood and Douglas Branch reconstruction project15,000,000
Clark County, Nevada RTC fixed guideway project...............1,500,000
Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project.................4,000,000
Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project..........................1,000,000
Dallas north central light rail extension project............70,000,000
Denver--Southeast corridor project............................3,000,000
Denver--Southwest corridor project...........................20,200,000
Detroit, Michigan metropolitan airport light rail project.......500,000
Dulles corridor project......................................50,000,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail project....15,000,000
Galveston rail trolley extension project......................1,000,000
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska commuter rail project............15,000,000
Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit corridor 1 commuter rail
project.......................................................500,000
Hollister/Gilroy branch line rail extension project...........1,000,000
Honolulu, Hawaii bus rapid transit project....................2,500,000
Houston advanced transit project..............................2,500,000
Houston regional bus project.................................10,750,000
Indianapolis, Indiana northeast-downtown corridor project.....3,000,000
Johnson County, Kansas I-35 commuter rail project.............1,000,000
Kansas City, Missouri Southtown corridor project..............3,500,000
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project...............4,000,000
Little Rock, Arkansas river rail project......................3,000,000
Long Island Railroad East Side access project.................8,000,000
Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side corridors projects.........2,000,000
Los Angeles North Hollywood extension project................50,000,000
Los Angeles--San Diego LOSSAN corridor project................3,000,000
Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire commuter rail proj2,000,000
MARC expansion projects--Penn-Camden lines connector and midday storage
facility...................................................10,000,000
Massachusetts North Shore corridor project....................1,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail extension project......6,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee regional commuter rail project...........6,000,000
New Jersey Hudson Bergen project............................121,000,000
Newark-Elizabeth rail link project............................7,000,000
Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail project............2,000,000
Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania passenger rail pro1,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail extension project.10,000,000
Orange County, California transitway project..................2,000,000
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro project...10,000,000
Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County metro project.................2,000,000
Phoenix metropolitan area transit project....................10,000,000
Pittsburgh North Shore--central business district corridor pro5,000,000
Pittsburgh stage II light rail project.......................12,000,000
Portland--Interstate MAX LRT extension project................7,500,000
Portland, Maine marine highway program........................2,000,000
Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project.................5,000,000
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit project..........10,000,000
[[Page 21179]]
Rhode Island-Pawtucket and T.F. Green commuter rail and maintenance
facility......................................................500,000
Sacramento, California south corridor LRT project............35,200,000
Salt Lake City--University light rail line project............2,000,000
San Bernardino, California Metrolink project..................1,000,000
San Diego Mission Valley East light rail project.............31,500,000
San Francisco BART extension to the airport project..........80,000,000
San Jose Tasman West light rail project......................12,250,000
San Juan Tren Urbano project.................................75,000,000
Santa Fe-Eldorado, New Mexico rail link project...............1,500,000
Seattle, Washington--Central Link LRT project................50,000,000
Spokane, Washington South Valley corridor light rail project..4,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri MetroLink Cross County connector project..1,000,000
St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extenson project...............60,000,000
Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway corridor.................8,000,000
Stockton, California Altamont commuter rail project...........6,000,000
Twin Cities Transitways projects..............................5,000,000
Twin Cities Transitways--Hiawatha corridor project...........50,000,000
Virginia Railway Express commuter rail project................3,000,000
Washington Metro--Blue Line extension--Addison Road (Largo) pr7,500,000
West Trenton, New Jersey rail project.........................2,000,000
Whitehall and St. George ferry terminal projects..............2,500,000
Wilmington, Delaware downtown transit corridor project........5,000,000
Wilsonville to Washington County, Oregon commuter rail project1,000,000
Austin, Texas capital metro light rail project.--The
conference agreement includes $1,000,000 for preliminary
engineering work for the north/south and southeast corridor
in Austin, Texas.
Boston--South Boston Piers transitway project.--The
conference agreement includes $25,000,000 for the South
Boston Piers transitway project. Because of construction
delays and coordination of this project with the Central
Artery/Tunnel project, the conferees direct that none of the
funds provided in this Act for the South Boston Piers
transitway project shall be available until (1) the project
sponsor produces a finance plan that clearly delineates the
full cost to complete the project, as well as other planned
capital and operational requirements of the MBTA, and the
manner in which the sponsor expects to pay these costs; (2)
the FHWA and the FTA conducts a final review and accepts the
plan and certifies to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that the fiscal management of the project
meets or exceeds accepted U.S. government standards; (3) the
General Accounting Office and the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General conduct an independent
analysis of the plans and provide such analysis to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of FTA
accepting the plan; and (4) the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations have concluded their review of the analysis
within 60 days of the transmittal of the analysis to the
Committees. Lastly, the House directs the FTA and the IG to
conduct ongoing, continual financial management reviews of
this project.
Central Florida commuter rail project.--For the central
Florida commuter rail project, the conference agreement
provides $3,000,000. The conferees are aware that local
agencies in Orlando, Florida rescinded their plans to proceed
with a light rail project in the Orlando area, for which
nearly $56,000,000 in previously appropriated funds were made
available, and are now proceeding with commuter rail. While
the conference agreement reallocates these balances from the
Orlando light rail project to other projects in fiscal year
2001, the conferees are mindful of the continuing need to
improve mobility in the greater Orlando area and will
consider future appropriations for the central Florida
commuter rail project as plans are approved by the
appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
Chicago-METRA commuter rail projects.--The conference
agreement includes $35,000,000 for preliminary engineering,
design and construction on the METRA commuter rail projects
in Chicago, Illinois.
Denver-Southeast cooridor project.--The conference
agreement includes $3,000,000 for the Denver southeast
corridor project, as proposed by the House. The conferees
have provided this amount without prejudice to the pending
full funding grant agreement, while recognizing that the
federal financial commitment to the southwest line was first
necessary to complete.
Dulles corridor.--The conference agreement includes
$50,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design on the
Dulles corridor project.
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter rail project.--The
conferees agree that all references in the fiscal year 2000
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act and accompanying statement of managers
referring to Girdwood, Alaska, commuter rail project and
North Anchorage to Girdwood are intended to refer to the
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter rail project as
contained in the Act.
Kansas City, Missouri southtown corridor.--The conference
agreement includes $3,500,000 for engineering and design work
for the southtown corridor light rail project in Kansas City,
Missouri.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.--The
conferees expect that the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority will undertake from resources available to
the Authority access improvements at Ballston Metro station.
Whitehall and St. George ferry terminal projects.--The
conference agreement provides $2,500,000 for the Whitehall
and St. George ferry terminal projects in the New York City
area.
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The conference agreement includes $350,000,000 in
liquidating cash for discretionary grants as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS
The conference agreement includes a total program level of
$100,000,000 for job access and reverse commute grants as
proposed by the House and the Senate. Within this total, the
conference agreement appropriates $20,000,000 from the
general fund as proposed by the House and the Senate. The
conference agreement includes a provision that waives the cap
for small urban and rural areas and provides that up to
$250,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may be
used for technical assistance, technical support and
performance reviews of the job access and reverse commute
grants program.
Funds appropriated for the job access and reverse commute
grants program are to be distributed as follows:
Project Conference
Alameda and Contra-Costa Counties, California..................$500,000
Archuleta County, Colorado.......................................75,000
Athol/Orange community transportation, Massachusetts............400,000
Broome County Transit, New York.................................250,000
Broward County, Florida.......................................2,000,000
Buffalo, New York...............................................500,000
Capital District Authority, New York............................250,000
Central Kenai Peninsula public transportation...................500,000
Central Ohio....................................................750,000
Chatham, Georgia................................................500,000
Chicago, Illinois.............................................1,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia......................................4,500,000
Corpus Christi RTA, Texas.......................................550,000
Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City, Delaware and Jackson Counties1,600,000
District of Columbia..........................................1,000,000
Dona Ana County, New Mexico.....................................250,000
DuPage County, Illinois.........................................500,000
Easter Seals West Alabama work transition programs..............850,000
Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern Counties, California...........3,000,000
Greater Erie Community Action Committee, Pennsylvania...........400,000
Hillsborough County, Florida....................................600,000
Indianapolis, Indiana.........................................1,000,000
Kansas City, Kansas...........................................1,000,000
Las Cruces, New Mexico..........................................260,000
Los Angeles, California.......................................3,500,000
Mantanuska-Susitna borough, M.A.S.C.O.T, Alaska..................60,000
Meramec Community Transit programs, Missouri....................150,000
Mobile, Alabama.................................................250,000
Monterey, California............................................150,000
Nassau County, New York.........................................500,000
North Oakland County, Michigan..................................250,000
OATS job access programs, Missouri..............................750,000
Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania...2,000,000
Portland, Oregon..............................................1,840,000
Rhode Island community food bank transportation.................100,000
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority.........................1,000,000
Rochester, New York.............................................300,000
Sacramento, California........................................1,000,000
San Francisco, California.......................................275,000
[[Page 21180]]
Santa Clara County, California..................................500,000
SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.............................3,000,000
Sitka, Alaska transit expansion program.........................400,000
Southern Illinois RIDES.........................................150,000
State of Alabama..............................................1,500,000
State of Arkansas.............................................4,000,000
State of Illinois.............................................1,000,000
State of Maine..................................................500,000
State of Maryland.............................................2,400,000
State of New Hampshire..........................................340,000
State of New Mexico...........................................2,000,000
State of Oklahoma.............................................4,500,000
State of Tennessee............................................2,000,000
State of Vermont..............................................1,500,000
State of Washington...........................................2,000,000
State of West Virginia........................................1,500,000
State of Wisconsin............................................4,700,000
Suffolk County, New York........................................445,000
Sullivan County, New York.......................................200,000
Tompkins County, New York.......................................300,000
Troy State University, Alabama--Rosa Parks Center.............2,000,000
Tucson, Arizona...............................................1,000,000
Tysons Corner/Dulles Corridor, Virginia.........................500,000
Ulster County, New York.........................................200,000
Washoe County, Nevada.........................................1,000,000
Ways to Work family loan program, Southeastern U.S............2,000,000
Western Massachusetts...........................................350,000
York County, Maine..............................................900,000
State of Tennessee.--Of the funds provided to the State of
Tennessee, $500,000 shall be available to Chattanooga Area
Regional Transit Authority in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
operations and maintenance
(Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)
The conference agreement appropriates $13,004,000 for
operations and maintenance of the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation as proposed by the House. The Senate
bill provided $12,400,000.
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and Special Programs
The conference agreement appropriates $36,373,000 for
research and special programs instead of $36,452,000 as
proposed by the House and $34,370,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within this total, $4,707,000 is available until
September 30, 2003 as proposed by the House instead
$4,201,000 as proposed by the Senate. The following
adjustments are made to the budget estimate:
Slight reduction in hazardous materials international standards-$23,000
Fund 2 of 5 new emergency transportation positions.............-244,000
Reduce proposed increases for crisis response..................-300,000
Reduce funding for new transportation infrastructure program.-2,400,000
Deny funding for university marine grants....................-2,500,000
Human centered fatigue research................................+300,000
Continue to fund Garrett Morgan program in-house...............-200,000
Reduction in business modernization............................-564,000
Reduce employee development funding............................-227,000
________________
Net adjustment to budget estimate.......................-$6,158,000
Bill language is retained that permits up to $1,200,000 in
fees to be collected and deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury as offsetting receipts. Also, bill language is
included that permits funds received from states, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities and private sources
for expenses incurred for training, reports publication and
dissemination, and travel expenses incurred in the
performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approval
functions. Both of these provisions were contained in the
House and Senate bills.
pipeline safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
The conference agreement provides a total of $47,044,000
for the pipeline safety program instead of $40,137,000 as
proposed by the House and $43,144,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within this total, $23,837,000 is available until
September 30, 2003 instead of $20,713,000 as proposed by the
House and $24,432,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Of this total, the conference agreement specifies that
$7,488,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund; $36,556,000 from the Pipeline Safety Fund; and
$3,000,000 from the reserve fund. The House bill allocated
$4,263,000 from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
$35,874,000 from the Pipeline Safety Trust Fund. The Senate
bill provided $8,750,000 from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund; $31,894,000 from the Pipeline Safety Fund; and
$2,500,000 from the reserve fund.
Bill language specifies that the reserve fund should be
used for damage prevention grants to states as proposed by
the Senate. The House bill contained no similar provision.
The following table reflects the total allocation for
pipeline safety in fiscal year 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil spill
Budget activity Pipeline liability Reserve Total
safety fund trust fund fund \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel, compensation, and benefits....................... $8,963,000 $900,000 ........... $9,863,000
Operating expenses.......................................... 3,614,000 1,345,000 ........... 4,959,000
Information systems......................................... 935,000 400,000 ........... 1,335,000
Risk assessment and technical studies....................... 850,000 400,000 ........... 1,250,000
Compliance.................................................. 200,000 100,000 ........... 300,000
Training and information dissemination...................... 800,000 300,000 ........... 1,100,000
Emergency notification...................................... 100,000 ........... ........... 100,000
Public education and damage control......................... 300,000 200,000 ........... 500,000
Oil Pollution Act........................................... ........... 2,443,000 ........... 2,443,000
Research and development.................................... 2,744,000 ........... ........... 2,744,000
State grants................................................ 15,000,000 1,400,000 ........... 16,400,000
Risk management............................................. 50,000 ........... ........... 50,000
One-call notification....................................... 1,000,000 ........... ........... 1,000,000
Damage prevention grants.................................... 2,000,000 ........... $3,000,000 5,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 36,556,000 7,488,000 3,000,000 47,044,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.
State of Washington.--Within the funds provided for
operating expenses, the conference agreement provides
$800,000 to the State of Washington to match the state
legislature's supplemental appropriation for pipeline safety
activities as directed by the Senate. The House contained no
similar appropriation.
Research and development.--The budget request for research
and development has been increased by $600,000 to support
airborne mapping research, technology, and engineering in
support of improved leak detection, analysis, and response by
federal, state, and industry pipeline safety officials.
emergency preparedness grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
The conference agreement provides $200,000 for emergency
preparedness grants as proposed by both the House and the
Senate. The conference agreement includes a limitation on
obligation of $14,300,000 instead of $13,227,000 as proposed
by the Senate. The House bill carried no similar provision.
Bill language, proposed by the Senate, which delayed the
registration and processing fees collected under the
emergency preparedness grant program from July 1 to September
30, 2000, has been deleted. The House bill contained no
similar provision.
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and Expenses
The conference agreement appropriates $48,450,000 for the
Office of Inspector General instead of $48,050,000 as
proposed by the House and $49,000,000 (including transfers)
as proposed by the Senate. The agreement does not include
language proposed by the Senate deriving $38,500,000 of
program funding by transfer from DOT modal administrations,
and does include House language authorizing the use of funds
for investigation of fraud, deceptive trade practices, and
unfair methods of competition in the airline industry.
DCAA audits.--The conferees reiterate concerns expressed by
the House and Senate over the declining modal requests for
contract audits performed by the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA). These audits are a primary tool in the
prevention of government waste, fraud, and abuse, and will
not be neglected by the Department of Transportation. The
Committees on Appropriations will continue to monitor this
issue, and may consider mandated set-aside funding from the
modal administrations, or other strong measures, if the lack
of support continues. The Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs is directed to ensure that all modal administrations
are reminded, in writing, of
[[Page 21181]]
the importance of these audits, and is requested to work with
the Office of Inspector General to track formally and review
DCAA audit requests on a monthly or quarterly basis
throughout the coming fiscal year.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
The conference agreement appropriates $17,954,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Surface Transportation Board as
proposed by the House instead of $17,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate. In addition, the conference agreement includes
language, proposed by the House, which allows the Board to
offset $900,000 of its appropriation from fees collected
during the fiscal year. The Senate bill allowed the Board to
collect $954,000 in fees to augment its appropriation.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific(UP/SP) merger.--On December
12, 1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County,
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated
that, at such time as the parties reach agreement or
discontinue negotiations, the Board would take appropriate
action.
By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and
jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a
condition of the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By
decision dated July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the
agreement as a condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of
the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of
its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable
to achieve the assumptions on which the Board based its final
environmental mitigation measures, then the Board should
reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested
parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly
reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate.
March 2000 hearings.--On March 7-10, 2000, the STB held a
series of public hearings about major rail consolidations and
the future of the rail network. Following the issuance of its
new merger policy, the STB shall submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Commerce
Committee, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee a report which: (1) identifies concerns that were
raised at the March 2000 hearings; (2) details the actions
that the STB will undertake to address these concerns; and
(3) indicates where the STB lacks the authority and/or
personnel resources to effectively address these concerns.
This report shall be due July 1, 2001.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides $4,795,000 for the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and Expenses
The conference agreement appropriates $62,942,000 for
salaries and expenses of the National Transportation Safety
Board as proposed by the House instead of $59,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Within the funds provided, NTSB
should continue participating in the interagency initiative
on aviation safety in Alaska.
Training center and research facility.--NTSB shall enter
into an agreement to locate its training center and research
facility on land provided by George Washington University at
the Loudoun County, Virginia campus. This new facility,
sought by the NTSB, will provide NTSB additional laboratory
space, classrooms, and conference space as well as house the
wreckage of TWA flight 800.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 301 allows funds for aircraft; motor vehicles;
liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized
by law as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 302 requires pay raises to be funded within
appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations
Acts as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 303 modifies and makes permanent the House and Senate
provision that allows funds for expenditures for primary and
secondary schools and transportation for dependents of
Federal Aviation Administration personnel stationed outside
the continental United States.
Sec. 304 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for an Executive Level IV as proposed
by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of more than 104 political and Presidential
appointees in the Department of Transportation and includes a
provision that prohibits political and Presidential personnel
to be assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of
Transportation or an independent agency funded in this Act as
proposed by both the Senate and House.
Sec. 306 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal
parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in
this Act as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 307 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 308 limits consulting service expenditures of public
record in procurement contracts as proposed by both the House
and Senate.
Sec. 309 modifies the Senate provision to codify
prohibitions against the release of certain personal
information without express consent of the person to whom
such information pertains; and inserts a new subsection that
prohibits the withholdings of funds provided in this Act for
any grantee if a State is in noncompliance with this
provision. The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 310 modifies the distribution of the Federal-aid
highways program proposed by the Senate. The House proposed
no similar provision.
Sec. 311 exempts previously made transit obligations from
limitations on obligations as proposed by both the House and
Senate.
Sec. 312 prohibits funds for the National Highway Safety
Advisory Commission as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 313 prohibits funds to establish a vessel traffic
safety fairway less than five miles wide between Santa
Barbara and San Francisco traffic separation schemes as
proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 314 allows airports to transfer to the Federal
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems as
proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 315 prohibits funds to award multiyear contracts for
production end items that include certain specified
provisions as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 316 allows funds for discretionary grants of the
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by
September 30, 2003, and other recoveries to be used for other
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309 as proposed by both the House
and Senate.
Sec. 317 allows transit funds appropriated before October
1, 2000, and that remain available for expenditure to be
transferred as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 318 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 335
technical staff years under the federally funded research and
development center contract between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems
Development instead of 320 technical staff years as proposed
by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 319 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the
Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training to be credited to each
agency's respective accounts as proposed by the House and
Senate.
Sec. 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or
promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing
corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles as
defined in such title, in any model year that differs from
standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment
of this section as proposed by the House. The Senate proposed
no similar provision.
Sec. 321 allows funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii
ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to
construct new vessels and facilities or to improve existing
vessels and facilities, and for repair facilities. The
conference agreement includes a new provision allowing the
State of Hawaii to use not more than $3,000,000 of the
amounts it receives from this program to initiate and operate
an inter-island and intra-island demonstration project. The
Senate proposed to allow funds made available for Alaska or
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to
construct new vessels and facilities, to provide passenger
ferryboat service, or to improve existing vessels and
facilities, and for repair facilities. The House proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 322 allows funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to be subject to the obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction as proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 323 prohibits the use of funds for any type of
training which: (1) does not meet needs for knowledge,
skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of
official duties; (2) could be highly stressful or emotional
to the students; (3) does not provide prior notification of
content and methods to be used during the training; (4)
contains any religious concepts or ideas; (5) attempts to
modify a person's values or lifestyle; or (6) is for AIDS
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights as proposed by the
House. The Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 324 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for
activities designed to influence Congress or a state
legislature on legislation or appropriations except through
proper, official channels as proposed by both the House and
Senate.
Sec. 325 requires compliance with the Buy American Act as
proposed by both the House and Senate.
[[Page 21182]]
Sec. 326 provides an appropriation of $54,963,000 from the
Highway Trust Fund for the Appalachian development highway
system instead of providing $54,963,000 from the general fund
as proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no similar
appropriation.
Sec. 327 credits to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor
fees and other funds received by the Department from travel
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of
building space, and miscellaneous sources as proposed by both
the House and Senate. Such funds received shall be available
until December 31, 2001.
Sec. 328 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation as
proposed by the House and Senate.
Sec. 329 provides $750,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council
instead of $495,000 proposed by the Senate and $450,000
proposed by the House. Sec. 329 also includes provisions that
amend section 203 of Public Law 105-134 regarding the Amtrak
Reform Council's recommendations on Amtrak routes identified
for closure or realignment as proposed by both the House and
Senate.
Sec. 330 amends item number 1473 in section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 by striking ``Stony'' and inserting ``Commerce''.
The House and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 331 prohibits funds in this Act unless the Secretary
of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three full business days before
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations as
proposed by both the House and Senate.
Sec. 332 specifies that $20,000,000 made available for the
James A. Farley Post Office building in fiscal year 2001 must
be spent only on fire and life safety initiatives. The
conferees consider fire and life safety improvements to
include, but not be limited to, matters concerning
ventilation, vertical access, and egress. The Pennsylvania
Station Redevelopment Corporation shall be the grantee for
these funds and shall control expenditures. The House
proposed to rescind $60,000,000 for the James A. Farley Post
Office Building. The Senate bill contained no similar
rescission.
Sec. 333 prohibits funds for planning, design, or
construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas, as
proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 334 amends section 3030(b) of Public Law 105-178 to
authorize the Wilmington downtown transit corridor and the
Honolulu bus rapid transit project as proposed by the Senate.
The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 335 prohibits the use of funds in this act to adopt
the rulemaking on Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver Rest
and Sleep for Safe Operations (Docket No. FMCSA 97-2350-953),
and includes a provision that allows the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration to proceed through all stages
of the rulemaking, including issuing a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, except the adoption of a final rule. The
Senate proposed prohibiting the use of funds in this act to
consider, finalize, or enforce the rulemaking. The House
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 336 amends section 3038(e) of Public Law 105-178
pertaining to the federal share of the rural transportation
accessibility incentive program as proposed by both the House
and Senate.
Sec. 337 amends item number 273 of section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 pertaining to the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway
in Des Moines, Iowa, as proposed by the House. The Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 338 amends item number 328 of section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 pertaining to Louisiana Highway 30 as proposed by
the House. The Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 339 amends items numbered 63 and 186 of section 1602
of Public Law 105-178 pertaining to projects in Ohio as
proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 340 pertains to funds apportioned to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the Central Artery/Tunnel project. The
House proposed prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of any departmental official to authorize project
approvals or advance construction authority for the Central
Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts. The Senate
proposed limiting the total Federal contribution for the
project to not more than $8,549,000,000.
This provision is included in the conference agreement
without prejudice to the current administration of the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA). Following years of
obfuscation, the current administration at MTA has been
forthcoming with details of the cost overruns on, and the
costs-to-complete, the Central Artery/Tunnel project, as well
as identifying the means by which the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts plans to finance the project's costs. Moreover,
the MTA recently negotiated with the Federal Highway
Administration, the Massachusetts Highway Department and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction a partnership agreement that limits federal
financial participation in the project and sets forward other
terms and conditions, including the requirement that the
Commonwealth undertake a balanced statewide construction
program of $400,000,000 a year in construction activities and
specific transportation projects in the Commonwealth other
than the Central Artery/Tunnel project. The conferees commend
the MTA for these actions. This provision is not intended to
impugn the administration of, or the recent actions taken by,
the MTA, but rather to codify the partnership agreement to
ensure that federal financial participation in the Central
Artery/Tunnel project has an upper limit, and to ensure that
the Federal Highway Administration and the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation fulfill their fiduciary
responsibilities to the American taxpayer.
Sec. 341 amends section 3027(c)(3) of Public Law 105-178
relating to services for the elderly and persons with
disabilities as proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 342 allows unobligated balances under section 149 of
Public Law 100-17 and the Ebensburg bypass demonstration
project of Public Law 101-164 to be used for improvements
along Route 56 in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, as proposed
by the House. The Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 343 prohibits funds in this Act for the planning,
development, or construction of the California State Route
710 freeway extension project through South Pasadena,
California, as proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 344 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering work
related to an additional runway at New Orleans International
Airport as proposed by the House. The Senate proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 345 provides that $800,000 from capital investment
grants in Public Law 105-277 may be available for an
intermodal parking facility in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.
The House and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 346 prohibits funds in this Act to be used for the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to its
ratification as proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 347 modifies the Senate provision to prohibit the
submission of a budget request that assumes revenues or
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fee
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the
submission of the President's budget unless the budget
submission identifies which additional spending reductions
should occur in the event the user fee proposals are not
enacted prior to the date of a committee of conference for
the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act. The House proposed
no similar provision.
Sec. 348 provides that amounts appropriated for salaries
and expenses for the Department of Transportation may be used
to reimburse safety inspectors for not to exceed one-half the
costs incurred by such employees for professional liability
insurance, contingent upon the submission of required
information or documentation by the Department, as proposed
by the Senate. The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 349 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to
provide the Federal Aviation Administration ``without cost''
buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services, as
proposed by the Senate. The prohibition does not apply to
negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning
``below market'' rates for such services or to grant
assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land
without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 350 modifies the Senate provision to require the Coast
Guard to submit quarterly reports beginning after December
31, 2000, to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on all major Coast Guard acquisition projects.
The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 351 modifies the Senate provision that withholds the
highway funds of States that fail to adopt a blood alcohol
content level intoxication standard of .08 by fiscal year
2004. Under the conference agreement, States that do not
adopt this standard will lose a portion of their highway
funds each year, beginning in fiscal year 2004 (2 percent in
2004, 4 percent in 2005, 6 percent in 2006, and 8 percent in
2007). If States enter into compliance by the end of 2007,
funds withheld by sanction are restored in the State's
apportionment. The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 352 allows the Federal Aviation Administration to
provide for the conveyance of airport property to an
institution of higher education in Oklahoma as proposed by
the Senate. The House proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 353 amends item 1006 of section 1602 of Public Law
105-178 regarding a highway project in Polk County, Iowa, as
proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 354 allows the State of Mississippi to use funds
previously allocated to it under the transportation
enhancement program, if available, for constructing an
underpass
[[Page 21183]]
along Star Landing Road in DeSoto County, Mississippi, as
proposed by the Senate. The House proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 355 modifies the Senate provision that amends section
1214 of Public Law 105-178 to provide that the non-Federal
share of project number 1646 in section 1602 may be funded by
Federal funds from an agency or agencies not part of the
Department of Transportation. The Senate proposed that the
Secretary shall not delegate responsibility for carrying out
the project to a State. The House proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 356 modifies the Senate provision that designates the
New Jersey transit commuter rail station located at the
intersection of the Main/Bergen line and the Northeast
Corridor line in the State of New Jersey as the ``Frank R.
Lautenberg Station''. The House proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 357 prohibits funds in this Act for the planning,
development, or construction of an expressway at section 800
on Pennsylvania Route 202 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The
House and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 358 amends Public Law 106-69 to allow funding for
buses, bus-related equipment and bus facilities in the State
of Michigan. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 359 establishes a program to reduce traffic congestion
that will allow eligible employees of federal agencies to
participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible
without diminished employee performance. Within one year, the
Office of Personnel Management shall evaluate the
effectiveness of the program and report to Congress. Each
agency participating in the program shall develop criteria to
be used in implementing such a policy and ensure that
managerial, logistical, organizational, or other barriers to
full implementation and successful functioning of the policy
are removed. Each agency should also provide for adequate
administrative, human resources, technical, and logistical
support for carrying out the policy. Telecommuting refers to
any arrangement in which an employee regularly performs
officially assigned duties at home or other work sites
geographically convenient to the residence of the employee.
Eligible employees mean any satisfactorily performing
employee of the agency whose job may typically be performed
at least one day per week. The House and Senate proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 360 provides that new fixed guideway system funds
previously provided in Public Law 105-66 may be used for
projects in Jackson, Mississippi. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 361 provides that funds made available in item number
760 of section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 shall be used for
corridor planning studies between western Baldwin County and
Mobile Municipal Airport in Alabama. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 362 amends section 1107(b) of Public Law 102-240 as it
pertains to projects in Akron, Ohio. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 363 pertains to the federal share of the total cost
relating to the reconstruction of a road and causeway in the
Shiloh Military Park in Hardin County, Tennessee. The House
and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 364 amends section 30118 of title 49, United States
Code, to require motor vehicle manufacturers to review and
consider information from any foreign source on defects of
motor vehicles, original equipment, or replacement equipment
that do not comply with applicable motor vehicle safety
standards. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 365 allows funds appropriated to the Federal Transit
Administration to be transferred to the Agency for
International Development for transportation needs in the
Frontline states to the Kosovo conflict. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 366 allows funds provided in Public Law 105-66 for the
Salt Lake City regional commuter system project to be used
for transit and other transportation-related portions of the
Salt Lake City regional commuter system and Gateway
intermodal terminal. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 367 provides funding from section 1404 of Public Law
105-178 to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 368 directs the Secretary of Transportation to waive
repayment of any federal-aid highway funds expended on the
Lincoln Street Bridge project by the City of Spokane,
Washington. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 369 amends previous appropriations Acts to allow
funding for bus and bus facilities. The House and Senate
proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 370 amends item number 6 in section 1602 of Public Law
105-178 to provide within amounts previously made available
$2,000,000 for repair and reconstruction of the North Ogden
Divide Highway in Utah. The House and Senate proposed no
similar provision.
Sec. 371 allows States to use highway safety program funds
(section 402 of title 23, United States Code) to produce and
place highway safety service messages in television, radio,
cinema, Internet, and print media based on guidance issued by
the Secretary of Transportation; and requires States to
report to the Secretary on the use of such funds for public
service messages. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provisions.
Sec. 372 provides that the Mohall Railroad, Inc. may
abandon track from Granville to Lansford, North Dakota, and
that such abandoned track will not count against the
limitation contained in section 402 of Public Law 97-102. The
House and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 373 amends item number 163 in section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 related to the extension of Kapkowski Road in New
Jersey to allow for the study, design, and construction of
local street improvements. The House and Senate proposed no
similar provisions.
Sec. 374 amends item number 331 in section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 to allow funds provided for Humboldt Bay and
Harbor Port in California to be used for highway and freight
rail access. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 375 appropriates $5,000,000 to the Alabama Department
of Transportation for Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield
highway-rail improvements. The House and Senate proposed no
similar appropriation.
Sec. 376 appropriates $1,000,000 to Valley Trains and Tours
for track acquisition and rehabilitation between Strasburg
Junction and Shenandoah Caverns, Virginia. This funding is
contingent upon an agreement with Norfolk Southern
Corporation on track usage. In addition, funding is
contingent on financial support by the Commonwealth of
Virginia for this project. The House and Senate proposed no
similar appropriation.
Sec. 377 amends item number 1135 in section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178 to allow funds to be used to study all possible
alternatives to the current M-14/Barton Drive interchange in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, including relocation of M-14/U.S.23 from
Maple Road to Plymouth Road, mass transit options, and other
means of reducing commuter traffic and improving highway
safety. The House and Senate proposed no similar provision.
Sec. 378 provides necessary expenses, to be derived from
the Highway Trust Fund, for various projects within the
United States. The House and Senate proposed no similar
appropriations.
Sec. 379 provides additional funding for the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial Bridge. The $1,500,000,000 limitation on federal
contribution prescribed in this section is not intended to
preclude states from using federal-aid apportionments or
other federal-aid funds made available to the states for
costs associated with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project. The
House and Senate proposed no similar appropriation.
Sec. 380 provides contingent commitment authority to the
Federal Transit Administration for specific capital
investment grants. The House and Senate proposed no similar
provision.
Sec. 381 requires the Federal Transit Administrator to sign
a full funding grant agreement for the MOS-2 segment of the
New Jersey Urban Core-Hudson Bergen project.
Sec. 382 prohibits funding in this or any other Act for
adjusting the boundary of the Point Retreat Light Station in
Alaska or otherwise limiting property at that station
currently under lease to the Alaska Lighthouse Association.
The provision also nullifies any modifications to the
boundary at that station made after January 1, 1998.
The conference agreement deletes the House and Senate
provisions that reduce funding and limit obligation authority
for activities of the Transportation administrative service
center. The House proposed reducing funding by $4,000,000 for
activities of the center and limiting obligation authority to
$115,387,000. The Senate proposed reducing funding by
$53,430,000 for activities of the center and limiting
obligation authority to $119,848,000.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
limits necessary expenses of advisory committees to
$1,500,000 of the funds provided in this Act to the
Department of Transportation and provides that this
limitation shall not apply to negotiated rulemaking advisory
committees or the Coast Guard's advisory council on roles and
missions as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement deletes the provision proposed by
both the House and Senate that authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to transfer appropriations by no more than 12
percent among the offices of the Office of the Secretary.
The conference agreement deletes the House and Senate
provisions that prohibit funds in this Act for activities
under the Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program. According
to the Federal Aviation Administration, this provision is no
longer necessary.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
allows the Department of Transportation to enter into a
fractional aircraft ownership demonstration. Report language
is included on this subject under title I, Office of the
Secretary, Salaries and expenses.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
expands the exemption
[[Page 21184]]
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable
only to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses and
directs that a study and report concerning applicability of
maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and
public transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
amends section 1105(c) of Public Law 102-240 to clarify the
alignment of the Ports-to-Plains corridor from Laredo, Texas,
to Denver, Colorado.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress and the
President should immediately take steps to address the
growing safety hazard associated with the lack of adequate
parking space for trucks along interstate highways.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
provides for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
study on noise impacts of railroad operations, including
idling train engines on the quality of life of nearby
communities, the quality of the environment (including
consideration of air pollution), and safety.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
provides $10,000,000 within the funds made available in this
Act for the costs associated with the construction of a third
track on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville, and
Central Falls, Rhode Island; provides $2,000,000 for a joint
United States-Canada commission to study the feasibility of
connecting the rail system in Alaska to the North American
continental rail system; $400,000 for passenger rail corridor
planning activities for development of the Gulf Coast high
speed rail corridor; and $250,000 to the city of Traverse
City, Michigan, for a comprehensive transportation plan. The
House proposed no similar provision. Funding for these
projects was considered in title I of the conference
agreement.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
expresses the sense of the Senate regarding funding for Coast
Guard operations and acquisitions during fiscal years 2000
and 2001.
The conference agreement deletes the Senate provision that
prohibits non-safety related funds to be used for any
airport-related grant for the Los Angeles International
Airport made to the City of Los Angeles, or any
intergovernmental body of which it is a member, by the
Department of Transportation or the Federal Aviation
Administration, until the Administration concludes the
revenue diversion investigation initiated in Docket 13-95-05
and either takes action or determines that no action is
warranted.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of the Public Debt
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
The conference agreement includes title IV that
appropriates $5,000,000,000 for the reduction of the public
debt instead of supplemental appropriations of
$12,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, for the reduction of the public debt proposed by the
Senate. The House Bill contained no similar title.
TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
salaries and expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $6,424,000 to
establish a new interagency National Terrorist Asset Tracking
Center (NTATC), to reimburse Treasury Department law
enforcement bureaus for detailees to the Center, and for five
new positions to reinforce the analytical component of the
Office of foreign Assets Control.
vehicle usage and replacement
The conferees agree with the concerns expressed by the
Senate over the lack of progress by the Department of the
Treasury and its bureaus in establishing a centralized
vehicle acquisition program, despite having been provided
$1,000,000 for such purposes in fiscal year 1999. The
conferees agree with the Senate that the Department must take
action before additional funding is provided. The conferees
therefore direct that no funds for new vehicle acquisition
shall be obligated or expended until the Department has: (1)
developed and implemented the vehicle data warehouse, and (2)
provided the committees with a report that confirms that
policy directives and operating procedures with regard to
vehicles have been fully implemented. The conferees expect
that the mandate established in section 116 of Public Law
105-277 shall remain in force.
department-wide systems and capital investments programs
The conferees agree to provide an additional $15,000,000
for the Integrated Treasury (Wireless) Network.
expanded access to financial services
The conferees agree to provide an additional $8,000,000 for
this account.
treasury forfeiture fund
The conferees clarify that they have agreed to fund
$29,107,000 of the $42,500,000 that the Administration
proposed to fund in fiscal year 2001 through the Super
Surplus in regular appropriations. No funds are provided for
Customs Service vehicle replacement ($11,000,000) and
Acquisition and Maintenance for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center ($2,393,000).
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
salaries and expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $5,000,000 to
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to
establish and operate a metropolitan area law enforcement
training center for the Treasury Department, other federal
agencies, the United States Capitol Police, and the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, primarily as
a place for firearms and vehicle operation requalification.
The conferees provide that $3,500,000 of such funding would
only be made available for obligation after FLETC submits a
detailed spending plan to the Committees on Appropriations.
The conferees are aware that as many as 6,000 federal law
enforcement officers in the Washington area require routine
skills training, but existing facilities in the region are
not meeting this need, in particular for the Treasury
Department, the Park Police, the State Department, and the
U.S. Capitol Police, The shortage of facilities applies to
local law enforcement agencies as well, in particular the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.
The conferees are aware of the work by the Interagency
Firearms Range Working Group (IFRWG) and strongly supports
its mandate to identify a site and plan for establishment and
operation of a Washington, D.C. area facility, to meet the
need for regular perishable skills training for federal and
other law enforcement agencies. The conferees understand that
such training would include firearms requalification, driver
training, and possibly other continuous routine training. The
conferees expect this facility to accommodate as well the
unique in-service and agency specific training requirements
of the U.S. Capitol Police.
The conferees have seen the preliminary plan developed by
FLETC for such a local facility, to include semi-enclosed and
enclosed firearms facilities as well as vehicle operation
courses, and agree that such a facility, to generate the
benefits of consolidated law enforcement training, must be
designed, built and operated to meet priority needs for
continuing professional training, and to avoid needless
duplication or inefficiency. The conferees understand that
this facility will be for daytime training operations only,
with no residential or dining facilities. The conferees
expect that any federal agency seeking funding for new or
expanded training facilities in the capital region will
participate in and coordinate such requests through FLETC and
the IFRWG, and that FLETC will strive to accommodate, as
space permits, any requests for training from local law
enforcement agencies.
The conferees direct the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center to work with the General Services Administration (GSA)
to identify a site for this facility within the GSA inventory
of Federal land.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $25,000,000
for design and construction of a metropolitan area law
enforcement training center, including firearms and vehicle
operations requalification facilities, to remain available
until expended. Such funding would include the costs of
architecture and engineering plans, design and construction
for firearms ranges, vehicle operation ranges, tactical
operations training facilities and related teaching
facilities such as classrooms and non-lethal shoot houses, as
well as administrative and support facilities. The conferees
include language making $22,000,000 of these funds
unavailable for obligation until a complete design and
construction plan with associated timelines and cost
breakouts has been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Salaries and Expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $4,148,000 for
30 agents to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
United States Customs Service
Salaries and Expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $18,934,000
for counterterrorism activities, including $2,334,000 for 17
agents to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces;
$10,000,000 for northern border security infrastructure; and
$6,600,000 for 48 agents to counter-terrorist threats along
the northern border. The conferees have also included
language prohibiting obligation of funds for the northern
border until a plan for the deployment of resources and
personnel has been submitted for approval to the Committees
on Appropriations.
Northern Border Security
The conferees have long agreed on the inadequacy of the
federal response to smuggling and other threats facing the
southern border and ports of entry to the U.S. The security
threat to the northern border of the U.S. was made plain last
winter following the arrests of suspected terrorists
attempting to enter the United States from Canada into
Washington State and Vermont. The
[[Page 21185]]
need for increased vigilance along our long, undefended
border with Canada is beyond dispute while at the same time
commerce with Canada, our major bilateral trading partner,
grows apace.
Aging infrastructure and staffing shortages have created
significant bottlenecks as well as increased vulnerability to
potential security threats at a number of northern ports of
entry. Yet the conferees perceive inadequate planning for and
commitment to provide the necessary personnel, facilities and
related infrastructure to keep our border crossings safe and
yet facilitate the smooth movement of commerce and
passengers. Shortcomings in infrastructure are readily
visible to visitors to the border, but so are the sparse
staffing levels. The northern border extends nearly 4,000
miles, but has only about 300 agents and inspectors, while
the 2,000 mile southwest border has 8,000. In addition to
increases in agents and inspectors needed to meet the threat
of terrorism, additional land border inspectors are called
for in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, which has not been fully implemented.
The conferees therefore direct the U.S. Customs Service,
working with the General Services Administration, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and other agencies
responsible for border inspection and facilities, to address
the inadequacies that presently exist in facilities and
personnel and submit to the Congress a plan to address them
with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget.
Resource Allocation Model
The Customs Service told the Committees over a year ago
that the customs staffing resource allocation model was near
completion. However, the model remains under review and not
operational. At the same time, the Committees have not
received any information about the characteristics of the
model. Given then numerous requests to establish, expand, or
preserve Customs presence at various ports, it is essential
that Customs have such a model in place to permit a more
transparent and consistent basis for making such decisions.
While the conferees recognize that the use of such a model
would not by itself mechanically determine all staffing and
organizational decisions, they expect the Committees to be
able to understand and review future funding requests. The
conferees therefore direct Customs and the Treasury
Department to expedite completion of the model and to report
to the Committees not later than February 1, 2001 on the
characteristics and application of the model and on the
status of its implementation. The conferees request that the
General Accounting Office review the resource allocation
model and supporting data used for this analysis, and report
to the Committees on the validity and reliability of the
model and its findings.
Internal Revenue Service
processing, assistance and management
electronic tax administration
In its June 30, 2000, annual report to Congress, the
Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC)
emphasized its position that IRS should stress partnerships,
not competition, with the private sector and state and local
governments in achieving its electronic tax administration
objectives. In this regard, ETAAC believes it is
inappropriate for IRS to offer no-cost electronic filing over
the Internet, either by developing its own software or
aligning itself with a limited number of ``authorized e-file
providers.'' IRS is directed to provide the Committees on
Appropriations a report commenting on the ETAAC position as
well as making any recommendations to address the concerns
raised by ETAAC within 120 days of the enactment of this Act.
The conferees share these concerns and further direct the IRS
to delay implementing no-cost Internet tax filing services
until such report has been submitted to and reviewed by the
Committees.
tax law enforcement
The conferees agree to provide $7,974,000, including
$3,135,000 for support of the money laundering strategy, and
an additional $4,839,000 for 35 agents to participate in
Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
information technology investments
The conferees to provide $71,751,000 for information
technology investments. The release of these funds is subject
to conditions similar to those required for funds previously
appropriated for modernizing the major computer systems of
the Internal Revenue Service.
staffing tax administration for balance and equity
The conferees agree to provide $141,000,000 in a new
account established to fund the hiring of additional staff by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Release of these funds is
subject to a staffing plan, to be approved by the Department
of the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, and the
Committees on Appropriations. The conferees are aware of the
IRS' continuing reassessment of its specific staffing needs
in light of its implementation of the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998, as indicated by the recent IRS requests
for substantive transfers of funding and positions among its
appropriations accounts. The current organizational
restructuring within the IRS also has created uncertainty
with respect to its specific staffing needs. The conferees
look forward to working with the Administration to ensure
that balance and equity are achieved with respect to IRS
staffing requirements for tax administration.
United States Secret Service
salaries and expenses
The conferees agree to provide an additional $2,904,000 for
21 agents to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the
President
Office of Management and Budget
salaries and expenses
The conferees urge the Office of Management and Budget to
allocate at least two-thirds of the additional staff for use
in supporting the management function of the Office, which is
limited to the Deputy Director for Management and the
Statutory Offices--the Office of Federal Financial
Management, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Office of National Drug Control Policy
counterdrug technology assessment center
The conferees agree to provide an additional $7,000,000 for
the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, including
$5,000,000 for the continued operation of the technology
transfer program and $2,000,000 for the continued development
of the wireless interoperability communication project
currently underway in Colorado. This much-needed project is
in direct response to the wireless communication difficulties
experienced by State and local law enforcement during the
Columbine High School tragedy.
Unanticipated Needs
The conferees agree to provide $3,500,000 for Unanticipated
Needs of the President, including $2,500,000 as a transfer to
the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
for objective, non-partisan citizens' education for a choice
by voters on the islands' future status; the conferees make
the $2,500,000 transfer available on March 21, 2001. The
conferees include a provision prohibiting the use of funds by
the Elections Commission until 45 days after the Commission
submits to the Committees on Appropriations for approval an
expenditure plan developed jointly by the Popular Democratic
Party, the New Progressive Party, and the Puerto Rican
Independence Party. The conferees also include a provision
requiring the Elections Commission to include in the
expenditure plan additional views from any party that does
not agree with the plan.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
General Services Administration
Federal Buildings Fund
Construction
The conferees agree to provide $3,000,000 for non-
prospectus construction projects.
Salt Lake City Courthouse
The conferees are aware of issues surrounding the site of
the Salt Lake City courthouse. The conferees direct GSA to
examine these issues and report to the Committees on
Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the
status of the site and recommendations on resolving any
outstanding issues. In addition, the conferees direct that
GSA may not take any further condemnation action prior to the
Committees' receipt of the report. The conferees direct GSA
to consult with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
and the appropriate authorities in the preparation of this
report.
Repairs and Alterations
The conferees agree to provide $8,350,000 for a repair and
alteration project associated with a courthouse annex in
Columbia, South Carolina
Rental of Space
The conferees are concerned with the environmental
conditions of the Customs House at Terminal Island,
California. While many Customs employees have been
temporarily moved from the Customs House to healthier work
environments, the conferees are concerned about the health
and safety of the remaining employees at the facility. The
conferees understand that the General Services Administration
(GSA) is working with the Customs Service to resolve the
situation at the Customs House to identify permanent space
and relocate Customs personnel.
The conferees understand that GSA is working jointly with
the Customs Service to relocate the Office of the Customs
Special Agent in Charge by December 31, 2000. Other Customs
employees will be moved to a new leased location by May 31,
2001. The high-tech customs laboratory will remain at
Terminal Island as requested by the Customs Service. The
conferees are concerned that plans for relocation of Customs
employees occur as scheduled and direct the Customs Service
and GSA to report no later than January 15, 2001, on the
situation facing the Customs Service employees remaining at
this
[[Page 21186]]
facility and the status of the permanent move.
Building Operations
Access to Telecommunications Services
The conferees are aware that significant cost savings to
the government are being achieved by the FTS 2001 and the
Metropolitan Area Acquisition programs administered by GSA as
a result of increased competition among communications
services. The conferees are also aware that such potential
cost savings may be jeopardized by building access
limitations for telecommunication providers. The conferees
note that legislation has been introduced in Congress
intended to promote non-discriminatory or fair and reasonable
access to telecommunications services for Federal agencies.
The conferees direct the executive branch identify building
telecommunications access barriers and take necessary steps
to ensure that telecommunications providers are given fair
and reasonable access to provide service to Federal agencies
in buildings where the Federal government is the owner or
tenant.
tucson, arizona
The conferees direct the GSA to reach a mutual agreement
with the City of Tucson, Arizona regarding the use of the
federally owned property at 26-72 East Congress by October
24, 2000.
policy and operations
The conferees agree to provide an additional $13,789,000
for policy and operations, including $2,060,000 for the
electronic government initiative, $2,000,000 for the
regulatory information service center, $2,000,000 for
facilitating post conveyance remediation to be performed by
the City of Waltham, Massachusetts, $2,000,000 for a grant to
the Institute for Biomedical Science and Biotechnology,
$2,000,000 for the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade
Studies, $1,000,000 for a grant to the Berwick Industrial
Development Authority in Pennsylvania, $1,000,000 for a grant
to the Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority in Ewing Township,
New Jersey, $750,000 for logistical support of the World
Police and Fire Games, and $979,000 for base operations.
National Archives and Records Administration
repairs and restoration
The conferees agree to provide an additional $6,610,000 for
repairs to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.
General Provisions--This Title
federal internet sites
The conferees have included a new provision (Section 501)
prohibiting the use of funds by agencies funded in the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001, to
use federal Internet sites to collect, review, or create any
aggregate list that includes the collection of any personally
identifiable information relating to an individual's access
to or use of any federal government Internet site of the
agency. Section 644 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001, shall not have effect.
fec reforms
The conferees have included a new provision (Section 502)
regarding certain reforms within the FEC, including a
clarification of the permissible use of fax and electronic
mail, a clarification of the treatment of lines of credit,
and requiring the actual receipt of certain independent
expenditure reports within 24 hours.
U.S. OLYMPIC ANTI-DOPING EFFORTS
The conferees have included a new provision (Section 503)
to clarify that the funds made available to the United States
Olympic Committee for anti-doping efforts in the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 will be provided
to The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Incorporated (USADA). USADA,
a private organization, is responsible for the anti-doping
program in the United States relating to participation by
U.S. athletes in the Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic
Games. The conferees agree to make these funds available to
USADA based on their understanding that the conduct of such
anti-doping programs is the responsibility of USADA and not
of any federal government agency.
federal retirement contributions
The conferees agree to include a new provision (Section
504) that Section 640 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001 shall not have effect. The conferees
further agree to include a new provision (Section 505)
regarding Civil Service retirement contributions.
united States secret service assistance for investigations related to
missing and exploited children
The conferees agree to include a new provision (Section
506) providing that $2,000,000 of fiscal year 2001 funding
for the U.S. Secret Service that was specified for activities
related to investigations of missing and exploited children
shall be available for forensic and related support of such
investigations, to remain available until September 30, 2001.
Section 108 of the Legislative Appropriations Act, 2001
The conferees have included a new provision (Section 507)
amending Section 108 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 2001 contained in House Report 106-796. The amendment
places the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) under the
direct control of the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, in
consultation with the Comptroller General of the United
States. The Comptroller General will monitor the performance
of the CAO and report same to the Chief the U.S. Capitol
Police, the Capitol Police Board, and the appropriations and
authorizing committees of the Senate and House of
Representatives. The Chief will report the CAO's plans and
progress made in resolving the several administrative
problems of the Capitol Police to the appropriations and
authorizing committees of the Senate and House of
Representatives.
Review of Proposed Changes to Export Thresholds for Computers
The conferees expect that the assessment provided by the
Comptroller General pursuant to Section 314 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 shall include, at
a minimum:
(1) An evaluation of the adequacy of the stated
justification for any proposed changes to computer
performance export control thresholds given in the
Presidential report referred to in subsection (d) of section
1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note), as amended; and
(2) An evaluation of the likely impact of any proposed
changes to computer performance export control thresholds
upon--
(A) the national security and foreign policy interests of
the United States;
(B) the security of countries friendly to, or allied with,
the United States;
(C) multilateral export control regimes of which the United
States is a member; and
(D) United States policies designed to slow or prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or ballistic
missile technology.
[[Page 21187]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.013
[[Page 21188]]
The following table provides a tabular summary of the
fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.014
[[Page 21189]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.015
[[Page 21190]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.016
[[Page 21191]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.017
[[Page 21192]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.018
[[Page 21193]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.019
[[Page 21194]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.020
[[Page 21195]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.021
[[Page 21196]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.022
[[Page 21197]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.023
[[Page 21198]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.024
[[Page 21199]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.025
[[Page 21200]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.026
[[Page 21201]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.027
[[Page 21202]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.028
[[Page 21203]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.029
[[Page 21204]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.030
[[Page 21205]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.031
[[Page 21206]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.032
[[Page 21207]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.033
[[Page 21208]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC00.034
[[Page 21209]]
conference total--with comparisons
The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2001 recommended by the Committee of Conference,
with comparisons to the fiscal year 2000 amount, the 2001
budget estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2001
follow:
[In thousands of dollars]
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000.......$15,084,976
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year16,146,737
House bill, fiscal year 2001.................................15,773,944
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001................................15,295,300
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2001.......................18,492,649
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000......+3,407,673
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal ye+2,345,912
House bill, fiscal year 2001...............................+2,718,705
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001..............................+3,197,349
Frank R. Wolf,
Tom DeLay,
Ralph Regula,
Harold Rogers,
Ron Packard,
Sonny Callahan,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Kay Granger,
C.W. Bill Young,
Martin Olav Sabo
(except for provisions to withhold highway funds from
states that do not adopt 0.08 blood alcohol concentration
laws),
John W. Olver,
Ed Pastor,
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
(except for provisions to withhold highway funds from
states that do not adopt 0.08 blood alcohol concentration
laws),
Jose E. Serrano,
Michael P. Forbes,
David R. Obey
(with exception to denial of funds to states without 0.08
BAC),
Managers on the Part of the House.
Richard C. Shelby,
Pete Domenici, (except for Wilson Bridge),
Arlen Specter,
Christopher S. Bond,
Slade Gorton,
Robert F. Bennett,
Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Ted Stevens,
Frank R. Lautenberg,
Robert C. Byrd,
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Harry Reid,
Herb Kohl,
Patty Murray,
Daniel K. Inouye,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 2306
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dreier) at 11 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 4475, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-941) on the resolution (H. Res. 612) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 3244, TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-942) on the resolution (H. Res. 613) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the sex
trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States and
countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution and
enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance
to victims of trafficking, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
CORRECTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2000 AT
PAGE H8699
The following bill was inadvertently printed in the wrong version and
appears below in the correct version as passed by the House.
____________________
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ACT OF 2000
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the Senate bill (S. 2045) to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2045
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``American Competitiveness
in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000''.
SEC. 102. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN VISA ALLOTMENTS.
(a) Fiscal Years 2001-2003.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vii); and
(2) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
``(iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001;
``(v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002;
``(vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and''.
(b) Additional Visas for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000.--
(1) In general.--(A) Notwithstanding section
214(g)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)(ii)), the total number of aliens who may
be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in fiscal year
1999 is increased by a number equal to the number of aliens
who are issued such a visa or provided such status during the
period beginning on the date on which the limitation in such
section 214(g)(1)(A)(ii) is reached and ending on September
30, 1999.
(B) In the case of any alien on behalf of whom a petition
for status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(I)(b) is filed before
September 1, 2000, and is subsequently approved, that alien
shall be counted toward the numerical ceiling for fiscal year
2000 notwithstanding the date of the approval of the
petition. Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the total number of aliens
who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in
fiscal year 2000 is increased by a number equal to the number
of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status who filed a petition during the period
beginning on the date on which the limitation in such section
214(g)(1)(A)(iii) is reached and ending on August 31, 2000.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect as if
included in the enactment of section 411 of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (as
contained in title IV of division C of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999; Public Law 105-277).
SEC. 103. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH FACILITIES,
AND GRADUATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS; COUNTING RULES.
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph
(1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a
visa or otherwise provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who is employed (or has received an offer
of employment) at--
[[Page 21210]]
``(A) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or
``(B) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental
research organization.
``(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer
described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a
nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b),
who has not previously been counted toward the numerical
limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted toward
those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an
employer other than one described in paragraph (5).
``(7) Any alien who has already been counted, within the 6
years prior to the approval of a petition described in
subsection (c), toward the numerical limitations of paragraph
(1)(A) shall not again be counted toward those limitations
unless the alien would be eligible for a full 6 years of
authorized admission at the time the petition is filed. Where
multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that alien shall
be counted only once.''.
SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.
(a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per
country limitation if additional visas available.--If the
total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter
exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise
be issued such visas, the visas made available under that
paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical
limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the
remainder of the calendar quarter.
``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent
area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of
visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number
of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the
state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection
(e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in
applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have
been required for the classes of aliens specified in section
203(b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``paragraphs
(3) and (4)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
(2) Section 202(e)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the
proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting ``except as
provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa
numbers''.
(c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)), any alien who--
(1) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section
204(a) of that Act for a preference status under paragraph
(1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of that Act; and
(2) is eligible to be granted that status but for
application of the per country limitations applicable to
immigrants under those paragraphs,
may apply for, and the Attorney General may grant, an
extension of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's
application for adjustment of status has been processed and a
decision made thereon.
SEC. 105. INCREASED PORTABILITY OF H-1B STATUS.
(a) In General.--Section 214 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2)
who was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is
authorized to accept new employment upon the filing by the
prospective employer of a new petition on behalf of such
nonimmigrant as provided under subsection (a). Employment
authorization shall continue for such alien until the new
petition is adjudicated. If the new petition is denied, such
authorization shall cease.
``(2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a
nonimmigrant alien--
``(A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United
States;
``(B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a nonfrivolous
petition for new employment before the date of expiration of
the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General; and
``(C) who, subsequent to such lawful admission, has not
been employed without authorization in the United States
before the filing of such petition.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to petitions filed before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN CASES OF LENGTHY
ADJUDICATIONS.
(a) Exemption From Limitation.--The limitation contained in
section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)) with respect to the duration of authorized
stay shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien previously
issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of that Act on whose behalf a
petition under section 204(b) of that Act to accord the alien
immigrant status under section 203(b) of that Act, or an
application for adjustment of status under section 245 of
that Act to accord the alien status under such section
203(b), has been filed, if 365 days or more have elapsed
since--
(1) the filing of a labor certification application on the
alien's behalf (if such certification is required for the
alien to obtain status under such section 203(b)); or
(2) the filing of the petition under such section 204(b).
(b) Extension of H1-B Worker Status.--The Attorney General
shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies for an
exemption under subsection (a) in one-year increments until
such time as a final decision is made on the alien's lawful
permanent residence.
(c) Increased Job Flexibility for Long Delayed Applicants
for Adjustment of Status.--
(1) Section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(j) Job Flexibility for Long Delayed Applicants for
Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence.--A petition
under subsection (a)(1)(D) for an individual whose
application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245
has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or
more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the
individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the
same or a similar occupational classification as the job for
which the petition was filed.''.
(2) Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iv) Long delayed adjustment applicants.--A certification
made under clause (i) with respect to an individual whose
petition is covered by section 204(j) shall remain valid with
respect to a new job accepted by the individual after the
individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the
same or a similar occupational classification as the job for
which the certification was issued.''.
(d) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the number of employment-based visas (as defined in
paragraph (3)) made available for a fiscal year (beginning
with fiscal year 2001) shall be increased by the number
described in paragraph (2). Visas made available under this
subsection shall only be available in a fiscal year to
employment-based immigrants under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Number available.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the number
described in this paragraph is the difference between the
number of employment-based visas that were made available in
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 and the number of such visas that
were actually used in such fiscal years.
(B) Reduction.--The number described in subparagraph (A)
shall be reduced, for each fiscal year after fiscal year
2001, by the cumulative number of immigrant visas actually
used under paragraph (1) for previous fiscal years.
(C) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as affecting the application of section
201(c)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151(c)(3)(C)).
(3) Employment-based visas defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``employment-based visa'' means an
immigrant visa which is issued pursuant to the numerical
limitation under section 203(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)).
SEC. 107. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.
(a) Attestation Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii)) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001''
and inserting ``October 1, 2003''.
(b) Department of Labor Investigative Authorities.--Section
413(e)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (as contained in title IV of division
C of Public Law 105-277) is amended by striking ``September
30, 2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
SEC. 108. RECOVERY OF VISAS USED FRAUDULENTLY.
Section 214(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184 (g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations
of paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are
filed for such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a
visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted
[[Page 21211]]
against the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found
to have been issued such visa or otherwise provided such
status by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact
and such visa or nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one
number shall be restored to the total number of aliens who
may be issued visas or otherwise provided such status under
the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year
in which the petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal
year in which the petition was approved.''.
SEC. 109. NSF STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ``DIGITAL DIVIDE''.
(a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall conduct a
study of the divergence in access to high technology
(commonly referred to as the ``digital divide'') in the
United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall submit a report to Congress setting forth
the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 110. MODIFICATION OF NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT
PROVISIONS.
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Section 286(s) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``56.3 percent'' and
inserting ``55 percent'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``28.2 percent'' and
inserting ``23.5 percent'';
(3) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) National Science Foundation Competitive Grant Program
for K-12 Math, Science and Technology Education.--
``(A) In general.--15 percent of the amounts deposited into
the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain
available to the Director of the National Science Foundation
until expended to carry out a direct or matching grant
program to support private-public partnerships in K-12
education.
``(B) Types of programs covered.--The Director shall award
grants to such programs, including those which support the
development and implementation of standards-based
instructional materials models and related student
assessments that enable K-12 students to acquire an
understanding of science, mathematics, and technology, as
well as to develop critical thinking skills; provide systemic
improvement in training K-12 teachers and education for
students in science, mathematics, and technology; support the
professional development of K-12 math and science teachers in
the use of technology in the classroom; stimulate system-wide
K-12 reform of science, mathematics, and technology in rural,
economically disadvantaged regions of the United States;
provide externships and other opportunities for students to
increase their appreciation and understanding of science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology (including summer
institutes sponsored by an institution of higher education
for students in grades 7-12 that provide instruction in such
fields); involve partnerships of industry, educational
institutions, and community organizations to address the
educational needs of disadvantaged communities; provide
college preparatory support to expose and prepare students
for careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology; and provide for carrying out systemic reform
activities under section 3(a)(1) of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1862(a)(1)).'';
(4) in paragraph (6), by striking ``6 percent'' and
inserting ``5 percent''; and
(5) in paragraph (6), by striking ``3 percent'' each place
it appears and inserting ``2.5 percent''.
(b) Low-Income Scholarship Program.--Section 414(d)(3) of
the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of
1998 (as contained in title IV of division C of Public Law
105-277) is amended by striking ``$2,500 per year.'' and
inserting ``$3,125 per year. The Director may renew
scholarships for up to 4 years.''.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--Section 414 of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (as
contained in title IV of division C of Public Law 105-277) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Labor and
the Director of the National Science Foundation shall--
``(1) track and monitor the performance of programs
receiving H-1B Nonimmigrant Fee grant money; and
``(2) not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this subsection, submit a report to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate--
``(A) the tracking system to monitor the performance of
programs receiving H-1B grant funding; and
``(B) the number of individuals who have completed training
and have entered the high-skill workforce through these
programs.''.
SEC. 111. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS.
Section 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (as contained in title IV
of division C of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-653) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Demonstration Programs and Projects to Provide
Technical Skills Training for Workers.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Funding.--The Secretary of Labor shall use funds
available under section 286(s)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)) to establish
demonstration programs or projects to provide technical
skills training for workers, including both employed and
unemployed workers.
``(B) Training provided.--Training funded by a program or
project described in subparagraph (A) shall be for persons
who are currently employed and who wish to obtain and upgrade
skills as well as for persons who are unemployed. Such
training is not limited to skill levels commensurate with a
four-year undergraduate degree, but should include the
preparation of workers for a broad range of positions along a
career ladder. Consideration shall be given to the use of
grant funds to demonstrate a significant ability to expand a
training program or project through such means as training
more workers or offering more courses, and training programs
or projects resulting from collaborations, especially with
more than one small business or with a labor-management
training program or project. The need for the training shall
be justified through reliable regional, State, or local data.
``(2) Grants.--
``(A) Eligibility.--To carry out the programs and projects
described in paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary of Labor shall,
in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, subject to
the availability of funds in the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account, award--
``(i) 75 percent of the grants to a local workforce
investment board established under section 116(b) or section
117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832)
or consortia of such boards in a region. Each workforce
investment board or consortia of boards receiving grant funds
shall represent a local or regional public-private
partnership consisting of at least--
``(I) one workforce investment board;
``(II) one community-based organization or higher education
institution or labor union; and
``(III) one business or business-related nonprofit
organization such as a trade association: Provided, That the
activities of such local or regional public-private
partnership described in this subsection shall be conducted
in coordination with the activities of the relevant local
workforce investment board or boards established under the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832); and
``(ii) 25 percent of the grants under the Secretary of
Labor's authority to award grants for demonstration projects
or programs under section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act
(29 U.S.C. 2916) to partnerships that shall consist of at
least 2 businesses or a business-related nonprofit
organization that represents more than one business, and that
may include any educational, labor, community organization,
or workforce investment board, except that such grant funds
may be used only to carry out a strategy that would otherwise
not be eligible for funds provided under clause (i), due to
barriers in meeting those partnership eligibility criteria,
on a national, multistate, regional, or rural area (such as
rural telework programs) basis.
``(B) Designation of responsible fiscal agents.--Each
partnership formed under subparagraph (A) shall designate a
responsible fiscal agent to receive and disburse grant funds
under this subsection.
``(C) Partnership considerations.--Consideration in the
awarding of grants shall be given to any partnership that
involves and directly benefits more than one small business
(each consisting of 100 employees or less).
``(D) Allocation of grants.--In making grants under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall make every effort to fairly
distribute grants across rural and urban areas, and across
the different geographic regions of the United States. The
total amount of grants awarded to carry out programs and
projects described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be allocated as
follows:
``(i) At least 80 percent of the grants shall be awarded to
programs and projects that train employed and unemployed
workers in skills in high technology, information technology,
and biotechnology, including skills needed for software and
communications services, telecommunications, systems
installation and integration, computers and communications
hardware, advanced manufacturing, health care technology,
biotechnology and biomedical research and manufacturing, and
innovation services.
``(ii) No more than 20 percent of the grants shall be
available to programs and projects that train employed and
unemployed workers for skills related to any single specialty
occupation, as defined in section 214(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
``(3) Start-up funds.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
not more than 5 percent of any single grant, or not to exceed
$75,000, whichever is less, may be used toward the start-up
costs of partnerships or new training programs and projects.
[[Page 21212]]
``(B) Exception.--In the case of partnerships consisting
primarily of small businesses, not more than 10 percent of
any single grant, or $150,000, whichever is less, may be used
toward the start-up costs of partnerships or new training
programs and projects.
``(C) Duration of start-up period.--For purposes of this
subsection, a start-up period consists of a period of not
more than 2 months after the grant period begins, at which
time training shall immediately begin and no further Federal
funds may be used for start-up purposes.
``(4) Training outcomes.--
``(A) Consideration for certain programs and projects.--
Consideration in the awarding of grants shall be given to
applicants that provide a specific, measurable commitment
upon successful completion of a training course, to--
``(i) hire or effectuate the hiring of unemployed trainees
(where applicable);
``(ii) increase the wages or salary of incumbent workers
(where applicable); and
``(iii) provide skill certifications to trainees or link
the training to industry-accepted occupational skill
standards, certificates, or licensing requirements.
``(B) Requirements for grant applications.--Applications
for grants shall--
``(i) articulate the level of skills that workers will be
trained for and the manner by which attainment of those
skills will be measured;
``(ii) include an agreement that the program or project
shall be subject to evaluation by the Secretary of Labor to
measure its effectiveness; and
``(iii) in the case of an application for a grant under
subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii), explain what barriers prevent the
strategy from being implemented through a grant made under
subsection (c)(2)(A)(i).
``(5) Matching funds.--Each application for a grant to
carry out a program or project described in paragraph (1)(A)
shall state the manner by which the partnership will provide
non-Federal matching resources (cash, or in-kind
contributions, or both) equal to at least 50 percent of the
total grant amount awarded under paragraph (2)(A)(i), and at
least 100 percent of the total grant amount awarded under
paragraph (2)(A)(ii). At least one-half of the non-Federal
matching funds shall be from the business or businesses or
business-related nonprofit organizations involved.
Consideration in the award of grants shall be given to
applicants that provide a specific commitment or commitments
of resources from other public or private sources, or both,
so as to demonstrate the long-term sustainability of the
training program or project after the grant expires.
``(6) Administrative costs.--An entity that receives a
grant to carry out a program or project described in
paragraph (1)(A) may not use more than 10 percent of the
amount of the grant to pay for administrative costs
associated with the program or project.''.
SEC. 112. KIDS 2000 CRIME PREVENTION AND COMPUTER EDUCATION
INITIATIVE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Kids
2000 Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is an increasing epidemic of juvenile crime
throughout the United States.
(2) It is well documented that the majority of juvenile
crimes take place during after-school hours.
(3) Knowledge of technology is becoming increasingly
necessary for children in school and out of school.
(4) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have 2,700 clubs
throughout all 50 States, serving over 3,000,000 boys and
girls primarily from at-risk communities.
(5) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have the physical
structures in place for immediate implementation of an after-
school technology program.
(6) Building technology centers and providing integrated
content and full-time staffing at those centers in the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America nationwide will help foster
education, job training, and an alternative to crime for at-
risk youth.
(7) Partnerships between the public sector and the private
sector are an effective way of providing after-school
technology programs in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
(8) PowerUp: Bridging the Digital Divide is an entity
comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit organizations, major
corporations, and Federal agencies that have joined together
to launch a major new initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills,
experiences, and resources they need to succeed in the
digital age.
(9) Bringing PowerUp into the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America will be an effective way to ensure that our youth
have a safe, crime-free environment in which to learn the
technological skills they need to close the divide between
young people who have access to computer-based information
and technology-related skills and those who do not.
(c) After-School Technology Grants to the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.--
(1) Purposes.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the purpose of
funding effective after-school technology programs, such as
PowerUp, in order to provide--
(A) constructive technology-focused activities that are
part of a comprehensive program to provide access to
technology and technology training to youth during after-
school hours, weekends, and school vacations;
(B) supervised activities in safe environments for youth;
and
(C) full-time staffing with teachers, tutors, and other
qualified personnel.
(2) Subawards.--The Boys and Girls Clubs of America shall
make subawards to local boys and girls clubs authorizing
expenditures associated with providing technology programs
such as PowerUp, including the hiring of teachers and other
personnel, procurement of goods and services, including
computer equipment, or such other purposes as are approved by
the Attorney General.
(d) Applications.--
(1) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, an applicant for a subaward
(specified in subsection (c)(2)) shall submit an application
to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, in such form and
containing such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require.
(2) Application requirements.--Each application submitted
in accordance with paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a request for a subgrant to be used for the purposes of
this section;
(B) a description of the communities to be served by the
grant, including the nature of juvenile crime, violence, and
drug use in the communities;
(C) written assurances that Federal funds received under
this section will be used to supplement and not supplant,
non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this section;
(D) written assurances that all activities funded under
this section will be supervised by qualified adults;
(E) a plan for assuring that program activities will take
place in a secure environment that is free of crime and
drugs;
(F) a plan outlining the utilization of content-based
programs such as PowerUp, and the provision of trained adult
personnel to supervise the after-school technology training;
and
(G) any additional statistical or financial information
that the Boys and Girls Clubs of America may reasonably
require.
(e) Grant Awards.--In awarding subgrants under this
section, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America shall consider--
(1) the ability of the applicant to provide the intended
services;
(2) the history and establishment of the applicant in
providing youth activities; and
(3) the extent to which services will be provided in crime-
prone areas and technologically underserved populations, and
efforts to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of
the grant awards.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to
carry out this section.
(2) Source of funds.--Funds to carry out this section may
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
(3) Continued availability.--Amounts made available under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 113. USE OF FEES FOR DUTIES RELATING TO PETITIONS.
(a) Section 286(s)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(5)) is amended to read as follows: ``4
percent of the amounts deposited into the H-1B Nonimmigrant
Petitioner Account shall remain available to the Attorney
General until expended to carry out duties under paragraphs
(1) and (9) of section 214(c) related to petitions made for
nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), under
paragraph (1) (C) or (D) of section 204 related to petitions
for immigrants described in section 203(b).''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
figure on page 14, line 16 is deemed to be ``22 percent'';
the figure on page 16, line 14 is deemed to be ``4 percent'';
and the figure on page 16, line 16 is deemed to be ``2
percent''.
SEC. 114. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ``J'' NONIMMIGRANTS FROM
NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ``H-1B''
NONIMMMIGRANTS.
The numerical limitations contained in section 102 of this
title shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien granted a
waiver that is subject to the limitation contained in
paragraph (1)(B) of the first section 214(l) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to restrictions on
waivers).
SEC. 115. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ``DIGITAL DIVIDE''.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a
review of existing public and private high-tech workforce
training programs in the United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit
a report to Congress setting forth the findings of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 116. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title (or any amendment made by
this title) or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the title (and
the amendments made by this title) and the application of
such provision to any
[[Page 21213]]
other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
This section be enacted 2 days after effective date.
TITLE II--IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000''.
SEC. 202. PURPOSES.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with
the mechanisms it needs to eliminate the current backlog in
the processing of immigration benefit applications within 1
year after enactment of this Act and to maintain the
elimination of the backlog in future years; and
(2) provide for regular congressional oversight of the
performance of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
eliminating the backlog and processing delays in immigration
benefits adjudications.
(b) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that the
processing of an immigration benefit application should be
completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of
the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant
visa under section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act should be processed not later than 30 days after the
filing of the petition.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Backlog.--The term ``backlog'' means, with respect to
an immigration benefit application, the period of time in
excess of 180 days that such application has been pending
before the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Immigration benefit application.--The term
``immigration benefit application'' means any application or
petition to confer, certify, change, adjust, or extend any
status granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
SEC. 204. IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
ACCOUNT.
(a) Authority of the Attorney General.--The Attorney
General shall take such measures as may be necessary to--
(1) reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration
benefit applications, with the objective of the total
elimination of the backlog not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act;
(2) make such other improvements in the processing of
immigration benefit applications as may be necessary to
ensure that a backlog does not develop after such date; and
(3) make such improvements in infrastructure as may be
necessary to effectively provide immigration services.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice from time to time such sums as may
be necessary for the Attorney General to carry out subsection
(a).
(2) Designation of account in treasury.--Amounts
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) may be referred to as
the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements
Account''.
(3) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.
(4) Limitation on expenditures.--None of the funds
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) may be expended until
the report described in section 205(a) has been submitted to
Congress.
SEC. 205. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Backlog Elimination Plan.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives concerning--
(A) the backlogs in immigration benefit applications in
existence as of the date of enactment of this title; and
(B) the Attorney General's plan for eliminating such
backlogs.
(2) Report elements.--The report shall include--
(A) an assessment of the data systems used in adjudicating
and reporting on the status of immigration benefit
applications, including--
(i) a description of the adequacy of existing computer
hardware, computer software, and other mechanisms to comply
with the adjudications and reporting requirements of this
title; and
(ii) a plan for implementing improvements to existing data
systems to accomplish the purpose of this title, as described
in section 202(a);
(B) a description of the quality controls to be put into
force to ensure timely, fair, accurate, and complete
processing and adjudication of such applications;
(C) the elements specified in subsection (b)(2);
(D) an estimate of the amount of appropriated funds that
would be necessary in order to eliminate the backlogs in each
category of immigration benefit applications described in
subsection (b)(2); and
(E) a detailed plan on how the Attorney General will use
any funds in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure
Improvements Account to comply with the purposes of this
title.
(b) Annual Reports.--
(1) In general.--Beginning 90 days after the end of the
first fiscal year for which any appropriation authorized by
section 204(b) is made, and 90 days after the end of each
fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a
report to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives concerning the
status of--
(A) the Immigration Services and Infrastructure
Improvements Account including any unobligated balances of
appropriations in the Account; and
(B) the Attorney General's efforts to eliminate backlogs in
any immigration benefit application described in paragraph
(2).
(2) Report elements.--The report shall include--
(A) State-by-State data on--
(i) the number of naturalization cases adjudicated in each
quarter of each fiscal year;
(ii) the average processing time for naturalization
applications;
(iii) the number of naturalization applications pending for
up to 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 36 months,
and 48 months or more;
(iv) estimated processing times adjudicating newly
submitted naturalization applications;
(v) an analysis of the appropriate processing times for
naturalization applications; and
(vi) the additional resources and process changes needed to
eliminate the backlog for naturalization adjudications;
(B) the status of applications or, where applicable,
petitions described in subparagraph (C), by Immigration and
Naturalization Service district, including--
(i) the number of cases adjudicated in each quarter of each
fiscal year;
(ii) the average processing time for such applications or
petitions;
(iii) the number of applications or petitions pending for
up to 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 36 months,
and 48 months or more;
(iv) the estimated processing times adjudicating newly
submitted applications or petitions;
(v) an analysis of the appropriate processing times for
applications or petitions; and
(vi) a description of the additional resources and process
changes needed to eliminate the backlog for such processing
and adjudications; and
(C) a status report on--
(i) applications for adjustments of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(ii) petitions for nonimmigrant visas under section 214 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(iii) petitions filed under section 204 of such Act to
classify aliens as immediate relatives or preference
immigrants under section 203 of such Act;
(iv) applications for asylum under section 208 of such Act;
(v) registrations for Temporary Protected Status under
section 244 of such Act; and
(vi) a description of the additional resources and process
changes needed to eliminate the backlog for such processing
and adjudications.
(3) Absence of appropriated funds.--In the event that no
funds are appropriated subject to section 204(b) in the
fiscal year in which this Act is enacted, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to Congress not later than 90
days after the end of such fiscal year, and each fiscal year
thereafter, containing the elements described in paragraph
(2).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill S. 2045.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in
favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Stenholm) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Filner, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Stabenow, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Hansen) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today, and October 6, 10, 11,
12, and 13.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gekas, for 5 minutes, today.
[[Page 21214]]
Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills and a joint
resolution of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon
signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 1800. To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 to ensure that certain information
regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney General.
H.R. 2752. To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell
certain public land in Lincoln County through a competitive
process.
H.R. 2773. To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
designate the Wekiva River and its tributaries of Wekiwa
Springs Run, Rock Springs Run, and Black Water Creek in the
State of Florida as components of the national wild and
scenic rivers system.
H.R. 4579. To provide for the exchange of certain lands
within the State of Utah.
H.R. 4583. To extend the authorization for the Air Force
Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District
of Columbia or its environs.
H.J. Res. 110. Making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate
of the following titles:
S. 366. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to
designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National
Historic Trail.
S. 1198. An act to establish a 3-year pilot project for the
General Accounting Office to report to Congress on
economically significant rules of Federal agencies, and for
other purposes.
S. 2045. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
S. 2272. An act to improve the administrative efficiency
and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts
and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997.
____________________
BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on this day present to the President, for his
approval, a bill of the House of the following title:
H.R. 4365. To amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to children's health.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 8 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until Friday, October 6, 2000, at 9 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
10460. A letter from the Acting Executive Director,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Profile Documents for Commodity
Pools (RIN: 3038-AB60) received October 4, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
10461. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting a report on the Cost Estimate for Pay-
As-You-Go Calculations; to the Committee on the Budget.
10462. A letter from the Director, Office on Management and
Budget, transmitting a report on the Estimates Contained in
P.L. 106-259 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, FY
2001; to the Committee on the Budget.
10463. A letter from the Special Assistant, Mass Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 73.202(b),
Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Rocksprings,
Texas) [MM Docket No. 99-336; RM-9758] received October 2,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
10464. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Bristol, Vermont) [MM Docket No. 99-260; RM-9686]
received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Commerce.
10465. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Sheffield, Pennsylvania) [MM Docket No. 00-60; RM-9827]
(Erie, Illinois) [MM Docket No. 00-61; RM-9840] (Due West,
South Carolina) [MM Docket No. 00-62; RM-9846] received
October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
10466. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Jacksonville, Georgia) [MM Docket No. 00-84; RM-
9855] (Las Vegas, New Mexico) [MM Docket No. 00-85; RM-9868]
(Vale, Oregon) [MM Docket No. 00-86; RM-9869] (Waynesboro,
Georgia) [MM Docket No. 00-89; RM-9872] (Fallon, Nevada) [MM
Docket No. 00-111; RM-9900] (Weiser, Oregon) [MM Docket No.
00-112; RM-9901] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10467. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Pitkin, Lake Charles, Moss Bluff, and Reeves,
Louisiana, and Crystal Beach, Galveston, Missouri City, and
Rosenberg, Texas.) [MM Docket No. 99-26; RM-9436; RM-9651;
RM-9652] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10468. A letter from the Chief, Policy and Rules Division,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Part 15 of the
Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Devices [ET
Docket No. 99-231] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10469. A letter from the Associate Bureau Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Revision of the
Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
Emergency Calling Systems [CC Docket No. 94-102] received
October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
10470. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Station
(Andalusia, Alabama and Holt, Florida) [MM Docket No. 00-17;
RM-9814] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10471. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Rangley, Silverton and Ridgway, Colorado) [MM Docket No. 99-
151, RM-9559, RM-9932] received October 2, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10472. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with Italy [Transmittal No. DTC 127-00], pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2776(d); to the Committee on International Relations.
10473. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
10474. A letter from the Auditor, District of Columbia,
transmitting a copy of a report entitled ``Audit of the
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3B for the period October 1,
1997 through December 31, 1999,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 47-117(d); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10475. A letter from the Auditor, District of Columbia,
transmitting a copy of a report entitled ``Certification of
the Fiscal Year 2000 Revised Revenue Estimate of
$3,225,180,000 in Support of the District's $189 Million
Multimodal General Obligation Bonds,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 47-117(d); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10476. A letter from the Chairman, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, transmitting a report on the revised Strategic
Plan; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10477. A letter from the Attorney General, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report on the Strategic Plan for
2000-2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
[[Page 21215]]
10478. A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting a report on the Strategic Plan
2001-2006; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10479. A letter from the The Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, transmitting a report on the Strategic
Plan for FY 2000-2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10480. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting a report on the Strategic
Plan for 2000-2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10481. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting a report on the Strategic Plan for
FY 2000-2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10482. A letter from the Executive Director, Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, transmitting a report on the five-
year Strategic/Operational Plan for FY 2000-2005; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10483. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting a report on the 2000 Inventory of
Commercial Activities; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10484. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting a report on the Federal Human
Resources Management for the 21st century Strategic Plan FY
2000-2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10485. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting a
report on the Strategic Plan for 1999-2004; to the Committee
on Government Reform.
10486. A letter from the Chairman, Tennessee Valley
Authority, transmitting a copy of the annual report in
compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act during the
calendar year 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10487. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna [I.D. 081600A] received October 3, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
10488. A letter from the Acting Associate Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Acquisition of
Training Services--received October 2, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.
10489. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Monthly Limit for Transit Passes and Transportation in a
Commuter Highway Vehicle Provided by an Employer to Employees
Under Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code
[Announcement 2000-78] received October 4, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10490. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Services, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Automatic approval of changes in funding methods [Rev.
Procedure 2000-40] received October 3, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10491. A letter from the Chairman, United States
International Trade Commission, transmitting the annual
report on the impact of the Andean Trade Preference Act on
U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Drug Crop Eradication
and Crop Substitution, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 3204; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
10492. A letter from the Acting Director of Communications
and Legislative Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, transmitting a report on the Employment of
Minorities, Women and People with Disabilities in the Federal
Government; jointly to the Committees on Government Reform
and Education and the Workforce.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 3241. A
bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to recalculate
the franchise fee owed by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., a
concessioner providing service to Fort Sumpter National
Monument in South Carolina, and for other purposes; with an
amendment (Rept. 106-937). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. S. 1936. An
act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or
exchange all or part of certain administrative sites and
other National Forest System land in the State of Oregon and
use the proceeds derived from the sale or exchange for
National Forest System purposes; with an amendment (Rept.
106-938). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey: Committee of Conference.
Conference report on H.R. 3244. A bill to combat trafficking
on persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and
slavery-like conditions in the United States and countries
around the world through prevention, through prosecution and
enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and
assistance to victims of trafficking (Rept. 106-939). Ordered
to be printed.
Mr. WOLF: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 4475. A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-
940). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 612.
Resolution waiving points of order against the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4475) making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-941). Referred to the
House Calendar.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules. House Resolution
613. Resolution waiving points of order against the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat
trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade,
slavery, and slavery-like conditions in the United States and
countries around the world through prevention, through
prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking (Rept.
106-942). Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 5389. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey certain real property in the city of Joliet, Illinois,
to the Joliet Park District for use as the park district's
headquarters; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. BILBRAY:
H.R. 5390. A bill to amend the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure
Act to extend the existence of the interagency working group
established under that Act, and to clarify the authority of
that group and the application of that Act regarding records
pertaining to the Imperial Government of Japan; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. ROHRABACHER:
H.R. 5391. A bill to establish the White House Commission
on the National Moment of Remembrance; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. TALENT (for himself and Mr. Crane):
H.R. 5392. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide relief for small business concerns
from Medicare consolidated billing requirements and to
exclude services of certain providers from the skilled
nursing facility prospective payment system, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MCCOLLUM (for himself and Ms. Baldwin):
H.R. 5393. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a criminal penalty for the unauthorized placement of
a writing with a consumer product, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WOLF:
H.R. 5394. A bill making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Appropriations.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr. Wu):
H.R. 5395. A bill to provide for qualified withdrawals from
the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) for fishermen leaving the
industry and for the rollover of Capital Construction Funds
to individual retirement plans; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DIAZ-BALART:
H.R. 5396. A bill to amend section 81 of the Tariff Act of
1930 to amend the definition of a foreign trade zone
operator, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Baird,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Bilbray, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonior,
Mrs. Bono, Mr. Borski, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms.
Brown of Florida, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cannon, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Carson, Mrs. Christensen,
Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Condit, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Cramer, Ms.
Danner, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Dicks, Mr.
[[Page 21216]]
Dingell, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Filner, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Hall of Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Holden, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Jefferson,
Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy of
Rhode Island, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klink, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Larson, Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Levin, Ms. Lofgren, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. McKinney, Mr. McNulty,
Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mascara,
Mr. Matsui, Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr.
Meeks of New York, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Metcalf, Mr.
Mica, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Murtha, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
Mr. Ney, Ms. Norton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Owens, Mr. Packard, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Payne, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Phelps,
Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Rahall,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mrs. Roukema, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sandlin,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Scott, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shows, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Spratt, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stearns, Mr.
Strickland, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs. Tauscher,
Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Wamp,
Ms. Waters, Mr. Weygand, Mr. Wise, Ms. Woolsey, Mr.
Wu, and Mr. Wynn):
H.R. 5397. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of veterans of the Armed
Forces of the United States and to use the proceeds of
surcharges imposed on the sale of such coins to fund the
transportation of veterans to and from hospitals administered
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. JOHN:
H.R. 5398. A bill to provide that land which is owned by
the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana but which is not held in
trust by the United States for the Tribe may be leased or
transferred by the Tribe without further approval by the
United States; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. LOBIONDO:
H.R. 5399. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating the Abel and Mary Nicholson House located in
Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, as a unit of
the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma (for himself and Mr. Watkins):
H.R. 5400. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify the retail tax on heavy trucks and trailers to
exclude tractors suitable for use with vehicles weighing
33,000 pounds or less; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MOORE (for himself, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Moran of
Kansas, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Condit, Mr.
Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Bishop, Mr.
Pomeroy, Mr. Scott, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr.
Berry, Mr. John, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Turner, and Mr.
Shows):
H.R. 5401. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the section 29 credit for producing fuel from
a nonconventional source; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MORELLA (for herself and Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland):
H.R. 5402. A bill to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Development Act to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Commission; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. SOUDER:
H.R. 5403. A bill to restore Federal recognition to the
Miami Nation of Indiana; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Coyne):
H.R. 5404. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to establish and implement a comprehensive
system under the Medicare Program to assure quality of care
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, and reduce the incidence
of medical errors, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TIERNEY (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mrs. McCarthy
of New York, and Mr. Kildee):
H.R. 5405. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide emergency
protection for retiree health benefits; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee
on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. WOLF:
H.R. 5406. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide for rank awards for certain senior career employees;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. LAZIO (for himself, Mr. Gilman, and Mr.
Reynolds):
H. Con. Res. 418. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress regarding the current level of violence
between the Israelis and the Palestinians; to the Committee
on International Relations.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
475. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Michigan, relative to Resolution No. 209
memorializing the United States Army Corps of Engineeers to
hold public hearings on its proposed erosion mitigation
policy for portions of the Lake Michigan shoreline; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
476. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Ohio, relative to Resolution No. 60
memorializing the Congress of the United States to propose
and pass legislation to return adequate funding to states to
fund the employment security system, ensuring a fair return
to employer for the Federal Unemployment Tax Act; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. BECERRA introduced a bill (H.R. 5407) for the relief of
Tony Lara; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Undre clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 531: Ms. Velazquez.
H.R. 561: Mr. Smith of Washington,
H.R. 640: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 783: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 963: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 1303: Mr. Istook, Mr. McHugh, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and
Mr. Mica.
H.R. 1450: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 2166: Mr. Baird, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Phelps,
Mr. Meehan, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 2520: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H.R. 2551: Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr.
Bereuter, and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 2620: Ms. Carson and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 3083: Mr. Coyne, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 3256: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 3453: Ms. Pryce of Ohio.
H.R. 3514: Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Phelps, Mr.
Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Condit, and Mr. Weygand.
H.R. 3558: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 3628: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3712: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 4025: Mr. English.
H.R. 4082: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 4102: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 4281: Mr. Oxley.
H.R. 4328: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 4511: Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Nussle.
H.R. 4547: Mr. McCollum, Mr. Oxley, and Ms. Danner.
H.R. 4549: Mr. Ewing.
H.R. 4580: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 4624: Mr. Farr of California.
H.R. 4740: Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Dixon.
H.R. 4874: Ms. Carson and Mr. Graham.
H.R. 4894: Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 4936: Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 4971: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 5015: Mr. Green of Texas and Ms. Carson.
H.R. 5027: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 5067: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 5132: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McHugh, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs.
Morella, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Roybal-
Allard.
H.R. 5137: Mr. McCollum, Mr. Porter, Ms. McCarthy of
Missouri, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs.
Roukema, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. McNulty.
[[Page 21217]]
H.R. 5147: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Hall
of Texas, and Mr. Martinez.
H.R. 5148: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 5151: Ms. Danner and Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 5152: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Lampson, and
Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 5159: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 5164: Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. LaTourette, and
Mr. Klink.
H.R. 5180: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 5238: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 5258: Mr. DeLay, Ms. Granger, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hall of
Ohio, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Spence, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Traficant,
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hayworth, Mrs. Clayton, Mrs. Emerson, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Berman, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. McKinney, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.
Minge, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Salmon, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Radanovich, Mrs.
Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Walden of Oregon,
Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Shadegg, Mr.
Wamp, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 5261: Mr. Serrano and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 5268: Mr. Nethercutt, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Reyes, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Gary Miller of California, and Mr.
Coyne.
H.R. 5271: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 5322: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 5337: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Ms. Pelosi.
H.R. 5350: Mr. Nethercutt.
H.R. 5373: Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Vitter.
H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. Klink and Ms. Slaughter.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Hall of Ohio.
H. Con. Res. 370: Ms. Sanchez.
H. Con. Res. 395: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Con. Res. 401: Mr. Hefley, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Radanovich,
Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Payne, and
Ms. McKinney.
H. Con. Res. 404: Mr. Costello, Mr. Lewis of California,
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut.
H. Con. Res. 408: Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Kucinich,
Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
and Mr. Goodlatte.
H. Con. Res. 412: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Farr of California.
H. Res. 347: Ms. Slaughter.
H. Res. 437: Mr. Sandlin.
H. Res. 537: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
October 5, 2000
[[Page 21218]]
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
THE NAMING OF THE CARL RENYA MEMORIAL FIELD ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
CAPUCHINO HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, too often in today's world, our newspapers
are filled with stories about all of the things that are wrong with
sports. Today, I want to take a moment to honor someone who was an
example of all that can be right about athletic competition.
I want to report to my colleagues in this House about a man with an
innocent passion for sports, who embodied the virtues of good
sportsmanship. A man with a kind gentle spirit, who was an institution
on the bleachers and the fields of Capuchino High School in San Bruno
and other high schools in San Bruno, Burlingame, and Millbrae,
California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding
man--Carl Renya.
A graduate of Capuchino High School and affectionately known as ``Mr.
Capuchino,'' Carl was the personification of all that is good about
sport. A lifelong fan of our Peninsula high schools, Carl could be
counted on to be in the audience for every game. He was such a part of
the competition that athletes and made rubbing his bald head a pre-game
ritual for good luck. In addition to attending every game, Carl
regularly authored a sports column in the San Bruno Herald. Although he
did not posses the greatest singing voice, Carl took great pride in
telephoning local high school principals at 6:00 a.m. on game day
mornings to sing the school's fight song.
Mr. Speaker, Carl Renya passed away in March of 1998. It was
appropriate that the memorial service for Carl was held in the
Gymnasium of Capuchino High School with athletes, cheerleaders, two
marching bands, and brightly colored banners which recalled his
commitment to the school and its athletic programs.
On Sunday October 8th the people of the Peninsula will gather to
honor the 50th Anniversary of Capuchino High School. As part of the
anniversary celebration, the school's football field will be renamed
and dedicated to honor Carl Renya. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a more
appropriate honor. During his brief but full fifty-nine years, Carl
touched the lives of all those with whom he came in contact. Now that
Carl is gone, those whose lives he touched have their opportunity to
cheer for him. Mr. Speaker, even though Carl is no longer cheering on
the sidelines, his presence will still be felt at every Capuchino High
School football game--which now will be played at the Carl Renya
Memorial Field.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ALBERT MARDIROSSIAN, JR., PASSAIC LIONS CLUB MAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a person I am proud to call my friend, Albert Mardirossian,
Jr. of Clifton, New Jersey, who will be recognized on Friday, October
6, 2000 as the Passaic Lions Club Man of the Year. He was feted because
of his many years of service and leadership. The 80-year-old
organization chooses one man each year that has, ``given themselves to
both the city and its residents.'' It is only appropriate that he be
honored, for he has a long history of caring, generosity and commitment
to others.
Albert was recognized for his many years of leadership in New Jersey,
which I have been honored to represent in Congress since 1997, and so
it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals of
this greatest of all freely elected bodies.
Born in Passaic, New Jersey, Albert Mardirossian, Jr. graduated from
Clifton High School in 1956. He received his BS from Fairleigh
Dickinson University in 1960. As an undergraduate, he served as Class
President, Student Council President and Captain of the Fencing Team.
Later, he was the school's fundraising chair in 1965 and its Alumni
President in 1966.
Albert has always been an active and involved leader. The time at
Fairleigh Dickinson instilled in Albert the attributes necessary for
him to become a stellar force in the community. It was the small steps
in the beginning of his career that taught him the fundamentals that
would make him a role model to the people that he now serves.
Known for a questioning mind and an ability to get things done,
Albert has received numerous community awards. These include two
previous ``Man of the Year'' designations. The Passaic Optimists named
him in 1985, and the Passaic Old Timers AA tapped him in 1986. He also
received ``Appreciation Awards'' from the Hispanic Information Center
of Passaic in 1985 and from the Passaic County Freeholders in 1993. In
addition, he is a winner of the Councilman Jim Shoop Community Service
Award and the Deacon Magnus Ellen Community Service Award.
Currently, Al builds homes and develops properties in South Jersey,
mostly in Little Egg Harbor Township in Ocean County. This native of
Passaic and Clifton resident is active in both communities. He has long
donated time and money to school athletics. This was evidenced in 1999
with the naming of the Passaic High School ``Albert Mardirossian, Jr.
Weight & Training Room.'' Sports are a passion for Al since he used to
own two sporting goods stores.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Albert's family and
friends and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable service to
the community of Albert Mardirossian, Jr., a true humanitarian.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOSEPHINE YOUNGS
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues here in the
U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring Mrs. Josephine
Youngs of Roselle, New Jersey as she celebrates her 100th birthday.
Born on October 25, 1900, in Jacksonville, Florida, Mrs. Youngs is
the youngest surviving child of eight siblings, four brothers and four
sisters. Mrs. Youngs married Walter Youngs in 1921, and they became the
parents of one child. Mrs. Youngs has lived in Roselle, New Jersey for
28 years and is now cared for by her daughter, Geraldine McLean. A long
time member of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church in Newark, Mrs. Youngs
maintains a keen interest in current events, including the upcoming
Presidential election. In addition, she is accomplished at sewing,
quilt making, and gardening. She also cheers for the Yankees during
baseball season.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Youngs is truly an inspiration to those around her.
As her family and friends gather to celebrate her life spanning a
century, it is fitting that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to
her and to extend our very best wishes on this special birthday.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF CONSTITUENT JANE RYAN
______
HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the great work of my
constituent, Jane Ryan, RN, MN, CNAA, who is ending her tenure this
year as President of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association
(APNA).
Mr. Speaker, Jane Ryan has dedicated her entire career to the field
of mental health. For many years, Ms. Ryan focused on training the next
generation of psychiatric nurses at the University of California at Los
Angeles (UCLA). As a tribute to her work, former students have been
known to still talk about Jane's unique ability to bring out the best
in her pupils. Despite her busy schedule, ever the teacher and mentor,
Jane still continues to
[[Page 21219]]
keep in touch with a number of her former students and colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, Jane Ryan has worked tirelessly on the issue of
seclusion and restraint. Recently, her hard work came to fruition as
Congress passed language related to seclusion and restraint that
focuses on patient and staff safety issues. I supported passage of this
measure and was a co-sponsor of the Patient Freedom from Restraint Act.
I agree that seclusion and restraint requires our serious attention and
we must all thank Jane for her leadership in this area.
During her career, Jane Ryan never lost sight of the larger picture--
she never forgot why she and others entered into the field of
psychiatric nursing--to help people. With this in mind, she always
stressed the need to hold a constant dialogue with patients and their
families, in addition to those in the health care provider community.
This important theme was made clear when APNA established a Consumer
Advisory Task Force to continue this important dialogue. This type of
progressive thinking is a hallmark of Jane's leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Jane a number of times in
my Washington, D.C. office. In fact, with her numerous visits to my
office, I was beginning to wonder when she planned to stay in my home
state of Nevada for more than one week at a time! However, I do know
that I am scheduled to meet with Jane at least one more time this year
for what promises to be a very special ceremony in Nevada. I am pleased
to announce that I was chosen to receive APNA's 2000 Congressional
Service Award. This is a true honor and I wish to thank the entire
membership for their consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen a tremendous amount of progress in the
field of mental health over the past few years. For example, Dr. David
Satcher released the first-ever Surgeon General's report on mental
health, where we were reminded of the need to chip away at the stigma
that still surrounds mental illness. In 1999, we witnessed the historic
White House Conference on Mental Health, led by Mrs. Tipper Gore, where
participants, including Jane Ryan, discussed ways to increase access to
mental health care. Also, I must mention the efforts of my colleague
Senator Harry Reid, who has worked tirelessly to draw attention to the
issue of suicide--a problem affecting far too many families across the
country and, in particular, those in Nevada. We know, then, much work
remains. However, we should reflect and be proud of the accomplishments
that were made in the field of mental health--and look forward to more
progress.
Mr. Speaker, we must thank people like Jane Ryan, for the remarkable
strides we have made. There is no doubt that Ms. Ryan, along with the
many other members of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, are
to be commended for their work. On behalf of my colleagues, and
citizens across the country, thank you for making a difference in the
lives of Americans across the country.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 89TH NATIONAL DAY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON TAIWAN
______
HON. NICK LAMPSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make note of and
salute the upcoming 89th National Day of the Republic of China on
Taiwan which will be celebrated on Tuesday, October 10, 2000.
In recent years, Taiwan has emerged as a major economic power in the
world. Much of the economic success is attributable to the efforts of
its leaders. They understand that a strong economy is a necessary basis
for political progress and reform.
From its one-party past, Taiwan has become a true democracy with a
number of political parties. In fact, Mr. Chen Shui-bian of the
Democratic Progressive Party was elected president by the people of
Taiwan last March. Since his inauguration as president on May 20,
President Chen has impressed his people and the world with his
leadership and vision for the future.
Mr. Speaker, on this very special day to Taiwan, I extend my
congratulations to both President Chen, and Representative C. J. Chen
of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United
States.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE LATE MAYOR GEORGE CHRISTOPHER
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of one of San
Francisco's greatest mayors, Mayor George Christopher, who recently
passed away at the age of 92. Every San Franciscan owes Mayor
Christopher a debt of gratitude for his service as mayor and his
commitment to San Francisco. Mayor Christopher envisioned San Francisco
as the world-class city it is today and worked tirelessly to make his
dream a reality.
Having emigrated from Greece at the age of 2, George Christopher rose
from humble beginnings to become the dominant figure of his time in San
Francisco politics. He brought San Francisco the Giants, cleaned up the
police force, championed civil rights, and altered the city's
landscape. He changed the city in ways today's residents may not even
realize.
As the following editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle
testifies, George Christopher was a ``Giant of San Francisco'':
If the Giants win the National League pennant this year for
San Francisco, the person most responsible for the feat won't
be Barry Bonds or Dusty Baker or the legion of others who
take the field, run the bases or manage team affairs. No, the
real credit should go to George Christopher, the illustrious,
can-do guy who as mayor lured the franchise here from New
York more than 40 years ago.
In a magical move that left New Yorkers seething,
Christopher somehow persuaded then-team owner Horace Stoneham
to uproot the Giants from the New York Polo Grounds and ship
them--Willie Mays and all--more than 2,700 miles west. It was
a glorious day in San Francisco history, and Christopher, who
died yesterday at age 92, will always be known for it--in
part, because hardly anyone knows how he did it.
But Christopher was an early-riser, a go- getter who spent
long hours cooking up ways to elevate the vitality and
prosperity of his city. ``Every era has to take care of its
own needs,'' Christopher once said in a casual statement that
summarizes his spirit and tenure at City Hall. After
corralling the Giants, Christopher became the driving force
behind building a stadium for them to play in at wind-swept
Candlestick Point. There were some howls about the Arctic-
like atmosphere that surrounds where it sat and some
questions of cost and patronage. But there is no question
that it was a pragmatic decision.
With similar energy and insight, Christopher pushed for a
light rail system that evolved into BART. And he argued for a
hotel tax because ``extra promotional funds are needed to
bolster a number of worthwhile cultural activities, such as
the Opera.'' The fees, he reasoned, would also help attract
tourists.
The business community shuttered, but Christopher was
right. Tourism has flourished ever since. And the hotel duty
has provided millions of dollars for the arts, low-cost
hearing and numerous other social services alike.
No wonder he swept into office by a 2-to-1 ratio, winning
endorsements from all the daily newspapers, buoyed by support
from many Democrats even though he was a Republican. The
ever-gentlemanly Christopher will be long remembered for
baseball and for his distinctive brand of business-like and
effective leadership.
My thoughts and prayers are with his three sisters, Beatrice Tentes,
Helen Christopher, and Ethel Davies and all of his family and friends.
We will miss him greatly.
____________________
HONORING CAMELIA ANWAR SADAT AND DENISE BROWN
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I commend two extraordinary persons,
Camelia Anwar Sadat and Denise Brown, for their tireless efforts to
raise the level of awareness of the serious problem of domestic
violence. Over the years, both Ms. Sadat and Ms. Brown have been
effective advocates for victims of domestic violence. They have
committed substantial amounts of time and resources to help address
this problem. I am pleased to welcome Ms. Sadat and Ms. Brown to
Southeast Michigan when they will address the Arab-American domestic
violence dinner sponsored by the Arab Community Center for Economic and
Social Services (ACCESS) on October 11, 2000.
Domestic violence has been a problem of great enormity throughout
history. Six years ago, however, a bipartisan majority of Congress
passed, and President Clinton signed, the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA).
[[Page 21220]]
VAWA was a giant step forward in our country's response to violence
against women. It was the first federal law of its kind to recognize
that gender-based crimes prevent women from being full participants in
society. VAWA has had an enormous impact on many women and children
through grants and federal prosecutions. VAWA expired on September 30,
2000, however, I am pleased to note that on September 26, 2000, the
House of Representatives not only voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize
VAWA, but also to expand the original law. I am hopeful the Senate will
do likewise so this important legislation can become law.
Violence against women must be stopped and every person must do their
part. VAWA is playing an important step in ending this violence, but it
cannot do so alone. It is vitally important that the public is educated
about the effects this violence has on our society. Ms. Sadat and Ms.
Brown are committed advocates and continually reach out and educate
communities about domestic violence. I laud their efforts and
accomplishments that are raising public awareness and helping purge
domestic violence from our nation.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 89TH NATIONAL DAY OF TAIWAN
______
HON. EARL F. HILLIARD
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I wish to send best wishes and
congratulations to His Excellency Chen Shui-Bian, President of the
Republic of China, and all the citizens of Taiwan on the occasion of
their 89th National Day. Taiwan has prospered in recent years. It has
one of the strongest economies in the world, and its people enjoy
unprecedented prosperity.
Taiwan has good schools, a good transportation system, and quality
health care. Furthermore, the people of Taiwan enjoy political freedom
through direct elections, a free press, and a commitment to human
rights.
Taiwan has every right to be proud on the occasion of its 89th
National Day, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the
country's achievements.
____________________
REOPENING OF THE GOLDEN ROSE CHORAL SYNAGOGUE IN UKRAINE
______
HON. SANDER M. LEVIN
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
extend my sincere congratulations to the Jewish community of Ukraine,
and particularly to Rabbi Kaminezki, as they celebrate the reopening of
one of Ukraine's most important symbols of Jewish culture--the Golden
Rose Choral Synagogue in the city of Dnepropetrovsk.
This important event, which took place on September 20, symbolizes
the rebirth of the Jewish community in Ukraine since the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Now, as a result of a great deal of hard work and
perseverance, the Jewish community in Ukraine can be described as one
of the most vibrant Jewish communities in all of the countries
comprising the former Soviet Union.
Today in Dnepropetrovsk, for example, the town where the Golden Rose
Synagogue is located, Jewish orphanages, schools, food centers,
community centers, medical centers, centers that provide care for the
elderly, and centers for Holocaust survivors and victims of communism,
are all thriving.
What I find even more promising, is that similar positive
developments can be seen in many cities and towns across Ukraine.
Today, there are more than 260 Jewish public organizations functioning
in Ukraine--organizations that are successfully working on a daily
basis to promote and consolidate national self-identity and revive
important cultural and religious customs and traditions for all
Ukrainian Jews.
I am pleased that the Ukrainian Government is committed to continue
working together with Jewish community leaders across Ukraine toward
resolving the complex issue of the restitution of objects that used to
be Jewish community property. In this regard, it is important to stress
that more than 33 synagogues, including the one known as Brodsky's
Synagogue in Kiev, have already been returned to the country's
religious communities.
I hope that in coming weeks and months all Ukrainians will continue
working together to promote religious tolerance and freedom. Ukraine's
progress in this area so far should stand as a positive example for
other countries in the region to follow as they seek to create
environments in which no person is subject to persecution solely on the
basis of his or her religious or ethnic background.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF GEORGE BECKER, JR.
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute
to the late George Becker, Jr. of the Becker Community, located in
Kaufman County in the Fourth Congressional District. George suffered a
serious injury on his ranch and spent his last months in the hospital
fighting for his life until he passed away on May 14 at the age of 84.
George was a ``fixture'' in his community and will be missed by his
family and many friends.
George was born August 15, 1915, in the Becker Community, the son of
George and Florence Nash Becker. He was a graduate of Texas A&M
University and a lifetime rancher and realtor. George was very active
in the Texas and Southwest Cattleman's Association. He was a leader in
the Becker United Methodist Church and a trustee at Trinity Valley
Community College since the 1970's. During World War II, he served as a
captain of a PT Boat.
George spent his life in the community in which he was born and
raised. He gave his time, talent and energy to community causes and
activities--and to the vocation which he loved and which finally
claimed his life--ranching.
He is survived by his brother, Major General Bill Becker and sister-
in-law Frances of Kaufman; his brother, Bryan Becker of Dallas; his
sister, Ellen Becker Dodson and brother-in-law, Dr. Ed Dodson of
Texarkana; and many nieces and nephews.
Mr. Speaker, George Becker was a respected citizen of Kaufman County
whose passing has left a void in the Becker Community. As we adjourn
today, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying our last respects to
this fine American, George Becker, Jr.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SELF RELIANCE (NJ) FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a remarkable organization, the Self Reliance (NJ) Federal
Credit Union of Passaic, New Jersey. This outstanding money lending
organization celebrates its 40th Anniversary on Sunday, October 29,
2000. It is a company with a long history of caring, generosity and
commitment to others. Its years of service and leadership deserve to be
honored.
The Self Reliance (NJ) Federal Credit Union was recognized for its
many years of leadership in Passaic, which I have been honored to
represent in Congress since 1997, and so it is only fitting that these
words are immortalized in the annals of this greatest of all freely
elected bodies.
The Self Reliance (Passaic, NJ) Federal Credit Union opened its doors
in January of 1960 with seven members in a small office. The office was
located in the Ukrainian National Home on Hope Avenue in Passaic.
Members include members of the Self-reliance'' Association of Ukrainian
Americans, employees of the Union and relatives of employees. Founded
on the principle of ``People Helping People,'' the credit union
provides financial services that help its members enhance their quality
of life.
On February 28, 1960, 51 members elected the credit union's first
Board of Directors and Supervisory Committee. A loan policy was
established. In January of 1961, the first annual meeting of members
took place. Over the first year the credit union's membership increased
to 191 and total loans were $23,000. The following year there were 241
members and total loans increased to $44,000. From 1966 through 1970,
the credit union gained approximately 40 members per year to a total of
582, with $424,000 in loans.
In 1989, the Board of Directors purchased a building on Allwood Road
in Clifton, New Jersey. The site was completely renovated. In August
1991, the credit union relocated its main office to Clifton, and
expanded the hours of operation at the branch office in Passaic. In
April 1993, the organization changed its name to Self Reliance (NJ)
Federal Credit Union.
In November 1995, the union established an additional facility in
Whippany, New Jersey.
[[Page 21221]]
The same year the union introduced VISA Credit Cards, Home Equity
Loans, international electronic fund transfers and IRS Certificates of
Deposit to its list of services. During 1996, VISA Check (Debit) Cards
were introduced giving members ATM machine access.
In July 1997, the group merged with Self Reliance (Elizabeth, NJ)
Federal Credit Union increasing the number of branch offices to four.
By 1998, with financial growth of 15%, the credit union became the
largest Ukrainian financial institution in the State of New Jersey.
Today the union boasts nearly $60 million in assets and over 4,300
members. To mark the occasion of its 40th anniversary in the year 2000
a disco was held on October 27, a Zebava (cultural) dance was held on
October 28, and a banquet was held on October 29.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the members and
supporters of this special credit union and me in recognizing the
outstanding and invaluable service to the community of the Self
Reliance (NJ) Federal Credit Union.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PASTOR CHARLES E. THOMAS
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues here in the
U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring a very special
person, Rev. Dr. Charles E. Thomas, Pastor of New Hope Baptist Church
in Newark, NJ, who will retire later this month after more than three
decades of faithful service.
Born and raised in Montgomery, AL, to Reverend Nathaniel and Fannie
Thomas, he pursued his educational goals, receiving a bachelor's degree
in business administration from Selma University in Selma, AL. Reverend
Thomas received a bachelor degree in theology from the American Baptist
Theological Seminary in Nashville, TN, and an honorary doctorate degree
from the Urban Bible Institute of Detroit, MI. Reverend Thomas was
called to the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, NJ, in 1957 and began
his pastorship on August 6, 1968.
Throughout his years of service, Pastor Thomas has made a difference
in countless lives through his strong commitment to the church and to
the entire community. In 1972, Reverend Thomas undertook a major
project, the formation of the New Hope Day Care Center, which was first
housed in the church's dining room. The day care center later moved to
a four-story building purchased by the church. Today, the center
continues its successful operation, rendering services for 66 children
year round on a daily basis. Pastor Thomas also administered the
development of the Minority Contractors and Craftsmen Trade Association
and the New Hope Skills Centers. These programs trained workers in
carpentry, masonry and machinery and enabled them to pursue careers in
those fields.
Pastor Thomas also reorganized the Scholarship Fund at New Hope,
expanding opportunities for young men and women who wish to attend
college. In 1975, Pastor Thomas organized the New Hope Development
Corporation, which was responsible for the building of New Hope
Village, a 170-family housing complex in Newark which provides
affordable housing. Other innovative programs he spearheaded include
van transportation for seniors, services to address teen pregnancies,
prison ministry and drug and alcohol counseling.
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement, let us express our
warmest congratulations to Pastor Thomas and our appreciation for his
dedicated service to his church and his community.
____________________
ITALIAN-AMERICAN HERITAGE
______
HON. NICK LAMPSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 5, 2000
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, October 9th is Columbus Day. Columbus Day
is more than just a celebration of the great explorer, Christopher
Columbus, it's about the achievements of Italian-American heritage and
the vision of our entire nation.
Italian-Americans came to this country with little, but we've left a
large mark on our history and culture. I look at my own family and feel
the same way--I started with little and hopefully will leave a mark on
the Southeast, Texas area. My mother, who did not graduate from high
school, but earned a G.E.D. on her 80th birthday, successfully raised
six children by herself after my father died when I was young. She
produced an artist, a doctor, a college teacher, successful business
people, and a United States Congressman--not too bad.
In 1492, a brave and noble explorer with nothing but dreams landed in
a vast and foreign land full of promise--America. Although he can be
considered a controversial figure because Americans born here in what
is now the U.S. certainly lost during European expansion, his courage
and desire for success made him a hero to all.
Columbus Day celebrates our proud people and recognizes the unique
Italian-American experience. With strong leadership and eternal pride,
Italian-American communities not only in Southeast Texas, but also
around the nation, have distinguished themselves through a strong sense
of family and dedication to their youth.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the most valuable and most powerful influence
Christopher Columbus has on our nation and in our human history is
vision. All Americans can draw inspiration from the character and
accomplishments of Columbus.
With his sense of vision, courage, imagination, and optimism, we can
create a future bright with promise and a new world where all of us can
pursue our dreams. For we have the power to shape the vision of this
nation today, tomorrow, and into the next century.
____________________
THE NEEDLESTICK SAFETY AND PREVENTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, we are here today because needlestick
related health problems are costly and preventable. H.R. 5178, the
Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, will protect our Nation's health
care providers from unnecessary health risks.
Each year, between 600,000 and 800,000 health care workers are
accidentally stuck by needles. As a result, over 1,000 of these injured
workers go on to contract HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C, and over
100 eventually die from their illness. Even those who are fortunate
enough not to be infected by one of these diseases must suffer through
6 months of waiting before they and their families know that they are
healthy.
This suffering can be avoided. Studies have shown that over 80
percent of needlestick injuries are avoidable. Passage of the
Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act will require a strong national
standard to prevent needlestick injuries, and will empower OSHA to
increase the usage of safer needles.
These changes will reduce not only the suffering of injured providers
and their families, but also the costs that hospitals must absorb each
time a needlestick occurs. The post-exposure treatments that every
injured worker have cost up to $3,000. My home State of California was
the first State to pass this legislation, and estimates are that we
will save over $100 million each year as a result.
Unfortunately, this legislation will be too late for many health care
providers. Peggy Ferro, a health care worker in my district in San
Francisco, was the first health care provider to pass away from AIDS as
a result of a needlestick. She died at the young age of 49, while still
fighting for passage of the legislation that we are debating today.
Although this legislation has not been passed soon enough to help
Peggy, we can honor her memory by ensuring that safer needle technology
is used in health facilities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 5178.