[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 649-675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 161. A bill to establish the Violence Against Women Office within 
the Department of Justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent office in the 
Department of Justice. After the passage of the Violence Against Women 
Act in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice administratively created 
the Violence Against Women Office. Over time, the office's duties and 
responsibilities have included administering Violence Against Women Act 
grant programs, providing technical assistance and training to improve 
justice system responses in communities across the country, and 
providing leadership in developing the Administration's policies on 
violence against women. Led by a Presidentially-appointed Director, the 
Violence Against Women Office has had an enormous impact on social 
attitudes in this country about the nature and effects of domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a result of the office's 
high profile work, the urgent issue of violence against women has come 
into much sharper public focus.
  Making permanent the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice 
Department is necessary to extend VAWA's benefits to all corners of the 
country. The office has been the leader in promoting a multi-
disciplinary, community-coordinated system response to violence against 
women. Additionally, it has a specialized knowledge of the best 
practices in the field to ensure that the grant funds are well 
utilized. A statutory mandate would guarantee that the Violence Against 
Women Office will continue this specialized work in future 
Administrations, ensuring that Congress' goals regarding domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking will be carried out with the 
same professional expertise that we have grown to appreciate over the 
past six years.
  This office is needed now more than ever. Violence against women 
continues to ravage our society. In my own state, 40 women were 
murdered by their partners in the year 2000 alone. This is more than in 
any other year on record. Nationally, a woman is battered every 15 
seconds and 25 percent of women surveyed reported rape or physical 
abuse by a current or former spouse, partner or date.
  The effects of these crimes extend far beyond the moment when they 
occur. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women 
leaves is on our children. It is estimated that between 3 and 10 
million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of 
this violence is persistent.
  Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating 
their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development 
and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these 
children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors. 
Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder 
in children.
  It is indisputable that even one incident of abuse inflicts a pain on 
our children that is unimaginable and often unending. It is also 
indisputable that domestic violence is devastating to the economic and 
physical well-being of women and their families. For example, a study 
reported on in the St. Paul Pioneer Press found that 57 percent of the 
women surveyed said they had been threatened to the point that they 
were afraid to go to school or work. Thirty percent were fired or left 
a job because of abuse. 25 percent of homeless people on any given 
night are women and children fleeing domestic abuse. 800,000 women per 
year seek medical care as a result of injuries sustained in a sexual or 
physical assault.
  As this research indicates, violence against women permeates our 
society. It feeds on itself and it repeats itself generation after 
generation. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden 
behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools, 
in the workplace and on the streets. The Federal Government must always 
play a role in combating this insidious epidemic. In the fight against 
domestic violence, we are at the starting gate. Domestic Violence is 
not going away and we as policy makers need to keep efforts to combat 
violence against women at the forefront of our work.
  With the Violence Against Women Office's leadership, we will continue 
to work together to bring justice to millions of women who suffer at 
the hands of abusers everywhere. Through its work, we will ensure our 
commitment to arrive at a day when many fewer women are threatened in 
our schools, in our businesses, on our streets and in our homes. I urge 
my colleagues to support this critical office and the critical role we 
in the Federal Government can continue to play in the fight against 
domestic violence, and I urge them to cosponsor this important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 162. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a business credit against income for the purchase of fishing safety 
equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial 
Fishermen Safety Act of 2001, a bill to help fishermen purchase the 
life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster 
strikes. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague

[[Page 650]]

from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, in introducing this 
legislation. Senator Kerry is a true friend of fishermen and, as 
ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, a leader in 
the effort to sustain our fisheries and maintain the proud fishing 
tradition that exists in his State and in mine. The release last summer 
of the movie ``The Perfect Storm'' provided millions of Americans with 
a glimpse of the challenges and the dangers associated with earning a 
living in the fishing industry. Based on a true story, this movie, 
while very compelling, merely scratches the surface of what it is like 
to be a modern-day fisherman. Every day, members of our fishing 
community struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small 
business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their 
vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers 
associated with fishing where disaster can strike in conditions that 
are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie.
  Year in and year out, commercial fishing is among our Nation's most 
dangerous occupations. According to the data compiled by the Coast 
Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their 
lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 
140 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than 
the average occupation.
  The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing 
communities as a year marked by tragedy. The year began with the loss 
of the trawler Two Friends, 12 miles off the coast of York, ME, on 
January 25. Two of the three crew members died in icy waters after 
their vessel capsized in 16-foot seas. The year concluded with yet 
another tragedy, the loss of the scallop dragger Little Raspy on 
December 14. Three fishermen died when the 30-foot vessel sank in 
Chandler Bay near Jonesport, ME. All told, nine commercial fishermen 
lost their lives off the coast of Maine last year. That exceeded the 
combined casualties of the 3 previous years.
  The death of a 27-year-old fisherman just a few days ago in the Gulf 
of Maine adds to the grief endured by those in Maine's small, close-
knit fishing communities still trying to cope with the tragedies of the 
last year.
  Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been even worse. Heroic 
acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 
13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In 
most of these circumstances, the fishermen were returned to their loved 
ones and families because they had access to safety equipment that made 
all the difference between life and death.
  Shawn Rich, the surviving crew member of the vessel Two Friends, was 
found wearing an immersion suit and clinging to the vessel's emergency 
position indicating radio beacon, or EPIRB. That equipment is what made 
the difference for him and allowed him to be rescued. The EPIRB strobe 
light was spotted by a Coast Guard helicopter despite visibility that 
was less than a quarter of a mile. His immersion suit, which can extend 
survival to as many as 6 hours in the icy waters of the North Atlantic, 
protected the fisherman from water temperatures that would have 
resulted in death by hypothermia after less than 10 minutes of 
unprotected exposure.
  Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety 
equipment. These requirements vary depending on factors such as the 
size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the 
boat is traveling from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a 
liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel 
sink; personal flotation devices, or immersion suits which can help 
protect fishermen from exposure, as well as to increase buoyancy; 
EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to the Coast Guard 
search and rescue personnel; visual distress signals; and fire 
extinguishers.
  This equipment is absolutely critical to surviving an emergency at 
sea. Maggie Raymond of South Berwick, ME, the owner of the fishing 
vessel Olympia, put it well when she said:

       It is just not possible to overstate the importance of the 
     safety equipment. Along the coast of Maine, fishing 
     communities continue to mourn the nine fishermen lost last 
     year. At the same time, 13 fishermen were saved because they 
     were able to get into a survival suit on time or to get into 
     the liferaft, or because they were found literally clinging 
     to an EPIRB. Without this life-safety equipment, the casualty 
     toll would have been much higher.

  When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other 
times, however, the cost of purchasing or maintaining liferafts, 
immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with essential expenses such 
as loan payments, wages, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all 
of these obligations is made much more difficult by a regulatory 
framework that limits the amount of time a fisherman can spend at sea 
and gear alterations that are used to manage our marine resources.
  Most of the fishermen whom I know are more than willing to do their 
part to sustain our marine resources. But the reality is that when 
fishermen are required to limit their catch, they are also limited in 
their ability to generate sufficient income to meet the costs 
associated with maintaining their vessels. The bill I am introducing 
today makes it clear that fishermen should not have to compromise their 
safety in order to make a living in their chosen occupation.
  The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001 lends fisherman a helping 
hand in preparing in case disaster strikes. My legislation provides a 
tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to 
purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit would be 
capped at $1,500. The items I have mentioned can literally cost 
thousands of dollars. The tax credit will make this life-saving 
equipment more affordable for more fishermen who currently face more 
limited options under the Federal Tax Code.
  Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far 
too many tragedies, far too many losses. By extending a tax credit for 
the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help 
ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and 
every time they head out to sea.
  I hope as part of our tax deliberations this year this important 
legislation will be enacted and signed into law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Commercial 
Fishermen Safety Act of 2001. I would like to thank the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Collins, for asking me to introduce this bill with her. This 
legislation would provide fishermen with a tax credit of up to $1,500 
for the purchase of safety equipment that will help save lives at sea 
such as life rafts, immersion suits and Emergency Position Indicating 
Radio Beacons (EPIRBS).
  The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ranks 
commercial fishing as the most dangerous occupation in America, with 
approximately 130 deaths a year per 100,000 employees. Nearly 90 
percent of all fishing related deaths result from drowning--whether a 
fisherman falls overboard by slipping on a wet or icy deck, is washed 
off deck by a wave or is dragged under by a hook or line. In the cold 
waters off New England and Alaska, a fisherman who goes overboard 
without an immersion suit has about 6 minutes to be rescued by his 
shipmates. But fishermen with fully functional immersion suits and life 
rafts are more than twice as likely to survive the sinking of their 
vessel.
  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts knows all to well the dangers of 
commercial fishing. Gloucester is but one example of the toll it has 
taken on our coastal fishing communities. Since 1650 the sea has 
claimed an estimated 10,000 Gloucester fishermen. During the 19th 
Century, Gloucester would typically lose 200 fishermen annually--about 
4 percent of the city's population--to storms in the Gulf of Maine and 
the Grand Banks. Today, even while the National Weather Service 
provides timely and accurate forecasts so that we no longer have entire 
fleets caught on the fishing grounds during a major storm, the tragic 
statistics continue to roll in.

[[Page 651]]

  The shocking loss of 11 fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic in two short 
months during 1998-1999 was unfortunately not an anomaly, but typical 
of historic trends, according to a Fishing Vessel Safety Task Force 
convened to investigate the problem. The Task Force also determined the 
common conditions in these accidents were poor vessel or equipment 
condition and inadequate preparation for emergencies--including basic 
equipment like life rafts, EPIRBs, and immersion suits. Confirming the 
Task Force's observations, last year the First Coast Guard District--
whose area of responsibility stretches from Maine to New Jersey --
reported the death of 13 commercial fishermen. In addition, the 
District reported saving 47 fishermen whose vessels had either sunk or 
caught fire. The Coast Guard estimates that 23 of those fishermen are 
alive today because they had a life raft or immersion suit.
  While safety is always a concern to our fishermen and their families, 
the most immediate worry on their minds is declining profits from 
dwindling stocks and closed areas. In order to meet rebuilding plans 
for our fish stocks regulators have been forced to implement trip 
limits and closed areas to rebuild stocks. These measures are working 
and we are beginning to see some progress in New England. However a few 
fishermen, primarily in small boats, will travel far out to sea in 
order to fish outside the closed areas or in a place with a higher trip 
limit. These fishermen often times cannot afford to replace or inspect 
old worn out life rafts and immersion suits and place themselves at 
extreme risk to meet their financial needs. This legislation will help 
these fishermen put the equipment on their boats now not later and will 
save lives.
  It is important that we act on this legislation, so that we provide a 
financial incentive to fishermen who are facing financial hardship as 
their fisheries recover, to invest in the replacement and inspection of 
their survival gear.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 163. A bill to amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to 
prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise 
from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, 
sex, national origin, age, or disability, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil 
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 2001. I am pleased that my 
cosponsors in the 106th Congress--Senators Leahy, Kennedy and 
Torricelli--have joined with me again in support of this legislation.
  This bill addresses the rapidly growing and very troubling practice 
of employers conditioning employment or professional advancement upon 
the employees' willingness to submit claims of discrimination or 
harassment to arbitration. In other words, employees who raise claims 
of harassment or discrimination must submit those claims to 
arbitration, foregoing the right to go to court and any other remedies 
that may exist under the laws of this nation. The right to seek redress 
in a court of law--including the right to a jury trial--is one of the 
most basic rights accorded to employees in this nation. In the Civil 
Rights Act of 1991, Congress expressly created this right to a jury 
trial for employees when it voted overwhelmingly to amend Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But employers are undermining the intent 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and other civil rights and labor laws, 
such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, by requiring 
all employees to submit to mandatory, binding arbitration as a 
condition of employment or advancement before a claim has arisen.
  Increasingly, working men and women are faced with the choice of 
accepting a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment agreement 
or no employment at all. Despite the appearance of a freely negotiated 
contract, the reality often amounts to a non-negotiable requirement 
that prospective employees relinquish their rights to redress in a 
court of law. Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all 
current and prospective employees in effect, ``If you want to work for 
us, you will have to check your rights at the door.'' These 
requirements have been referred to as ``front door'' contracts: they 
require an employee to surrender certain rights in order to ``get in 
the front door.'' As a nation which values work and deplores 
discrimination, we should not allow this practice to continue.
  How then does the practice of mandatory, binding arbitration comport 
with the purpose and spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual 
harassment laws? The answer is simply that it does not. To address the 
growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil Rights 
Procedures Protection Act of 2001 amends seven civil rights statutes to 
guarantee that a federal civil rights or sexual harassment plaintiff 
can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts rather than be forced 
into mandatory, binding arbitration. Specifically, this legislation 
affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, 
Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Equal Pay 
Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal Arbitration Act, 
FAA. By amending the Federal Arbitration Act, the protections of this 
legislation are extended to claims of unlawful discrimination arising 
under State or local law and other Federal laws that prohibit job 
discrimination.
  This bill is not anti-arbitration, anti-mediation, or anti-
alternative dispute resolution. I have long been and will remain a 
strong supporter of voluntary, alternative methods of dispute 
resolution that allow the parties to choose whether to go to court. 
Rather, this bill targets only mandatory, binding arbitration clauses 
in employment contracts entered into by the employer and employee 
before a dispute has even arisen.
  The 107th Congress marks the fifth successive Congress in which I 
have introduced this important legislation. In recent years, we have 
made some advances in addressing the unfair use of mandatory, binding 
arbitration clauses. As a result of a hearing in the Banking Committee 
in 1998 and a series of articles and editorials in prominent 
periodicals, the National Association of Securities Dealers, NASD, 
agreed to remove the mandatory binding arbitration clause from its Form 
U-4, which all prospective securities dealers sign as a condition of 
employment. The NASD's decision to remove the binding arbitration 
clause, however, does not prohibit its constituent organizations from 
including a mandatory, binding arbitration clause in their own 
employment agreements, even if it is not mandated by the industry as a 
whole. Last spring, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts, chaired by my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa, Senator Grassley, held a hearing on contractual mandatory, 
binding arbitration and highlighted the problem in the employment area. 
These are positive developments, but the trend toward the use of 
mandatory, binding arbitration clauses continues. A legislative fix is 
needed.
  The Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act restores the right of 
working men and women to pursue their claims in the venue that they 
choose, which, in turn, restores the spirit of our nation's civil 
rights and sexual harassment laws. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 163

       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 ``Civil Rights Procedures 
     Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 
                   1964.

       Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

[[Page 652]]



     ``SEC. 719. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this title, such powers and 
     procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT 
                   OF 1967.

       The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 
     621 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 16 and 17 as sections 17 and 
     18, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 15 the following new section 
     16:

     ``SEC. 16. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this Act, such powers and 
     procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

       Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794a) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under section 501, such powers 
     and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 
                   1990.

       Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12117) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim based on a violation described in 
     subsection (a), such powers and procedures shall be the 
     exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or 
     such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the 
     claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such 
     right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1977 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.

       Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this section) that would 
     otherwise modify any of the powers and procedures expressly 
     applicable to a right or claim concerning making and 
     enforcing a contract of employment under this section, such 
     powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and 
     procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless 
     after such right or such claim arises the claimant 
     voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or 
     resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO THE EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FAIR 
                   LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

       Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this subsection, such 
     powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and 
     procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless 
     after such right or such claim arises the claimant 
     voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or 
     resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 
                   1993.

       Title IV of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 405 as section 406; and
       (2) by inserting after section 404 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 405. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDIES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this Act or a provision of 
     subchapter V of chapter 63, or section 2105, of title 5, 
     United States Code) that would modify any of the powers and 
     procedures expressly applicable to a right or claim arising 
     under this Act or an amendment made by this Act, such powers 
     and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 14 of title 9, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``This''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) This chapter shall not apply with respect to a claim 
     of unlawful discrimination in employment if such claim arises 
     from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, 
     national origin, age, or disability.''.

     SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     claims arising not earlier than the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 164. A bill to prepare tomorrow's teachers to use technology 
through pre-service and in-service training, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Earlier this week, I introduced 
my accountability bill designed to ensure that the taxpayers' 
investment in education is adequately protected and that the finest 
education is provided to our children by attaching performance-based 
accountability to the federal education programs encompassed in the 
ESEA. I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the 
center of our debate this year so I introduced and spoke about that 
bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that our efforts to ensure 
that schools are accountable for the education of our children requires 
that we provide resources to schools so that they can make full use of 
available teaching tools. Training teachers to use technology in their 
classrooms is a high priority in this regard if we are to help our 
children become full and active members of the global community. The 
bill I am introducing today addresses that priority. I am pleased that 
my colleagues Senator Cochran and Senator Rockefeller have joined me in 
cosponsoring this bill that I believe will generate bipartisan support.
  Educational technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways 
that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to 
develop independent thinking and problem solving skills. The Technology 
for Teachers Act is designed to address the need to provide teachers 
with the skills to use this valuable resource in the classroom. Experts 
urge us to increase our investment in training teachers to use 
technology in the classroom and point out that at least 30 percent of 
our technology budget should be used for this purpose. Yet few of the 
nation's teachers have had more than one or two courses in educational 
technology, and those courses are usually designed as an add-on to 
other methods courses instead of being well-integrated into their 
teacher preparation program. The Training for Technology Act would 
provide grants to consortia of higher education institutions and public 
school districts so that they can integrate technology into their 
teacher training programs at the pre-service level. In addition, the 
bill requires recipients of Technology Literacy Challenge grants--an 
existing program which I sponsored in the 1994 reauthorization of 
ESEA--to demonstrate that they are using at lest 30% of their 
technology funding on in-service training in the use of technology.
  In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the 
challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is 
critical to address improving our Nation's schools with a comprehensive 
effort. The bills I have introduced are designed to build on the 
progress we have made in the

[[Page 653]]

past few years to raise standards and increase accountability in 
America's schools. This bill seeks to provide educators with the 
resources to meet these increased demands. I urge my colleagues to 
carefully consider supporting passage of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 164

       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 ``Technology for Teachers Act 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. LOCAL APPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE 
                   GRANTS.

       Section 3135 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6845) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
     '' before ``Each local educational agency'';
       (2) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) demonstrate the manner in which the local educational 
     agency will utilize at least 30 percent of the amounts 
     provided to the agency under this subpart in each fiscal year 
     to provide for in-service teacher training, or that the 
     agency is using at least 30 percent of its total technology 
     funding available to the agency from all sources (including 
     Federal, State, and local sources) to provide in-service 
     teacher training.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (b) and (c) respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 3. TEACHER PREPARATION.

       Part A of title III of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6811 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

      ``Subpart 5--Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology

     ``SEC. 3161. PURPOSE; PROGRAM AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subpart to assist 
     consortia of public and private entities in carrying out 
     programs that prepare prospective teachers to use advanced 
     technology to foster learning environments conducive to 
     preparing all students to achieve to challenging State and 
     local content and student performance standards.
       ``(b) Program Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized, through the 
     Office of Educational Technology, to award grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements on a competitive basis to eligible 
     applicants in order to assist them in developing or 
     redesigning teacher preparation programs to enable 
     prospective teachers to use technology effectively in their 
     classrooms.
       ``(2) Period of award.--The Secretary may award grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements under this subpart for a 
     period of not more than 5 years.

     ``SEC. 3162. ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Eligible Applicants.--In order to receive an award 
     under this subpart, an applicant shall be a consortium that 
     includes--
       ``(1) at least 1 institution of higher education that 
     offers a baccalaureate degree and prepares teachers for their 
     initial entry into teaching;
       ``(2) at least 1 State educational agency or local 
     educational agency; and
       ``(3) 1 or more of the following entities:
       ``(A) an institution of higher education (other than the 
     institution described in paragraph (1));
       ``(B) a school or department of education at an institution 
     of higher education;
       ``(C) a school or college of arts and sciences at an 
     institution of higher education;
       ``(D) a professional association, foundation, museum, 
     library, for-profit business, public or private nonprofit 
     organization, community-based organization, or other entity 
     with the capacity to contribute to the technology-related 
     reform of teacher preparation programs.
       ``(b) Application Requirements.--In order to receive an 
     award under this subpart, an eligible applicant shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, and containing 
     such information, as the Secretary may require. Such 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the proposed project, including how 
     the project would ensure that individuals participating in 
     the project would be prepared to use technology to create 
     learning environments conducive to preparing all students, 
     including girls and students who have economic and 
     educational disadvantages, to achieve to challenging State 
     and local content and student performance standards;
       ``(2) a demonstration of--
       ``(A) the commitment, including the financial commitment, 
     of each of the members of the consortium; and
       ``(B) the active support of the leadership of each member 
     of the consortium for the proposed project;
       ``(3) a description of how each member of the consortium 
     would be included in project activities;
       ``(4) a description of how the proposed project would be 
     continued once the Federal funds awarded under this subpart 
     end; and
       ``(5) a plan for the evaluation of the program, which shall 
     include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific 
     project objectives.
       ``(c) Matching Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project funded under this subpart shall not exceed 50 
     percent. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the non-Federal 
     share of such project may be in cash or in kind, fairly 
     evaluated, including services.
       ``(2) Acquisition of equipment.--Not more than 10 percent 
     of the funds awarded for a project under this subpart may be 
     used to acquire equipment, networking capabilities, or 
     infrastructure, and the non-Federal share of the cost of any 
     such acquisition shall be in cash.

     ``SEC. 3163. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Required Uses.--A recipient shall use funds under 
     this subpart for--
       ``(1) creating programs that enable prospective teachers to 
     use advanced technology to create learning environments 
     conducive to preparing all students, including girls and 
     students who have economic and educational disadvantages, to 
     achieve to challenging State and local content and student 
     performance standards; and
       ``(2) evaluating the effectiveness of the project.
       ``(b) Permissible Uses.--A recipient may use funds under 
     this subpart for activities, described in its application, 
     that carry out the purposes of this subpart, such as--
       ``(1) developing and implementing high-quality teacher 
     preparation programs that enable educators to--
       ``(A) learn the full range of resources that can be 
     accessed through the use of technology;
       ``(B) integrate a variety of technologies into the 
     classroom in order to expand students' knowledge;
       ``(C) evaluate educational technologies and their potential 
     for use in instruction; and
       ``(D) help students develop their own technical skills and 
     digital learning environments;
       ``(2) developing alternative teacher development paths that 
     provide elementary schools and secondary schools with well-
     prepared, technology-proficient educators;
       ``(3) developing performance-based standards and aligned 
     assessments to measure the capacity of prospective teachers 
     to use technology effectively in their classrooms;
       ``(4) providing technical assistance to other teacher 
     preparation programs;
       ``(5) developing and disseminating resources and 
     information in order to assist institutions of higher 
     education to prepare teachers to use technology effectively 
     in their classrooms; and
       ``(6) subject to section 3162(c)(2), acquiring equipment, 
     networking capabilities, and infrastructure to carry out the 
     project.

     ``SEC. 3164. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For purposes of carrying out this subpart, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $150,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 165. A bill to amend the Agriculture Market Transition Act to 
increase loan rates for marketing assistance loans for each of the 2001 
and 2002 crops, to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan 
deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils, 
chickpeas, and rye, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk 
about farming. The pages of the calendar have now turned. It is a new 
year, but our family farmers face the same struggle, and in fact, in 
many ways, the struggle gets worse.
  Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation titled the FARM 
Equity Act of 2001 that is designed to equalize the presently disparate 
commodity Marketing Assistance Loan rates of the current farm bill, 
commonly referred to as Freedom to Farm. The legislation would increase 
all commodity loan rates up to soybean and minor oilseed loan levels 
based on historical price ratios amongst the commodities. The FARM 
Equity Act would also treat all commodities equally in that it would 
place a price floor under all commodity loan rates, not just a select 
few.
  The FARM Equity Act will leave soybeans at the current loan level--
$5.26 per bushel. This price is about 85 percent of the Olympic Average 
of soybean

[[Page 654]]

market prices from the years 1994 to 1998. All other crops will be 
equalized up to this same price ratio related to each crops respective 
Olympic Average during the same time period. Equalized loan rates for 
wheat would be $3.14 per bushel, for corn--$2.09 per bushel, for rice--
7.8 cents per pound and for cotton--52.6 cents per pound. All these 
loan levels would become minimum loan levels.
  When Freedom to Farm was passed, supporters intended that this new 
farm legislation would remove all government interference or influences 
from planting decisions. ``Let farmers take their cues from the market 
place'', was heard often during the debate. ``From now on, farmers will 
not plant their crops with an eye towards Washington--they will plant 
what the market tells them to plant.''
  I doubt anyone believes, let alone could debate the point with a 
straight face, that this major premise of Freedom to Farm--the notion 
of market based planting decisions--has become a reality. To the 
contrary, at the present time, the major influence on what type of seed 
goes into the ground on our nation's farms is the level of Market 
Assistance Loan rates available for the various program crops.
  There can be no dispute that soybeans, and the other minor oilseed 
crops, have a much higher loan rate--when compared to historical price 
ratios--than wheat, corn and the other minor feed grains, cotton and 
rice. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the unprecedented increase 
in soybeans and oilseeds acreage seen the last couple of years, is due 
in large part, to these arbitrarily set unequal loan rates. Farmers 
have little choice but to plant more acres of oilseeds for the higher 
loan value, even though the cash and future markets clearly signal for 
them to do otherwise.
  Does anyone remember ``Green Acres,'' the old TV show from the 
sixties that poked fun of the city slicker--and country folks, for that 
matter--who moved out from New York City to start farming? One of the 
episodes had to do with deciding what crop to plant. I can't remember 
the exact order of events, but the gist of it was this. Oliver Wendell 
Douglas--played by Eddie Albert--listened to the market report while 
having breakfast the morning he was going to start spring planting. The 
price of corn was up, while soybean prices were down, so Oliver 
finished breakfast and away he went to the general store to buy some 
corn seed from Sam Drucker. Oliver then headed out to his field to 
plant corn.
  About noon, Oliver came home for dinner. Now I know to most this meal 
is lunch, but trust me, on the farm--it is called dinner; farmers also 
have a meal called supper that takes place in the evening. But, let's 
get back to Oliver. While he was eating his dinner, the noon markets 
came on, and wouldn't you know it, corn was down, and soybeans were up. 
Well, Oliver was all upset, since he had already planted some of the 
corn.
  Lisa, Oliver's wife, told him just exchange the seed for a different 
kind, ``I always return what I buy back to the stores; why can't you 
just exchange the corn for some soybeans, if that's what you want to 
plant now?''
  Oliver agreed with his wife, and went out and dug up the corn seed, 
put it back in the sack, and headed back to the supply store to trade 
it in for soybeans. Sam Drucker thought he was nuts, of course, and 
everyone had a good laugh.
  Preposterous of course, this parody of farmer indecision where seed 
is actually picked out of the ground, but I mention this episode only 
because today, Oliver Wendell Douglas wouldn't have his ear turned to 
the market reports to decide what to plant. He would simply seed 
soybeans because everyone knows the loan price is the only price that 
matters these days.
  In fact, one market advisor in the Midwest is promoting a ``Plan B'' 
this year that encourages farmers to plant even more soybeans than last 
years record acreage because of the high loan rates in hopes of 
decreasing corn acres enough to increase those prices. Probably not a 
bad idea, given the present market prices and high nitrogen costs. But, 
it's a clear indication of how skewed the present loan levels actually 
are.
  Just how much effect on U.S. crop acres are these unequal loan rates 
having? We need look no further than the annual acreage reports issued 
by USDA. In 1994, US farmers planted a little over 61.6 million acres 
of soybeans. This past year, a record 74.5 million acres were planted 
to soybeans, an increase of over 20 percent.
  For all wheat, USDA tells us the complete opposite is taking place. 
The acreage planted in the U.S. has declined over 12 percent during 
this same period, from 70.3 million acres down to 62.5 acres. A few 
weeks ago, USDA reported that the winter wheat acreage seeded last fall 
is down 5 percent from the fall before. The 41.3 million acres planted 
for harvest this coming summer is the smallest acreage devoted to 
winter wheat since 1971.
  To those who will say that we shouldn't change the components of the 
present Farm Bill in mid-stream, I say, we have repeatedly changed it 
each of the last three years now. We have had three emergency spending 
bills due to the low commodity prices. We have changed payment limits 
on the Loan Deficiency Payments. I might add, equalizing loan rates 
will do more for medium sized family farms than uncapping LDP limits.
  Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman also used his 
administrative authority to keep the loan levels at current levels. 
Just last month, he froze commodity loans at 2000 levels for the 2001 
crop. Had he not, the loan for wheat would have fallen to $2.46, while 
corn would have dropped to $1.76. Even soybeans would have fallen, 
although not to what the formula calls for. You see, soybeans have a 
price floor at $4.92 a bushel. If not for this mandated floor specified 
in the law, the formula in Freedom to Farm would have called for a 
price of $4.58 per bushel.
  Now, I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture did this. I found 
it interesting that I received a few calls from angry farmers when the 
former Agriculture Secretary froze loan rates for the coming year at 
2000 levels. They thought he should have raised them and had determined 
his actions were vindictive and meant only to keep commodity loans at 
these low levels. As I have stated, Secretary Glickman prevented 
present law from dropping loan prices even further.
  I don't want to see anymore reductions in loan levels for any of our 
crops. I want all crops to be treated fairly, and equally. I want all 
crops to have the same relative level of price protection. And if one 
or two crops have a loan floor that prevents further erosion in loan 
protection, then all crops should enjoy such a loan floor. That's why I 
have introduced this legislation.
  This is not to say that the loan levels in this legislation are 
adequate. They are not. This is only the first step in many that we 
need to take to fix broken farm policy. And this legislation will put 
all crops on equal footing as we enter the debate on what will 
eventually replace Freedom to Farm. I would prefer that loan levels 
would be higher, that they would reflect the cost of production. Maybe 
later we can have some common sense farm policy that would do such a 
thing, but for now, I think this is the least that we should do, as far 
as loan rates are concerned.
  Although it is not mentioned in this legislation, as part of this 
interim step to preserve our farms, I believe we should restore the 
automatic 20 percent reduction in Agricultural Market Transition 
Payments that will take place this year. It should be restored to the 
2000 levels for the remaining two years of Freedom to Farm, or until we 
replace this legislation altogether. I know others are thinking this 
needs to be done, and I want to go on record as supporting this 
restoration of AMTA payments.
  Before I close, I want to point out the steady erosion of the loan 
levels for most crops over the years. This year, 2001, if this 
legislation isn't enacted, the national loan for wheat will stand at 
$2.58 per bushel. In 1983, the wheat loan was $3.65 per bushel. For 
corn, the present loan rate is $1.89, while in 1983 it was $2.65 per 
bushel. For rice, this

[[Page 655]]

year's loan is $6.50 per cwt. In 1983, the rice loan was $8.13 per cwt. 
Cotton's loan this year stands at 52.9 cents per lb. 1982 saw a cotton 
loan rate of a little over 57 cents per lb.
  Now, I saved soybeans until last, for good reason. Of all the major 
crops, soybeans stand alone in that it has a higher loan rate today, 
than in the early 1980's. The soybean loan stood at $5.02 twenty years 
ago, while today, the loan is $5.26. All the other crops dropped, some 
more than others, percentage wise. All, except for soybeans.
  I would also like to point out that the cost of production has 
skyrocketed for all crops the past twenty years. This year alone, 
farmers are facing an astronomical increase in anhydrous ammonia 
prices--the major form of nitrogen fertilizer--due to the skyrocketing 
natural gas prices. As you may know, natural gas comprises 78 percent 
of anhydrous' cost of production. Because of this, family farmers in 
North Dakota, and across the country, are facing a possible doubling of 
their nitrogen fertilizer costs, from the low $200's per ton last year 
to well over $400 per ton this year.
  The cost of fertilizer is just one of many examples where farm costs 
have skyrocketed. Others include their crop protection products, 
insurance costs, machinery costs, etc. The list goes on. No other 
segment of our economy has been asked to take less and less for their 
labors.
  As I have stated earlier, this legislation, the FARM Equity Act of 
2001, is only an interim step. It is not a new farm bill, nor is it the 
answer to the problems. But I believe we should take action now to 
equalize the loan rates. Let's pass this legislation that would leave 
soybeans and other oilseeds at their present loan level while raising 
other crops up to the same relative level, based on historical market 
price relationships as soybeans. It is fair. It is equitable. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, we have families living all across this country out in 
the country trying to make a go of it on a family farm: Plant some 
seeds, raise a crop, then harvest that crop, take it to the grain 
elevator, and try to raise enough money to keep going and pay the 
bills.
  In addition to having collapsed prices for that which they produce, 
farmers now see the cost of their inputs dramatically increasing. The 
cost of anhydrous ammonia, the most popular form of nitrogen 
fertilizer, is up dramatically because of the spike in natural gas 
costs.
  Farmers are beset in every direction: Monopolies in transportation, 
near monopolies in the grain trade business, and a collapse of the 
prices for that which farmers produce. It is an awfully difficult time.
  So what can be done about this? My first hope would be that this 
Congress would rewrite the current farm bill. I do not think it works 
very well. I do not think we ought to get rid of all of it. The 
planting flexibility makes sense. Let's keep it. But clearly the 
current farm bill has not worked very well. Let's rewrite it and 
provide a price support or a bridge across price valleys for family 
farmers that give them some hope that if they do a good job, and work 
hard, they have a chance to survive out on the family farm.
  But I am told that rewriting the farm bill is not going to happen 
this year because it expires at the end of next year. I understand that 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate does not want 
to hold hearings on trying to rewrite the farm bill this year. He 
certainly has the capability of blocking that. I respect him, but I 
would disagree with him about this issue. But it is likely we will not 
see progress in rewriting the farm bill this year.
  So then, what should we do? In my judgment, we ought to at least take 
an interim step that would restore some balance to the current price 
protection that exists, as anemic as it is. We ought to provide some 
balance and equality to that price protection with respect to those of 
us who come from the part of the country that produces mostly wheat and 
feed grains.
  We have a circumstance now where the current price support, which is, 
in my judgment, too low, nonetheless has an inequity about it that 
offers a price support substantially higher for oil seeds than it does 
for wheat and feed grains. I am not here to suggest that we take the 
price support for oil seeds down. I am suggesting that it is unfair to 
wheat and feed grains and we ought to bring their price support up to 
provide some equity and fairness. And there is a way to do that.
  I would like to show a couple charts of what has been happening. This 
chart shows crop acres. You can see, going back to 1994, that soybean 
acreage is increasing and wheat acreage is declining, both 
substantially.
  What is happening this year is, a number of farmers are making 
decisions about what to plant, and it has nothing to do with what the 
markets suggest they should plant. It has to do with what their lender 
would calculate is best for them to plant given the farm program price 
support loan levels of the various crops. The loan deficiency payment 
for oil seeds is much higher than for wheat and feed grains on a 
comparable basis, because the loan levels that determine the loan 
deficiency payments are likewise, much higher for oil seeds than the 
other crops. So the result is, they are making planting decisions, once 
again, based on the farm bill rather than on the market. It is because 
we have inequitable price support programs. You can see what has 
happened with the loan rates over time. With soybeans, loan rates have 
increased slightly over the last twenty years, while wheat, corn and 
other feed grain loan rates have declined substantially during the same 
time period.
  My point is this. We ought to be able to provide equity in these loan 
rates by bringing the loan rate for wheat and feed grains up to an 
equitable level relative to oilseed levels. Doing so would, likewise, 
provide an equitable loan deficiency payment for all crops and would 
stop this calculation of, What should I plant relative to what the farm 
program thinks I should plant?
  As Freedom to Farm passed, its supporters were saying: Let's have the 
market system send signals on what ought to be planted. That is not 
happening at the moment. It is the farm program that is determining 
what is being planted because of the skewed loan support prices. It is 
the farm program that is actually promoting that incentive to plant one 
thing versus another thing. I am not suggesting we fix it by reducing 
the loan rate or the loan deficiency payment for oilseeds. We ought not 
do that. We ought to bring the loan rate for the others up because 
those levels are too low, when compared to oilseeds. It is unfair to 
them.
  Some will remember the old television program ``Green Acres'' from 
long ago in the 1960s. Eddie Albert played a character named Oliver 
Wendell Douglas, who had a pig named Arnold. He was a city slicker who 
moved to the country. It was a television program that poked fun at 
both the city slicker and maybe also at country folks. It was a comedy.
  In one episode, Oliver is having breakfast one morning. He is trying 
to figure out what to plant. He hears the morning grain market report 
on the radio, and the price of soybeans was going down and the price of 
corn was going up. So he decided to go down to the general store and 
get himself some corn seed. All morning he planted corn.
  At noon, Oliver came in for dinner. Back home they call it dinner in 
the middle of the day; some people call it lunch, but we call it 
dinner. He came back for dinner and discovered on the radio that the 
price of corn was down and the price of soybeans was up, according to 
the noon market report. And he said to his wife: It is kind of hard to 
figure out what to do here. I just planted corn because the radio said 
corn was up. Now corn is down, soybeans are up.
  His wife said: When I go to the store and get something that doesn't 
work, I take it back.
  So this old character on ``Green Acres'' went out to the field, 
walked down the furrows and pulled out all of his corn seeds and went 
back to the store to trade them in for soybean seed. Of course, the old 
boy who ran the store that sold him the seed thought he was pretty 
goofy.

[[Page 656]]

  My point about this story is, Oliver Douglas wouldn't have to listen, 
under today's circumstances, to the radio market reports to evaluate 
what he ought to plant, to find out what is down or what is up. In 
today's circumstances, when you take a look at the farm program, what 
is up is a better loan rate for oilseeds, and what is down is an anemic 
loan rate for wheat and feed grains.
  What can be done about that? Bring wheat and feed grain loan rates up 
to where they ought to be. That only brings wheat to $3.14 a bushel, 
but it is a far sight better than where it is today, at $2.58.
  So today, I am introducing a piece of legislation that equalizes loan 
rates. It will not penalize oilseeds. It will leave them where they 
are. Good for them; I want that. I support that and will fight for 
that. But it will take the loan rate for other program crops, including 
wheat, corn, and rice, cotton, and put those loan rates where they 
ought to be relative to some equity vis-a-vis oilseeds.
  I am going to include in the Record a list of all the program crops 
and where I propose we establish their loan rates. The loan rates for 
the various crops were determined by fixing them at the same percentage 
of their 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices as the 
soybean loan rate is with respect to its 1994-1998 5-year Olympic 
Average of market prices.



  This is only an interim step. We must do much more, and I have other 
ideas on what we ought to do. But for now, at least as a first step, 
let's provide some fairness for those who are producing wheat and feed 
grains.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
Olympic Average price data to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Family Agriculture Recovery & Market (FARM) Equity Act of 2001

       For the 2001 & 2002 Crop Year, The ``FARM Equity'' Act 
     would:
       Equalize the Marketing Loan rate for commodities relative 
     to the current soybean rates. Wheat--$3.14; corn--$2.09; 
     soybeans (unchanged)--$5.26; cotton--$58.26/cwt.; rice--
     $7.81/cwt.; base other feed grain loan rates on their own 
     price history rather than based off the corn rate. Barley--
     $2.01; oats--$1.27; grain sorghum--$1.89; base other oil seed 
     rates off their own price history rather than the soybean 
     loan rate. Oil sunflower--$.0930/lb.; confection sunflower--
     $.1176/lb.; canola--$.0945/lb.; safflower--$.1259/lb.
       Place a floor under all commodity loan rates, not just 
     soybean, cotton and rice loan rates.
       Remove the cap on all commodity loan rates and allow them 
     to increase if the most recent five year Olympic Average of 
     prices of a commodity increases to a level that warrants such 
     an increase.
       Remove the incentive to continue the obvious current 
     prevalent practice of planting for the commodity loan rate, 
     and thus the overproduction of commodities (oilseeds) that 
     have significantly higher loan rates relative to the actual 
     historical market price ratios.
       Keep AMTA payments in place, along with all present payment 
     limitations.
       Enable farmers to practice agronomically sound rotations 
     rather than planting for the government loan.
       Place all commodities on a level playing field with regards 
     to loan rates prior to the debate about the next farm bill.
       Add dry peas, lentils, chickpeas and rye to the list of 
     crops eligible for Marketing Assistance Loans, increasing the 
     rotational choices for farmers in the Pacific Northwest.


                How Were The New Loan Prices Arrived At?

       The 1994-1998 Olympic Average price for a bushel of 
     soybeans is $6.22, as determined by USDA. The present Freedom 
     To Farm loan level for soybeans is $5.26. This is 84.5 
     percent of the 94-98 Oly price average.
       The loan prices for the other crops listed in the FARM 
     Equity Act were derived by taking the soybean factor--
     84.57%--against the other crops' 94-98 Olympic Price 
     averages.
       Oil Sunflowers and Flaxseed were left at the present $.0930 
     per lb. since applying the factor against their Olympic Price 
     averages would have lowered their loan rate--an occurrence 
     that no farm advocate wants for any crop during these hard 
     times down on the farm.
       The ``94-98'' time frame was used, since the seeding 
     distortions and subsequent price distortions caused by 
     Freedom to Farm's disparate loan rates had not yet infected 
     the moving 5 yr. average.
       Find below the loan levels: Marketing Loan Rates were 
     determined by their price history during the years 1994 
     through 1998

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ``94-98''
                                          F2F loan   Olympic   Equalized
                  Crop                      rates     price      loans
                                                     average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat...................................     $2.58      $3.71      $3.14
Corn (bus)..............................      1.89       2.47       2.90
Grain Sorghum (bus).....................      1.71       2.23       1.89
Barley (bus)............................      1.61       2.38       2.01
Oats (bus)..............................      1.16       1.50       1.27
Upland Cotton (lb)......................    0.5192     0.6883     0.5826
EL Staple Cotton (lb)...................    0.7965     1.0360     0.8761
Rice (cwt)..............................      6.50       9.23       7.81
Soybeans (bus)..........................      5.26       6.22       5.26
Oil Sunflower (lb)......................    0.0930     0.1060     0.0930
Nonoil Sunflower (lb)...................    0.0930     0.1390     0.1176
Canola (lb).............................    0.0930     0.1117     0.0945
Rapeseed (lb)...........................    0.0930     0.1183     0.1001
Safflower (lb)..........................    0.0930     0.1487     0.1259
Mustard Seed (lb).......................    0.0930     0.1390     0.1176
Flaxseed (lb)...........................    0.0930     0.0963     0.0930
Rye (bus)...............................     (\1\)  .........       2.80
Dry Peas (cwt)..........................     (\1\)  .........       7.00
Lentils (cwt)...........................     (\1\)  .........      12.00
Chickpeas (cwt).........................     (\1\)  .........      15.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not available.

  Mr. DORGAN. It is all about fairness and equity. Under the current 
program, even though all of the support prices are too low, wheat and 
feed grains are being treated unfairly and ought to be brought up to 
where they should be and we would have a right to expect them to be. I 
have included all of the significant numbers and support price 
proposals in the Record. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing if 
we can at least take an interim step and pass this legislation.
  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. 165

       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 ``Family Agriculture Recovery 
     and Market (FARM) Equity Act of 2001''.

     SEC 2. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       Section 132 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7232) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 132. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       ``(a) Wheat.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for wheat shall be not less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of wheat, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     wheat, excluding the year in which the average price was the 
     highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(2) $3.14 per bushel.
       ``(b) Feed Grains.--
       ``(1) Corn.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for corn shall be not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of corn, as determined by the Secretary, during the 
     marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     corn, excluding the year in which the average price was the 
     highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(B) $2.09 per bushel.
       ``(2) Other feed grains.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan 
     rate for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for 
     grain sorghum, barley, and oats, individually, shall be 
     established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair 
     and reasonable in relation to the rate at which loans are 
     made available for corn, taking into consideration the 
     feeding value of the commodity in relation to corn.
       ``(B) Minimum loan rates.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 131 for grain sorghum, barley, 
     and oats, individually, shall be not less than--
       ``(i) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of grain sorghum, barley, and oats, respectively, 
     as determined by the Secretary, during the marketing years 
     for the immediately preceding 5 crops of grain sorghum, 
     barley, and oats, respectively, excluding the year in which 
     the average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest; or
       ``(ii)(I) in the case of grain sorghum, $1.89 per bushel;
       ``(II) in the case of barley, $2.01 per bushel; and
       ``(III) in the case of oats, $1.27 per bushel.
       ``(c) Upland Cotton.--
       ``(1) Loan rate.--Subject to paragraph (2), the loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for upland 
     cotton shall be established by the Secretary at such loan 
     rate, per pound, as will reflect for the base quality of 
     upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, at average 
     locations in the United States, a rate that is not less than 
     the lesser of--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the average price (weighted by market 
     and month) of the base quality of cotton as quoted in the 
     designated United States spot markets during 3 years of the 
     5-year period ending July 31 of the year preceding the year 
     in which the crop is

[[Page 657]]

     planted, excluding the year in which the average price was 
     the highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(B) 90 percent of the average, for the 15-week period 
     beginning July 1 of the year preceding the year in which the 
     crop is planted, of the 5 lowest-priced growths of the 
     growths quoted for Middling 1\3/32\-inch cotton C.I.F. 
     Northern Europe (adjusted downward by the average difference, 
     during the period April 15 through October 15 of the year 
     preceding the year in which the crop is planted, between the 
     average Northern European price quotation of that quality of 
     cotton and the market quotations in the designated United 
     States spot markets for the base quality of upland cotton), 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Limitations.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan for upland cotton shall not be less than 
     $0.5826 per pound.
       ``(d) Extra Long Staple Cotton.--The loan rate for a 
     marketing assistance loan under section 131 for extra long 
     staple cotton shall be not less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of extra long staple cotton, as determined by the 
     Secretary, during 3 years of the 5-year period ending July 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which the crop is planted, 
     excluding the year in which the average price was the highest 
     and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2) $0.8768 per pound.
       ``(e) Rice.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for rice shall be not less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of rice, as determined by the Secretary, during 3 
     years of the 5-year period ending July 31 of the year 
     preceding the year in which the crop is planted, excluding 
     the year in which the average price was the highest and the 
     year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2) $7.81 per hundredweight.
       ``(f) Oilseeds.--
       ``(1) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 131 for soybeans shall be not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of soybeans, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     soybeans, excluding the year in which the average price was 
     the highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(B) $5.26 per bushel.
       ``(2) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard 
     seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 131 for sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, 
     safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, individually, shall be 
     not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, 
     mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively, as determined by 
     the Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately 
     preceding 5 crops of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, 
     safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively, 
     excluding the year in which the average price was the highest 
     and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(B)(i) in the case of oil sunflower seed, $0.093 per 
     pound;
       ``(ii) in the case of nonoil sunflower seed, $0.1176 per 
     pound;
       ``(iii) in the case of canola, $0.0945 per pound;
       ``(iv) in the case of rapeseed, $0.1001 per pound;
       ``(v) in the case of safflower, $0.1259 per pound;
       ``(vi) in the case of mustard seed, $0.1176 per pound; and
       ``(vii) in the case of flaxseed, $0.093 per pound.
       ``(3) Other oilseeds.--The loan rates for a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 131 for other oilseeds shall be 
     established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair 
     and reasonable in relation to the loan rate available for 
     soybeans, except that the rate for the oilseeds (other than 
     cottonseed) shall not be less than the rate established for 
     soybeans on a per-pound basis for the same crop.''.

     SEC. 3. NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR DRY PEAS, LENTILS, 
                   CHICKPEAS, AND RYE.

       (a) Definition of Loan Commodity.--Section 102(10) of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7202(10)) is 
     amended by striking ``and oilseed'' and inserting ``oilseed, 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (b) Availability of Nonrecourse Loans.--Section 131(a) of 
     the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231(a)) is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting after ``each loan 
     commodity'' the following: ``(other than dry peas, lentils, 
     chickpeas, and rye) and each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (c) Loan Rates.--Section 132 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7232) (as amended by section 2) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--The loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for dry 
     peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, individually, shall be not 
     less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, 
     respectively, as determined by the Secretary, during the 
     marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of dry 
     peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, respectively, excluding 
     the year in which the average price was the highest and the 
     year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2)(A) in the case of dry peas, $7.00 per hundredweight;
       ``(B) in the case of lentils, $12.00 per hundredweight;
       ``(C) in the case of chickpeas, $15.00 per hundredweight; 
     and
       ``(D) in the case of rye, $2.80 per bushel.''.
       (d) Repayment of Loans.--Section 134(a) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and Oilseeds.--'' and inserting 
     ``Oilseeds, Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--''; and
       (2) by striking ``and oilseeds'' and inserting ``oilseeds, 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (e) Payment Limitation.--Section 1001(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``contract commodities and oilseeds'' and inserting 
     ``contract commodities, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, 
     chickpeas, and rye''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of a loan commodity (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Market Transition 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 7202) (as amended by section 3(a))).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 166. A bill to limit access to body armor by violent felons and to 
facilitate the donation of Federal surplus body armor to State and 
local law enforcement agencies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today, along with Senator 
Sessions of Alabama, to reintroduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act for 
the fourth consecutive Congress.
  This bill closes a glaring gap in our criminal law that permits 
individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence to use 
body armor. It is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions 
are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor, and are more 
difficult for police to disarm and disable.
  This bill is named in memory of San Francisco Police Officer James 
Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff was shot to death in a 
fire-fight by a heavily armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest and 
kevlar helmet on a major street corner in San Francisco. Because of his 
protective gear, the assailant was subsequently able to hold off over a 
hundred police officers.
  California is not the only state where heavily armored criminals have 
assaulted police officers and the community.
  In 1999, Officer James Snedigar of the Chandler, Arizona Police 
department was shot and killed by a gunman firing an AK-47 who was also 
protected by a kevlar vest.
  In March of 2000, Deputy Ricky Kinchen of Atlanta, Georgia, was 
killed in a shootout with a gunman who wore a bulletproof vest.
  On July 15, 2000, Sergeant Todd Stamper of the Crandon, Wisconsin 
police department, was killed in a gun fight by a heavily armed man 
wearing a kevlar helmet and body armor.
  Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, wrote to me about the need to 
revise the laws relating to body armor. His words eloquently explain 
the need for the legislation:

       It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in 
     possession of superior firepower. * * * But to have to 
     confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive 
     protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk 
     for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to 
     face the same set of deadly circumstances again.

  Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a 
criminal is an offensive weapon. Police officers serving on the streets 
should have ready access to body armor, and hardened-criminals need to 
be deterred from using it.
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 has three key provisions. 
First, it directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop a 
penalty enhancement for criminals who commit violent crimes while 
wearing body

[[Page 658]]

armor. Second, it prohibits violent felons from purchasing, using, or 
possessing body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement 
agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police. I will 
address each of these three provisions.
  I. Enhanced criminal penalties for wearing body armor during violent 
crimes.--Criminals who wear body armor while engaged in violent crimes 
deserve enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to 
police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot 
at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well 
protected.
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act directs the United States Sentencing 
Commission to develop an appropriate sentence enhancement for wearing 
body armor during a violent crime. The bill also expresses the Sense of 
the Senate that any enhancement should be at least two levels.
  II. Prohibiting violent felons from wearing body armor.--This section 
makes it a crime (up to three years in jail) for individuals with a 
violent criminal record to wear, possess, or own body armor. It is 
unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without 
restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection.
  To account for those rare circumstances when a felon may need body 
armor as part of a lawful occupation, the section provides an 
affirmative defense against prosecution if the felon wore armor after 
obtaining permission from employer, and possession of armor was 
necessary for safe performance of lawful business activity.
  III. Direct donation of body armor.--The James Guelff Body Armor Act 
of 2001 also empowers Federal agencies to expedite the donation of body 
armor to local police departments.
  Far too many local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof 
vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of 
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 
150,000 officers, are not issued body armor.
  Supplying local police officers with more body armor will save lives. 
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30% of 
the approximately 1,300 officers killed by guns in the line of duty 
since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying 
from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof 
vest. Body armor saves an estimated 150 police officers' lives each 
year.
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act is backed by law enforcement officers 
all across America. Organizations representing over 500,000 police 
officers have endorsed the legislation. These organizations include the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the 
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National 
Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Police Executive 
Research Forum, the National Association of Police Organizations, and 
the International Association of Police Chiefs.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this 
legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, in sponsoring the James Guelff Body 
Armor Act of 2001.
  This legislation is intended to deter criminals from wearing body 
armor and to empower Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus 
body armor to State and local police departments.
  This bipartisan legislation is named in honor of James Guelff, a 
California police officer who was murdered in the line of duty by an 
assailant wearing body armor and a bulletproof helmet.
  As a Federal prosecutor for fifteen years, I developed a deep 
appreciation for the threats that our law enforcement officers face day 
to day as they wage the war on crime. In my home State of Alabama, 
Etowah County Officer Chris McCurley was murdered and Officer Gary 
Entrekin was critically injured in 1997 during a shootout with two 
criminals shielded by body armor. This bill will make criminals like 
these pay an extra price for using body armor while harming innocent, 
law-abiding people.
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act addresses the abuse of body armor in 
three ways:
  First, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to 
amend the Sentencing Guidelines to include an enhancement for the use 
of body armor during a violent crime or a drug crime. Thus, criminals 
who use body armor while attacking law enforcement officers or 
civilians will spend longer terms in prison.
  Second, the bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a 
violent felony from purchasing, owning, or possessing body armor. Once 
a criminal has shown a propensity to violent action, he should not be 
able to use body armor to commit another crime and perhaps evade 
capture by the police.
  Third, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate 
surplus body armor, currently totaling approximately 10,000 vests, 
directly to State and local law enforcement agencies. By protecting our 
police officers, sheriffs' deputies, and other State and local law 
enforcement officers with body armor, we can help ensure that more cops 
come home to their families at the end of their day.
  It is indisputable that getting our law enforcement officers more 
body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, more than 30 percent of the officers killed by firearms 
in the line of duty since 1980 could have survived had they been 
wearing body armor.
  In a survey of American voters in 1999 by the National Association of 
Police Organizations, 83 percent supported passing laws to keep felons 
from wearing body armor during the commission of crimes. This is why a 
broad bipartisan group of law enforcement organizations support this 
bill including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Sheriffs 
Association.
  Last year, a very similar bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously. It passed the entire Senate unanimously. It is time for 
Congress to act and to protect our law enforcement officers.
  I call on my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Feinstein, 
to join me, and the law enforcement community in supporting this 
important legislation that will save lives and provide law enforcement 
officers with more protection in their fight against the most violent 
criminals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Brownback, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lott, and Mr. 
        Sessions):
  S. 167. A bill to allow a State to combine certain funds to improve 
the academic achievement of all its students; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Academic 
Achievement for All Act. I am honored to introduce this legislation.
  We begin this 107th Congress with the great opportunity to 
dramatically shape and change the federal government's role in 
education. Never before have the American people been so focused on the 
education system. With that focus comes great expectations. As a 
Congress, we must seize this opportunity and work together to 
creatively improve how the federal government addresses education 
within our country.
  We must continue the push to cut red tape and remove overly-
prescriptive federal mandates on federal education funding. At the same 
time, we must hold states and local schools accountable for increasing 
student achievement. Flexibility combined with accountability, must be 
our objective.

[[Page 659]]

The end result of our reform effort must spark innovation--innovation 
designed to provide all students a world-class education.
  As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on 
Education, I heard from almost every witness, both Democrats and 
Republicans alike, how the sprawling, duplicative and unfocused 
behemoth that is the current federal education establishment ties the 
hands of state and local school administrators, teachers and principals 
with its burdensome regulations and rigidity. As a result, the very 
first recommendation of the Education Task Force Interim Report was to 
consolidate federal education programs.
  The number one recommendation read as follows:

       In light of the continuing proliferation of federal 
     categorical programs, the Task Force recommends that federal 
     education programs be consolidated . . . The Task Force 
     particularly favors providing states flexibility to 
     consolidate all federal funds into an integrated state 
     strategic plan to achieve national educational objectives for 
     which the state would be held accountable.

  In hopes of improving federal regulation of education as we currently 
know it, Senators Gorton, Gregg, Hutchinson, Sessions and I worked last 
year to create this bill. We decided to combine all of our good ideas 
into Straight A's. Straight A's permits states to have the option of 
submitting a performance agreement, setting specific and measurable 
performance goals that could be reached at the end of five years, in 
exchange for flexibility.
  Straight A's is an optional program. States would still be free to 
administer federal education programs under the current system if they 
so desired. If states choose to participate in the program, they would 
be allowed to combine Federal K-12 funds in exchange for flexibility 
upon approval of their performance agreement. States can focus more 
funds on disadvantaged students, teacher professional development, 
reducing class size, technology, or improved school facilities. At the 
end of five years, however, the state's efforts must increase the 
achievement of all students, including the lowest performing students.
  If states do not substantially meet those goals, they would lose 
their Straight A's status, and they would have to return to the less 
flexible regulated approach available under current law. If states do 
well and significantly reduce achievement gaps between high and low 
performing students, they will be rewarded with additional funds. 
Additionally, school districts would not lose any Title I funding. If 
Title I is included by a state, each school district in the state would 
be assured of receiving at least as much money as they received in the 
preceding fiscal year.
  States and local school districts are innovative. Without question, 
it is states and localities that today are serving as the engines for 
change in education. The groundwork for success is already in place at 
the local level--teachers, parents, principals, and communities 
demonstrate on a daily basis the enthusiasm and desire to succeed. 
However, flexibility at the state and local level is critical to the 
success of our schools.
  Although the federal government is prepared to assist in improving 
America's schools, it is worth remembering the limitations of the 
federal role in education. The federal government provides just 7 
percent of education funding. But despite its limitations, the federal 
government does have a role to play in revitalizing education. The 
federal government can provide the focus and leadership to identify 
those problems worthy of the collective energy of all Americans, and it 
can commit resources to the states to supplement their efforts.
  But along with the resources, the federal government must also give 
states and localities the freedom to pursue their own strategies for 
implementation. With respect to education, tactics and implementation 
procedures are virtually dictated by the federal government. The 
rationale for expanding an already overly large and burdensome federal 
education establishment is simply not discernible. Instead, the states 
should have the flexibility to put together state strategic plans. 
Under such a plan, the states would establish concrete educational 
goals and timetables for achievement. In return, they would be allowed 
to pool federal funds from categorical programs and spend these 
consolidated resources on state established priorities.
  But, along with flexibility comes accountability. When we give states 
and local education agencies the freedom to use funds in the way that 
best meets the needs of their students, we must expect from them 
increased student performance. For too long accountability has been 
measured by quantitative measures rather than qualitative ones. We know 
that we are spending $8 billion on Title I--the nation's largest 
federal education program--to help disadvantaged children. But we do 
not know if all that money is helping those students to learn. This 
must change.
  Our current system simply requires that you send the money to poor 
schools. I believe that there is no better catalyst for reform, no 
better way to ensure that poor children receive the same quality of 
education as their wealthier counterparts--than requiring that states 
demonstrate that their poor children are achieving.
  The flexibility is needed to allow states to use whatever means 
necessary to increase poor students' achievement. Unfortunately, after 
34 years and $120 billion spent on Title I, 70 percent of children in 
high poverty schools score below even the most basic level of reading. 
In math, 4th graders in high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels 
behind their peers in low poverty schools. In reading, they remain 3 to 
4 grade levels behind.
  As a scientist, I know the value of looking for new way to solve 
problems, and America has long had a proud tradition of innovation. 
This bill will create a whole new generation of inventors in the field 
of education--in particular, Governors, local school boards, teachers, 
and parents will be better able to put good ideas into practice.
  I strongly urge passage of this important piece of legislation.
  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. 167

       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 ``Academic Achievement for All 
     Act'' or ``Straight A's Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to create options for States and 
     communities--
       (1) to improve the academic achievement of all students, 
     and to focus the resources of the Federal Government upon 
     such achievement;
       (2) to improve teacher quality and subject matter mastery, 
     especially in mathematics, reading, and science;
       (3) to empower parents and schools to effectively address 
     the needs of their children and students;
       (4) to give States and communities maximum freedom in 
     determining how to boost academic achievement and implement 
     education reforms;
       (5) to eliminate Federal barriers to implementing effective 
     State and local education programs;
       (6) to hold States and communities accountable for boosting 
     the academic achievement of all students, especially 
     disadvantaged children; and
       (7) to narrow achievement gaps between the lowest and 
     highest performing groups of students so that no child is 
     left behind.

     SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Program Authorized.--States may, at their option, 
     execute a performance agreement with the Secretary under 
     which the provisions of law described in section 4(a) shall 
     not apply to such State except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act. The Secretary shall execute performance agreements with 
     States that submit approvable performance agreements under 
     this section.
       (b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers, 
     and local schools and school districts notice and opportunity 
     to comment on any proposed performance agreement prior to 
     submission to the Secretary as provided under general State 
     law notice and comment provisions.
       (c) Approval of Performance Agreement.--A performance 
     agreement submitted to the Secretary under this section shall 
     be considered as approved by the Secretary within 60 days 
     after receipt of the performance agreement unless the 
     Secretary, before

[[Page 660]]

     the expiration of the 60-day period, provides a written 
     determination to the State that the performance agreement 
     fails to satisfy the requirements of this Act.
       (d) Terms of Performance Agreement.--Each performance 
     agreement executed pursuant to this Act shall comply with the 
     following provisions:
       (1) Term.--The performance agreement shall contain a 
     statement that the term of the performance agreement shall be 
     5 years.
       (2) Application of program requirements.--The performance 
     agreement shall contain a statement that no program 
     requirements of any program included by the State in the 
     performance agreement shall apply, except as otherwise 
     provided in this Act.
       (3) List of programs.--The performance agreement shall 
     provide a list of the programs that the State wishes to 
     include in the performance agreement.
       (4) Use of funds to improve student achievement.-- The 
     performance agreement shall contain a 5-year plan describing 
     how the State intends to combine and use the funds from 
     programs included in the performance agreement to advance the 
     education priorities of the State, improve student 
     achievement, and narrow achievement gaps between students.
       (5) Accountability system requirements.--If the State 
     includes any of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in the State's 
     performance agreement, the performance agreement shall 
     include a certification that the State has--
       (A)(i) developed and implemented the challenging State 
     content standards, challenging State student performance 
     standards, and aligned assessments described in section 
     1111(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); or
       (ii) developed and implemented a system to measure the 
     degree of change from one school year to the next in student 
     performance;
       (B) developed and is implementing a statewide 
     accountability system that has been or is reasonably expected 
     to be effective in substantially increasing the numbers and 
     percentages of all students who meet the State's proficient 
     and advanced levels of performance;
       (C) established a system under which assessment information 
     may be disaggregated within each State, local educational 
     agency, and school by each major racial and ethnic group, 
     gender, English proficiency status, migrant status, and by 
     economically disadvantaged students as compared to students 
     who are not economically disadvantaged (except that such 
     disaggregation shall not be required in cases in which the 
     number of students in any such group is insufficient to yield 
     statistically reliable information or will reveal the 
     identity of an individual student);
       (D) established specific, measurable, numerical performance 
     objectives for student achievement, including a definition of 
     performance considered to be proficient by the State on the 
     academic assessment instruments described in subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (E) developed and implemented a statewide system for 
     holding its local educational agencies and schools 
     accountable for student performance that includes--
       (i) a procedure for identifying local educational agencies 
     and schools for improvement, using the assessments described 
     in subparagraph (A);
       (ii) assisting and building capacity in local educational 
     agencies and schools identified for improvement to improve 
     teaching and learning; and
       (iii) implementing corrective actions after not more than 3 
     years if the assistance and capacity building under clause 
     (ii) is not effective.
       (6) Performance goals.--
       (A) Student academic achievement.--Each State that includes 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in its performance 
     agreement shall establish annual student performance goals 
     for the 5-year term of the performance agreement that, at a 
     minimum--
       (i) establish a single high standard of performance for all 
     students;
       (ii) take into account the progress of students from every 
     local educational agency and school in the State;
       (iii) are based primarily upon the State's challenging 
     content and student performance standards and assessments 
     described in paragraph (5);
       (iv) include specific annual improvement goals in each 
     subject and grade included in the State assessment system, 
     which shall include, at a minimum, reading or language arts 
     and mathematics;
       (v) compare the proportions of students at levels of 
     performance (as defined by the State) with the proportions of 
     students at the levels in the same grade in the previous 
     school year;
       (vi) include annual numerical goals for improving the 
     performance of each group specified in paragraph (5)(C) and 
     narrowing gaps in performance between the highest and lowest 
     performing students in accordance with section 10(b); and
       (vii) require all students in the State to make substantial 
     gains in achievement.
       (B) Additional indicators of performance.--A State may 
     identify in the performance agreement any additional 
     indicators of performance such as graduation, dropout, or 
     attendance rates.
       (C) Consistency of performance measures.--A State shall 
     maintain, at a minimum, the same level of challenging State 
     student performance standards and assessments throughout the 
     term of the performance agreement.
       (7) Fiscal responsibilities.--The performance agreement 
     shall contain an assurance that the State will use fiscal 
     control and fund accounting procedures that will ensure 
     proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds 
     paid to the State under this Act.
       (8) Civil rights.--The performance agreement shall contain 
     an assurance that the State will meet the requirements of 
     applicable Federal civil rights laws.
       (9) Private school participation.--The performance 
     agreement shall contain assurances--
       (A) that the State will provide for the equitable 
     participation of students and professional staff in private 
     schools; and
       (B) that sections 10104, 10105, and 10106 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8004-8006) 
     shall apply to all services and assistance provided under 
     this Act in the same manner as such sections apply to 
     services and assistance provided in accordance with section 
     10103 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8003).
       (10) State financial participation.--The performance 
     agreement shall contain an assurance that the State will not 
     reduce the level of spending of State funds for elementary 
     and secondary education during the term of the performance 
     agreement.
       (11) Annual reports.--The performance agreement shall 
     contain an assurance that not later than 1 year after the 
     execution of the performance agreement, and annually 
     thereafter, each State shall disseminate widely to parents 
     and the general public, submit to the Secretary, distribute 
     to print and broadcast media, and post on the Internet, a 
     report that includes--
       (A) student academic performance data, disaggregated as 
     provided in paragraph (5)(C); and
       (B) a detailed description of how the State has used 
     Federal funds to improve student academic performance and 
     reduce achievement gaps to meet the terms of the performance 
     agreement.
       (e) Special Rules.--If a State does not include part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in its performance agreement, the 
     State shall--
       (1) certify that the State developed a system to measure 
     the academic performance of all students; and
       (2) establish challenging academic performance goals for 
     such other programs in accordance with paragraph (6)(A) of 
     subsection (d), except that clause (vi) of such paragraph 
     shall not apply to such performance agreement.
       (f) Amendment to Performance Agreement.--A State may submit 
     an amendment to the performance agreement to the Secretary 
     under the following circumstances:
       (1) Reduction in scope of performance agreement.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the execution of the performance agreement, 
     a State may amend the performance agreement through a request 
     to withdraw a program from such agreement. If the Secretary 
     approves the amendment, the requirements of existing law 
     shall apply for any program withdrawn from the performance 
     agreement.
       (2) Expansion of scope of performance agreement.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the execution of the performance agreement, 
     a State may amend its performance agreement to include 
     additional programs and performance indicators for which the 
     State will be held accountable.
       (3) Approval of amendment.--An amendment submitted to the 
     Secretary under this subsection shall be considered as 
     approved by the Secretary within 60 days after receipt of the 
     amendment unless the Secretary provides, before the 
     expiration of the 60-day period, a written determination to 
     the State that the performance agreement, if amended by the 
     amendment, will fail to satisfy the requirements of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Eligible Programs.--The provisions of law referred to 
     in section 3(a) except as otherwise provided in subsection 
     (b), are as follows:
       (1) Part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
       (2) Part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.).
       (3) Part C of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.).
       (4) Part D of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6421 et seq.).
       (5) Section 1502 of part E of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492).
       (6) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.).

[[Page 661]]

       (7) Section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842).
       (8) Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.)
       (9) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.).
       (10) Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7541 et seq.).
       (11) Section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act of 1999.
       (12) Titles II, III, and IV of the School-to-Work 
     Opportunities Act.
       (13) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 
     U.S.C. 5881 et seq.).
       (14) Sections 115 and 116, and parts B and C of title I of 
     the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998.
       (15) Subtitle B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).
       (16) Section 321 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 2001.
       (b) Allocations to States.--A State may choose to 
     consolidate funds from any or all of the programs described 
     in subsection (a) without regard to the program requirements 
     of the provisions referred to in such subsection, except that 
     the proportion of funds made available for national programs 
     and allocations to each State for State and local use, under 
     such provisions, shall remain in effect unless otherwise 
     provided.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under this Act to a 
     State shall be used for any elementary and secondary 
     educational purposes permitted by State law of the 
     participating State.

     SEC. 5. WITHIN-STATE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The distribution of funds from programs 
     included in a performance agreement from a State to a local 
     educational agency within the State shall be determined by 
     the Governor of the State and the State legislature. In a 
     State in which the constitution or State law designates 
     another individual, entity, or agency to be responsible for 
     education, the allocation of funds from programs included in 
     the performance agreement from a State to a local educational 
     agency within the State shall be determined by that 
     individual, entity, or agency, in consultation with the 
     Governor and State Legislature. Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State 
     constitution or State law.
       (b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers, 
     and local schools and school districts notice and opportunity 
     to comment on the proposed allocation of funds as provided 
     under general State law notice and comment provisions.
       (c) Local Hold Harmless of Part A Title I Funds.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a State that includes part 
     A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement, 
     the agreement shall provide an assurance that each local 
     educational agency shall receive under the performance 
     agreement an amount equal to or greater than the amount such 
     agency received under part A of title I of such Act in the 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the 
     performance agreement is executed.
       (2) Proportionate reduction.--If the amount made available 
     to the State from the Secretary for a fiscal year is 
     insufficient to pay to each local educational agency the 
     amount made available under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.) to such agency for the preceding fiscal year, 
     the State shall reduce the amount each local educational 
     agency receives by a uniform percentage.

     SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Nonparticipating State.--
       (1) In general.--If a State chooses not to submit a 
     performance agreement under this Act, any local educational 
     agency in such State is eligible, at the local educational 
     agency's option, to submit to the Secretary a performance 
     agreement in accordance with this section.
       (2) Agreement.--The terms of a performance agreement 
     between an eligible local educational agency and the 
     Secretary shall specify the programs to be included in the 
     performance agreement, as agreed upon by the State and the 
     agency, from the list under section 4(a).
       (b) State Approval.--When submitting a performance 
     agreement to the Secretary, an eligible local educational 
     agency described in subsection (a) shall provide written 
     documentation from the State in which such agency is located 
     that the State has no objection to the agency's proposal for 
     a performance agreement.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in this section, and to 
     the extent applicable, the requirements of this Act shall 
     apply to an eligible local educational agency that submits a 
     performance agreement in the same manner as the requirements 
     apply to a State.
       (2) Exceptions.--The following provisions shall not apply 
     to an eligible local educational agency:
       (A) Within state distribution formula not applicable.--The 
     distribution of funds under section 5 shall not apply.
       (B) State set aside not applicable.--The State set aside 
     for administrative funds under section 7 shall not apply.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided under 
     subsection (b), a State that includes part A of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement may use not more 
     than 1 percent of such total amount of funds allocated to 
     such State under the programs included in the performance 
     agreement for administrative purposes.
       (b) Exception.--A State that does not include part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement may use 
     not more than 3 percent of the total amount of funds 
     allocated to such State under the programs included in the 
     performance agreement for administrative purposes.
       (c) Local Educational Agency.--A local educational agency 
     participating in this Act under a performance agreement under 
     section 6 may not use for administrative purposes more than 4 
     percent of the total amount of funds allocated to such agency 
     under the programs included in the performance agreement.

     SEC. 8. PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND PENALTIES.

       (a) Mid-Term Performance Review.--If, during the 5-year 
     term of the performance agreement, student achievement 
     significantly declines for 3 consecutive years in the 
     academic performance categories established in the 
     performance agreement, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, terminate the agreement.
       (b) Failure To Meet Terms.--If, at the end of the 5-year 
     term of the performance agreement, a State has not 
     substantially met the performance goals submitted in the 
     performance agreement, the Secretary shall, after notice and 
     an opportunity for a hearing, terminate the performance 
     agreement and the State shall be required to comply with the 
     program requirements, in effect at the time of termination, 
     for each program included in the performance agreement.
       (c) Penalty For Failure To Improve Student Performance.--If 
     a State has made no progress toward achieving its performance 
     goals by the end of the term of the agreement, the Secretary 
     may reduce funds for State administrative costs for each 
     program included in the performance agreement by up to 50 
     percent for each year of the 2-year period following the end 
     of the term of the performance agreement.

     SEC. 9. RENEWAL OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Notification.--A State that wishes to renew its 
     performance agreement shall notify the Secretary of its 
     renewal request not less than 6 months prior to the end of 
     the term of the performance agreement.
       (b) Renewal Requirements.--A State that has met or has 
     substantially met its performance goals submitted in the 
     performance agreement at the end of the 5-year term may apply 
     to the Secretary to renew its performance agreement for an 
     additional 5-year period. Upon the completion of the 5-year 
     term of the performance agreement or as soon thereafter as 
     the State submits data required under the agreement, the 
     Secretary shall renew, for an additional 5-year term, the 
     performance agreement of any State that has met or has 
     substantially met its performance goals.

     SEC. 10. ACHIEVEMENT GAP REDUCTION REWARDS.

       (a) Closing the Gap Reward Fund.--
       (1) In general.--To reward States that make significant 
     progress in eliminating achievement gaps by raising the 
     achievement levels of the lowest performing students, the 
     Secretary shall set aside sufficient funds from the Fund for 
     the Improvement of Education under part A of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8001 et seq.) to grant a reward to States that meet the 
     conditions set forth in subsection (b) by the end of their 5-
     year performance agreement.
       (2) Reward amount.--The amount of the reward referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be not less than 5 percent of funds 
     allocated to the State during the first year of the 
     performance agreement for programs included in the agreement.
       (b) Conditions of Performance Reward.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), a State is eligible to receive a reward under this 
     section as follows:
       (1) A State is eligible for such an award if the State 
     reduces by not less than 25 percent, over the 5-year term of 
     the performance agreement, the difference between the 
     percentage of highest and lowest performing groups of 
     students described in section 3(d)(5)(C) that meet the 
     State's proficient level of performance.
       (2) A State is eligible for such an award if a State 
     increases the proportion of 2 or more groups of students 
     under section 3(d)(5)(C) that meet State proficiency 
     standards by 25 percent.
       (3) A State shall receive such an award if the following 
     requirements are met:
       (A) Content areas.--The reduction in the achievement gap or 
     improvement in achievement shall include not less than 2 
     content

[[Page 662]]

     areas, 1 of which shall be mathematics or reading.
       (B) Grades tested.--The reduction in the achievement gap or 
     improvement in achievement shall occur in at least 2 grade 
     levels.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Student achievement gaps shall 
     not be considered to have been reduced in circumstances where 
     the average academic performance of the highest performing 
     quintile of students has decreased.

     SEC. 11. STRAIGHT A'S PERFORMANCE REPORT.

       The Secretary shall make the annual State reports described 
     in section 3(d)(11) available to the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the 
     Senate not later than 60 days after the Secretary receives 
     the report.

     SEC. 12. APPLICABILITY OF TITLE X.

       To the extent that provisions of title X of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.) 
     are inconsistent with this Act, this Act shall be construed 
     as superseding such provisions.

     SEC. 13. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT.

       To the extent that the provisions of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) are inconsistent with 
     this Act, this Act shall be construed as superseding such 
     provisions, except where relating to civil rights, 
     withholding of funds and enforcement authority, and family 
     educational and privacy rights.

     SEC. 14. APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect home 
     schools regardless of whether a home school is treated as a 
     private school or home school under State law.

     SEC. 15. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT, NON-
                   PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, regardless of 
     whether a home school is treated as a private school or home 
     school under State law.

     SEC. 16. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) All students.--The term ``all students'' means all 
     students attending public schools or charter schools that are 
     participating in the State's accountability and assessment 
     system.
       (2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

     SEC. 17 EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect with respect to funds 
     appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2001.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my 
distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, in introducing 
the Academic Achievement for All Act known as Straight A's.
  Our education system is in need of serious reform. Thirty-five years 
ago, Congress enacted the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
Today, over $120 billion has been spent on Title I--the program that is 
the cornerstone of the federal investment in K through 12 education for 
disadvantaged children. However, only 13 percent of low-income 4th 
graders score at or above the ``proficient'' level on national reading 
tests, and one-third of all incoming college freshman must enroll in 
remedial reading, writing, or mathematics classes before taking regular 
courses. Even worse, no progress has been made in achieving the 
program's fundamental goal, narrowing the achievement gap between low-
income and upper-income students.
  More fundamentally, the Federal role in education has been at best 
irrelevant in some states, and a serious barrier to reform in States 
that are far ahead of the curve in implementing serious reforms. It is 
time that parents, teachers, principals, and school board members 
decide what is best for our children. It is important that we return to 
our States and local communities the right to set priorities that 
reflect the unique needs of their students. The Straight A's Act offers 
such an option. It leaves the basic construct of Federal education 
programs intact, but offers some states the opportunity to experiment. 
Straight A's would allow states or school districts to spend their 
share of Federal dollars on reforms of their choice in exchange for 
agreed upon academic results. It is the first Federal education program 
to shift Federal dollars from one size fits all programs to a program 
that demands academic outcomes.
  I believe that choice and flexibility are the two most important 
aspects of education reform. The Straight A's Act offers both. The time 
has come to move forward with education reform, and I think Straight 
A's is moving in the right direction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Domenici, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 169. A bill to provide Federal reimbursement for indirect costs 
relating to the incarceration of illegal criminal aliens and for 
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency 
Reimbursement Act. Senators McCain, Hutchison, Gramm, Domenici, 
Bingaman, Feinstein, and Boxer join me. This bill, which is identical 
to the bill I introduced in the 106th Congress, will be of great 
importance to Arizona's future fiscal soundness and that of the other 
southwest border states.
  The bill will reimburse states and localities for the costs they 
incur to process criminal illegal aliens through their criminal justice 
systems. It will also provide reimbursement for the uncompensated care 
that states, localities, and hospitals provide, as required by federal 
law, to undocumented aliens for medical emergencies.
  It is unclear what the true expense for providing these services is, 
but it is believed to be even greater than the level of reimbursement 
provided for in the bill we introduce today. Title I of our bill will 
provide $200 million each year for four years for the criminal justice 
costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens. Title II will 
provide $200 million each year for four years for the costs that 
states, localities, and hospitals incur to provide emergency medical 
treatment to undocumented aliens.
  We will soon have a better idea of what these overwhelming costs are 
to those jurisdictions clearly affected, the local border communities 
in Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico. Last year I successfully 
secured funding for a study which should be completed this week and 
will detail the expenses that border communities in all four southwest 
states incur to process criminal aliens. The Arizona portion is already 
complete. In the four border counties of Arizona, $18 million in 
unreimbursed costs are incurred to process criminal illegal aliens.
  Preventing illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal 
Government. When it fails to protect our borders from illegal 
immigration, it has a responsibility to reimburse jurisdictions that 
provide federally-mandated services that (1) protect citizens and legal 
residents from criminal illegal aliens, or (2) provide emergency 
medical attention to undocumented immigrants. These two services have a 
tremendous effect on the budgets of these relatively small 
jurisdictions. When illegal immigrants commit crimes and are then 
caught, they drain the budgets of a locality's sheriff, detention 
facilities, justice court, county attorney, clerk of the court, 
superior and juvenile court, and juvenile detention departments, as 
well as the county's indigent defense budget. States and local 
jurisdictions all along the southwestern border have incurred 100 
percent of these processing-related costs to date. Our bill will change 
that.
  Another study I was able to secure funding for in the 106th Congress 
will soon begin. That study will detail the overwhelming, and again 
unreimbursed, costs that certain localities and hospitals are incurring 
to treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies. The federal 
government is obligated to fully reimburse states, localities, and 
hospitals for the emergency medical treatment of illegal immigrants.
  According to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate 
provided two years ago, the total annual cost to

[[Page 663]]

treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies is roughly $2.8 
billion a year. It is roughly estimated that the federal government 
reimburses states for approximately half of that amount. That means 
states must pay the remaining $1.4 billion. The state of Arizona 
estimates that it incurs unreimbursed costs of $30 million annually to 
treat undocumented immigrants on an emergency basis.
  The bill we introduce today will provide states, localities, and 
hospitals an additional $200 million per year to help absorb the costs 
of adhering to Federal law, which mandates that all individuals, 
regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, must be provided 
with medical treatment in a medical emergency.
  Mr. President, I hope we can address these very pressing issues in 
the coming months, and that Members will consider joining my cosponsors 
and me in support of this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation 
Senator Kyl and I are introducing with a number of our border-state 
colleagues to provide appropriate Federal reimbursement to states and 
localities whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs 
associated with illegal immigration. The premise of our bill, and of 
current law governing this type of federal reimbursement to the states, 
is that controlling illegal immigration is principally the 
responsibility of the Federal government, not the states.
  Our legislation would expand the amount and scope of federal funding 
to the states for incarceration and medical costs that arise from the 
detention or treatment of illegal immigrants. Such funding currently 
flows to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. 
territories. In Fiscal Year 2000, approximately 360 local jurisdictions 
across the United States applied for these Federal monies. Although our 
bill gives special consideration to border States and States with 
unusually high concentrations of illegal aliens in residence, it would 
benefit communities across the nation. It deserves the Senate's prompt 
consideration and approval.
  Many of my colleagues are probably not aware that the Federal 
Government, under the existing State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, 
SCAAP, reimburses states and counties burdened by illegal immigration 
for less than 40 percent of eligible alien incarceration costs. Many 
border counties estimate that between one-quarter and one-third of 
their criminal justice budgets are spent processing criminal aliens. In 
my State of Arizona, Santa Cruz County spent 33 percent of its total 
criminal justice budget in Fiscal Year 1999 to process criminal illegal 
aliens, of which over half was not reimbursed by the Federal 
Government. Arizona's Cochise County spent roughly 32 percent of its 
total law enforcement and criminal justice budget to apprehend and 
process criminal illegal aliens but received Federal payments to cover 
fewer than half of these costs. Similar shortfalls in Federal funding 
plague states and counties all along our border with Mexico.
  The legislation we are introducing today would actually expand the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program by authorizing funding for 
state and local needs that currently go unmet. Although states receive 
Federal reimbursement for part of the cost of incarcerating illegal 
adult aliens, the Federal Government does not reimburse states or units 
of local government for expenditures for illegal juvenile aliens. Nor 
does it reimburse states and localities for costs associated with 
processing criminal illegal aliens, including court costs, county 
attorney costs, costs for criminal proceedings that do not involve 
going to trial, indigent defense costs, and unsupervised probation 
costs. Our legislation would authorize the Federal Government to 
reimburse such costs to States and localities that suffer a 
substantially disproportionate share of the impact of criminal illegal 
aliens on their law enforcement and criminal justice systems. It would 
also authorize additional Federal reimbursement for emergency health 
services furnished by states and localities to undocumented aliens.
  Reimbursement to States and localities for criminal alien 
incarceration is woefully underfunded according to the existing limited 
criteria for SCAAP, which do not take into account the full detention 
and processing costs for illegal aliens. Nor does the existing SCAAP 
provide necessary support to local communities for the cost of 
emergency care for illegal immigrants, a growing problem in the 
Southwest, and one exacerbated by the increasingly desperate measures 
taken by undocumented aliens to cross our border with Mexico. Our 
legislation thus authorizes the expansion of SCAAP to cover costs 
wrongly borne by local communities under current law--costs which are a 
Federal responsibility and should not be shirked by those in 
Washington.
  As my colleagues know, illegal immigrants who successfully transit 
our Southwest border rapidly disperse throughout the United States. 
That SCAAP funds flow to all 50 States reflects the pressures such 
aliens place on public services around the country. I hope the Senate 
will act expeditiously on this important legislation to alleviate those 
pressures by compensating state and local units for the costs they 
incur as unwitting hosts to undocumented aliens, even as we continue to 
fund border enforcement measures to reduce the flow of illegal 
immigrants into this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Johnson, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 170. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected 
disability to receive both military retired pay by reason of their 
years of military service and disability compensation from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability; to the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Congress I, along with Senator Inouye, 
introduced S. 2357, ``The Armed Forces Concurrent Retirement and 
Disability Payment Act of 2000.'' Our bill addressed a 110 year old 
injustice that requires some of the bravest men and women in our 
nation--retired, career veterans, to essentially forgo receipt of a 
portion of their retired pay if they received a disability injury in 
the line of service. I am extremely disappointed that we did not take 
the opportunity to correct this long-standing inequity in the 106th 
Congress.
  I rise today, to again introduce a bill along with my colleagues 
Senators Hutchinson, Landrieu, Dorgan, Conrad, Johnson, McCain, 
Bingaman, Inouye, Shelby, Snowe and Daschle, that will correct this 
inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a 
service-connected disability.
  Our bill will permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a 
service connected disability to receive military retired pay 
concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.
  This inequitable law originated in the 19th century, when Congress 
approved legislation to prohibit the concurrent receipt of military 
retired pay and VA disability compensation. It was enacted shortly 
after the Civil War, when the standing army of the United States was 
extremely limited. At that time, only a small portion of our armed 
forces consisted of career soldiers.
  Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives 
to the defense of our nation. The United States' military force is 
unmatched in terms of power, training and ability and our nation is 
recognized as the world's only superpower, a status which is largely 
due to the sacrifices our veterans made during the last century. Rather 
than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our 
obligations, the federal government has chosen instead to perpetuate a 
110-year-old injustice. Quite simply, this is disgraceful.
  Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and 
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the 
distinction between these two entitlements. Members of our Armed Forces 
have normally dedicated 20 or more years to our

[[Page 664]]

country's defense earning their retirement for service. Whereas, 
disability compensation is awarded to a veteran for injury incurred in 
the line of duty.
  Career military retired veterans are the only group of federal 
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to 
receive VA disability. All other federal employees receive both their 
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. Simply put, 
the law discriminates against career military men and women.
  This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women 
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great nation? How do we 
explain this inequity to Edward Lynk from Virginia who answered the 
call of duty to defend our nation? Mr. Lynk served for over 30 years in 
the Marine Corps and participated in three wars, where he was severely 
injured during combat in two of them.
  Or George Blahun from Connecticut, who entered the military in 1940 
to serve his country because of the impending war. He served over 35 
years during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He is 
100 percent disabled because of injuries incurred while performing 
military service.
  Our nation is experiencing a prosperity unparalleled in human history 
and yet we continue to tell these brave soldiers that we cannot afford 
to make good on payments they are owed. Mr. Blahun has hit the 
proverbial nail on the head when he labels our excuses ``arbitrary 
bureaucratic rhetorical nonsense.'' We must demonstrate to these 
veterans that we are thankful for their dedicated service. As such, we 
must fight for the amendment in the Senate version of the National 
Defense Authorization bill for FY 2001.
  We are currently losing over one thousand WWII veterans each day. 
Every day we delay acting on this legislation means that we have denied 
fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never 
have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
  Mr. President, this bill represents an honest attempt to correct an 
injustice that has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans 
to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation 
concurrently will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
  This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the 
Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
  Mr. President, passing ``The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001'' 
will finally eliminate a gross inequitable 19th century law and ensure 
fairness within the Federal retirement policy. Our veterans have heard 
enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear our gratitude. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to finally end 
this disservice to our retired military men and women.
  Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their 
service to our Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Retired Pay Restoration 
Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 170

       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 ``Retired Pay Restoration Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO DISABLED 
                   MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Restoration of Retired Pay Benefits.--Chapter 71 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have 
       service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and 
       veterans' disability compensation

       ``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of 
     the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other 
     than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled 
     to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid 
     both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
       ``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
     retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
     title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable 
     under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
     retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 
     5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of 
     the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
     exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would 
     have been entitled under any other provision of law based 
     upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the 
     member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title at the time of the member's retirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
       ``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the 
     meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of 
     title 38.''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Compensation Program.--Section 1413 
     of such title is repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 1413; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new item:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
              disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
              disability compensation.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
       (b) Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may be paid to any 
     person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as added by the amendment made by section 2(a), for any 
     period before the effective date specified in subsection (a).

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished 
colleague from across the aisle, Senator Reid, in introducing the 
Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001. With the swift passage of this 
act, we hope to put an end to a grossly unfair practice, to reform a 
system that, as it stands today, ends up hurting those veterans we owe 
our greatest debt of gratitude.
  Today, our armed forces are struggling to meet even modest recruiting 
goals and are having even more difficulty retaining qualified men and 
women. Serving in the military is less likely to be seen as an 
attractive career. The Federal Government should do its part to help, 
not to hinder, the viability of the idea of a career in uniform.
  Unfortunately, an outdated law passed in 1891 punishes those who have 
served this Nation in uniform for more than twenty years, in the 
process earning a longevity retirement. How? By forcing them to waive 
the amount of their retired pay equal to the amount of any VA 
disability compensation they may be eligible to receive. That is 
patently unfair. Military retirement pay based on longevity and VA 
disability compensation are awarded for two distinct, different 
reasons--one should not count against the other. One is awarded for 
making a career of public service, the other is to redress 
debilitating, enduring injuries caused by the rigors of life in the 
military.
  Military retirees are the only group of federal retirees who must 
waive a portion of their retirement pay in order to receive VA 
disability compensation. If a veteran refuses to give up his retired 
pay, he will lose his VA benefits.
  Let's take the fictional example of two G.I.'s named Joe and Sam. Joe 
and Sam joined the Army together and were wounded in the same battle. 
Joe left the Army after a four-year tour and joined the federal 
government as a civilian employee. Sam continued on and made the 
military his career.
  Thirty years later, both men are receiving federal retirement pay and

[[Page 665]]

both are eligible for VA disability compensation as a result of the 
injuries they sustained while in the service. The difference between 
Joe and Sam is that in order to get disability compensation, Sam must 
forfeit an equal amount of his retired pay, while Joe collects the full 
amount of both benefits without any deduction in either.
  Fairness is the issue here. We should be rewarding, not penalizing 
people for choosing a career in the military. Military retirees with 
service-connected disabilities should be allowed to receive 
compensation for their injuries above their retired military pay. The 
107th Congress must act to bring equity to those who were disabled 
during a career of dedicated service to our nation, and the Reid-
Hutchinson bill is the proper vehicle. By eliminating the offset, we 
can end this unfair practice that hurts those who need our help.
  The Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001 has the strong support of 
many military and nonmilitary veterans service organizations. In 
addition, Congressman Michael Bilirakis has introduced companion 
legislation in the House of Representatives. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to join us in this fight by signing on as cosponsors.
  While I know it will be an uphill battle to get this legislation 
passed, it is one of my highest priorities. It's only right that the 
Congress make this much-needed change and reward--rather than 
penalize--those who have selflessly served to protect our Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 171. A bill to repeal certain travel provisions with respect to 
Cuba and certain trade sanctions with respect to Cuba, Iran, Libya, 
North Korea, and Sudan, and for other purposes, to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of myself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
Durbin, I introduce a piece of legislation today that deals with the 
repeal of certain travel provisions or restrictions and certain trade 
sanctions with respect to Cuba.
  Last year, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, I offered 
legislation dealing with removing the embargo that exists on the 
shipment of agriculture commodities around the world.
  The fact is, we have some people around the world we don't like. We 
say: We are going to punish you.
  We don't like Saddam Hussein. We say: The way to punish you is, we 
are going to slap an embargo on your country, and in that embargo we 
are going to include food and medicine. We say the same to the leaders 
of Libya, Cuba and North Korea.
  It has been my strong feeling that we ought never have an embargo on 
the shipment of food and medicine to anywhere in the world. With those 
embargoes, we shoot ourselves in the foot. When we don't sell food to 
those countries, other countries will sell food to them. Why on Earth 
would we ever want to use food as a weapon? I thought we put that 
behind us 20 years ago. Yet we continue to do it with respect to 
certain undesirable countries.
  I offered legislation in the appropriations bill last year. It came 
to the floor of the Senate, and we moved through the Senate into 
conference. We had a lot of discussion about it. The fact is, we made 
some progress, essentially lifting sanctions and embargoes on the 
shipment of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, Sudan and North Korea. 
But there is more yet to do. In conference we got stiffed by some 
interests who decided that they wanted to even take a step backward 
with respect to the ban on travel to Cuba. They took the legislation we 
enacted and added to it a further restriction by codifying all the 
restrictions that now exist on travel to Cuba and preventing a 
President from loosening the travel restrictions. They have written 
these restrictions into law, which makes them tighter. That made no 
sense. They also added provisions that ban all American financing, even 
private financing, for agricultural sales to Cuba. That is a step 
backward, not forward.
  Let me read what two Members of the House who represent south Florida 
said when this was passed:

       The prohibition will make it as difficult as is possible to 
     make agricultural sales to Cuba.
       Closing off Clinton's tourism option for Castro is our most 
     important achievement in years. We are extremely pleased.

  I understand why they are pleased. I am not. What was done by this 
Congress and just by a few people was wrong. We ought not make it 
difficult to sell food or move food or medicine to Cuba or anywhere 
else in the world for that matter. It is not in our interest, and it is 
not in the interest of others around the world for us to behave in that 
manner.
  Does anyone think, as I have asked repeatedly, that Fidel Castro or 
Saddam Hussein or others miss a meal because we have decided that we 
will not ship agricultural products or food to Iraq, Cuba? Does anybody 
think they have missed a meal? All these policies do is punish poor 
people and hungry people and sick people. This country is better than 
that. We ought to start acting like it. This Congress ought to provide 
policies that say when 40 years of embargo to Cuba do not work, it is 
time to change the policy.
  I happen to support lifting the embargo completely. But now we are 
just talking about the first piece: allowing the shipment of food and 
medicine to Cuba.
  Then there is the issue of travel to Cuba. How on Earth can one make 
the claim that travel and exchange and movement between the United 
States and Cuba somehow undermines our interests? It does not. In my 
judgment, the more contact, the more travel, the more movement there is 
between the United States and Cuba, the more we will undermine the 
interest of the Communist Government of Cuba. That, after all, ought to 
be our objective.
  Our objective ought to be to find ways to see if we can't create a 
new circumstance by which we persuade the Cuban Government to be open, 
democratic, and give the people of Cuba an opportunity for the freedoms 
they deserve. We have had an embargo for Cuba for 40 years. It has not 
worked.
  There comes a time when you say something that hasn't worked for 40 
years ought to be changed. This is a baby step in making the change 
that is needed. Even at that, we faced significant problems last year.
  There are a number of people in the Senate who have worked on these 
issues for a long while. Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, former Senator 
Ashcroft, myself, and others have worked on these issues dealing with 
agriculture and travel and other issues for a long while. Senator 
Roberts is on the floor. I know he visited Cuba some months ago. I also 
have visited Cuba. I found it unthinkable, standing in a hospital in an 
intensive care room one day with a little boy who was in a coma, he had 
been in an accident, hit his head, was in a coma. He was in an 
intensive care room. There were no machines. I have been in intensive 
care rooms and have heard the rhythm of machinery pumping life into 
patients. Not in that room because they don't have the equipment. This 
little boy had his mother by his bedside holding his hand. They told me 
at that hospital they were out of 240 different kinds of medicines--240 
different medicines they didn't have. They were out of it.
  I am sitting there thinking, how could it serve any interest, any 
public policy purpose, to believe that our withholding the shipment of 
prescription drugs to Cuba is somehow advancing anybody's interest? It 
is simply unthinkable. The same holds true with food. Our farmers toil 
in the fields of this country and they produce a product that is needed 
around the world. We are told that half of the world goes to bed with 
an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. A quarter of the 
world is on a diet. Then we have farmers here in America struggling to 
find gas to put in a tractor to plow the ground, to plant a seed, to 
raise a crop, only to go to the elevator in the fall and be told the 
crop has no value because there is an oversupply of crops.
  The farmer hears the debate over the embargoes and sanctions we have 
against countries because we don't like their leaders. We won't ship 
food and the farmer get hurt. You talk about a policy that is grounded 
in foolishness--

[[Page 666]]

this is it. More than foolishness, it is cruel. It is not what 
represents the best of this country. This country is a world leader. 
This country produces food in prodigious quantity. It is something the 
rest of the world desperately needs. To withhold it anywhere in the 
world is unbecoming of this country.
  On a moral basis, this country has a responsibility to always, always 
decide that the shipment of food and medicine is going to be available 
anywhere in the world and that we are not going to have embargoes that 
include the withholding of medicines anywhere in the world. Dictators 
will always get something to eat and medicines to treat their diseases. 
Our policy punishes the sick, hungry, and poor people. It ought to 
stop.
  The bill I introduce today for myself, Senators Roberts, Baucus, and 
Durbin simply rescinds those provisions of the FY 2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations Act that tightened sanctions on Cuba.
  I know I have been on the floor a lot talking about these issues, but 
I feel strongly about them. We have the opportunity in this Congress to 
undo what we did last year--undo the bad parts. We did make some 
progress last year. Yes, we made some progress, but not enough. I want 
our policy to be unequivocal and plain, that nowhere in this world, 
anywhere, in our relationships in the world, will we use food or 
prescription drugs, or medicine, as a weapon. That would represent the 
best of this country's instincts.
  In my judgment, it will be accomplished when we have the opportunity 
to vote on it. The fact is, there are 70 or 80 votes in the Senate by 
people who believe in that position. We have just a few hard-core folks 
that are still living in the fifties. They drive up here in new cars, 
wear new suits, but they are living in the fifties, serving in the 
Congress in 2001, still pushing policies that don't work. A few people, 
a small cabal of people in this Congress, have prevented us from doing 
what we all know we should do, eliminate these kinds of sanctions and 
embargoes anywhere in the world.
  Mr. President, I am happy to have introduced this today. I hope 
colleagues will carefully consider it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 171

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TRADE SANCTIONS AND TRAVEL 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) Repeals.--Sections 908 and 910 of the Trade Sanctions 
     Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (as enacted by 
     section 1(a) of Public Law 106-387) are hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 906(a)(1) of the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (as 
     enacted by section 1(a) of Public Law 106-387) is amended by 
     striking ``to Cuba or''.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from North 
Dakota to introduce legislation to remove several trade limiting 
provisions from the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Although 
the intent may have been otherwise, the overall effect was to tighten 
existing prohibitions on trade with and tourist travel to Cuba.
  Specifically, the purpose of the Dorgan-Roberts bill is to make 
changes to Title 9 of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, 
repealing sections 908 & 910 and making a small change to section 906.
  Title 9, as you recall, is also known as the Trade Sanctions Reform & 
Export Enhancement Act. It made a number of important strides toward 
ending the misguided policy of using unilateral food and medicine 
sanctions as a foreign policy tool. Title 9, for example, terminates 
current unilateral agricultural and medical sanctions and requires 
congressional approval for any new unilateral sanctions that Presidents 
may consider in the future. That is the good news about last year's 
effort.
  The bad news is that sections 908 effectively cancels U.S. 
agricultural trade with Cuba as it prohibits any U.S.-based private 
financing or the application of any U.S. Government agricultural export 
promotion program. The de facto effect of this provision is to keep the 
Cuban market cut-off from America's farmers. This is unacceptable to 
me.
  Also, section 906 permits the issuance of only one-year licenses for 
contracts to sell agricultural commodities and medicine to Cuba but 
places no such restriction on Syria and North Korea. What's the policy? 
What kind of confused message is this? We are either going to permit 
the sale of food and medicine to all nations despite the presence of 
some on the State Department terrorist list or we are not going to 
encourage the sale of food and medicine to all Nations. Let us be 
consistent in these matters.
  Finally, we seek to rescind section 910 which codified prohibitions 
against tourist travel or tourist visits to Cuba. This travel ban 
stifles the most powerful influence on Cuban society: American culture 
and perspective, both economic and political.
  When Americans travel, they transmit our nation's ideas and values. 
That is one reason why travel was permitted to the Soviet Union and is 
permitted to the People's Republic of China. A tourist travel ban is 
simply counterproductive.
  Trade with Cuba is a very sensitive issue with reasonable, well-
intentioned people on both sides. But it is an issue which must be 
addressed as globalization and the aggressive posture of America's 
trade competitors increases. We can no longer sacrifice the American 
farmer on the altar of the cold war paradigm.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 
of Senator Dorgan's bill that repeals the restrictions on food and 
medicine exports to Cuba and removes the legal stranglehold that has 
been put on liberalizing travel to Cuba.
  In July of last year, I led a Senate delegation to Havana. It was a 
brief trip, but we had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of 
people and to assess the situation first-hand. We met with Fidel 
Castro. We spent three hours with a group of heroic dissidents who 
spent years in prison, yet have chosen to remain in Cuba and continue 
their dissent. We also met with foreign ambassadors, cabinet ministers, 
and the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO.
  I left Cuba more convinced than ever that we must end our outdated 
Cuba policy. Last year, I introduced legislation to end the embargo and 
begin the process of normalization of our relations with Cuba. I will 
reintroduce similar legislation this year.
  The trade embargo of Cuba is a unilateral sanctions policy. Not even 
our closest allies support it. I have long opposed unilateral economic 
sanctions, unless our national security is at stake, and the Defense 
Department has concluded that Cuba represents no security threat to our 
nation.
  Unilateral sanctions don't work. They don't change the behavior of 
the targeted country. But they do hurt our farmers and business people 
by preventing them from exporting, and then allowing our Japanese, 
European, and Canadian competitors happily to rush in to fill the gap.
  Ironically, the U.S. embargo actually helps Castro. His economy is in 
shambles. The people's rights are repressed. These are the direct 
results of Castro's totally misguided economic, political, and social 
policies. Yet Fidel Castro is able to use the embargo as the scapegoat 
for Cuba's misery. Absurd, but true.
  We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. The 
bill we are introducing today is a good first step. We tried to remove 
restrictions on food and medicine exports last year, but a small 
minority in the Congress prevented the will of the majority. And they 
compounded the damage by codifying restrictions on travel, that is, 
removing Presidential discretion to allow increased travel and promote 
people-to-people contact between Americans and Cuban citizens.
  Removing the food and medicine restrictions won't lead to a huge 
surge of American products into Cuba. But, today, Cuba's imports come 
primarily from Europe and Asia. With this liberalization, U.S. products 
will replace

[[Page 667]]

some of those sales. Our agriculture producers will have the advantage 
of lower transportation costs and easier logistics. It will be a start.
  Allowing for the expansion of travel will increase the exposure of 
the Cuban people to the United States. It will result in more travel by 
tourists, business people, students, artists, and scholars. It will 
bring us into closer contact with those who will be part of the 
leadership in post-Castro Cuba. It will spur more business, helping, 
even if only a little, the development of the private sector. Moreover, 
we need to restore the inherent right of Americans to travel anywhere.
  The world has changed since the United States initiated this embargo 
forty years ago. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. But 
if we wait until he is completely gone from the scene before we start 
to develop normal relations with leaders and people in Cuba, the 
transition will be much harder on the Cuban people. Events in Cuba 
could easily escalate out of control and become a real danger to the 
United States.
  I need to stress that a majority of members of Congress, in both the 
Senate and the House, supported these initial steps to end the embargo. 
By overwhelming votes in both Houses last year, we approved an end to 
unilateral sanctions on food and medicine exports to Cuba. But the will 
of the majority was stopped by a few members of Congress. This 
legislation will correct that.
  I hope to see the day when American policy toward Cuba is no longer 
controlled by a small coterie of leaders in the Congress along with a 
few private groups, and, instead, our policy will serve the national 
interest. Today's bill is a good first step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 172. A bill to benefit electricity consumers by promoting the 
reliability of the bulk-power system; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I stand before you and the Senate today. As I do 
this, our Nation is relearning a fundamental lesson--that electricity 
does not come from hitting a light switch. Our urban areas are getting 
a painful lesson that the quality of life that we and they enjoy in 
this Nation is a direct result of resource production.
  California is scrambling as we speak to keep the lights on from day 
to day and has had 2 days recently of rolling blackouts. The west coast 
energy crisis shows no sign of abating and could actually intensify in 
coming weeks if the region, which is heavily dependent on hydroelectric 
power, continues to face below average precipitation. The reservoir 
behind the Grand Coulee Dam, by far the largest of the Federal dams in 
the Northwest, is at its lowest level in 25 years. The Grand Coulee Dam 
is also upstream of 10 other dams on the mainstem Columbia River. So 
downstream powerhouses cannot generate electricity either.
  Much of the media attention in recent weeks has focused on efforts to 
keep the lights on in California and to keep the State's two largest 
utilities from going bankrupt. The west coast energy market extends to 
11 other Western States, including Oregon, that are all interconnected 
by the high-voltage transmission system.
  I believe there is more that California can and must do immediately 
to address this situation. First and foremost, it must approve further 
electric rate increases. I don't normally advocate increases, but this 
is necessary to send the right signal to Californians that they have to 
conserve energy.
  Further, price increases are necessary to help California's investor-
owned utilities, which have recently been reduced to junk bond status, 
from going bankrupt. Avoiding bankruptcy for these utilities is 
important for Oregon and for other Western States. Since the middle of 
December, Northwest utilities have been forced, by Federal order, to 
sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being 
paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy 
protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for 
California's failed restructuring effort.
  We should not confuse this with deregulation. This is a failed effort 
at restructuring that incredibly took off, went to a free market in the 
wholesale, went to a price cap at retail, and then overregulated at 
production levels.
  I tell you, when you do that with an expanding economy, you have 
created a catastrophe. That is what California has created, and its 
neighbors are now beginning to help shoulder the burden.
  California must also operate its native generation, including its 
fossil fuel plants, at full capacity during this crisis. It can also 
find additional temporary generation.
  I recently came across a news story from last August about one 
California utility that was abandoning its efforts to moor a floating 
power plant in San Francisco Bay as protection against future power 
shortages.
  That 95-megawatt emergency powerplant could have provided enough 
power for 95,000 homes in the area.
  However, according to this news clip, the company abandoned its 
efforts because it was ``under fire from environmentalists and 
skeptical of winning regulatory approval. . . . ''
  The article also quoted the executive director of the San Francisco 
Bay Conservation and Development Commission as saying, ``The commission 
was skeptical as to whether the emergency really existed.''
  What a difference a few months makes. I wonder if anyone in San 
Francisco thinks there isn't an emergency now.
  In response to these tight margins between supply and demand, today I 
am reintroducing legislation that passed the Senate last Congress that 
will enhance the reliability of the wholesale transmission system. It 
is imperative that the transmission grid be operated as efficiently and 
reliably as possible during times when the margin between supply and 
demand is so tight.
  Yesterday, I sent a letter to the President urging him to issue an 
Executive order directing electricity conservation at all federal 
facilities throughout the twelve western states. Between federal office 
buildings, post offices, military bases, prisons, and other facilities, 
the federal government is among the largest consumers of electricity in 
the West.
  The Governors of Oregon and Washington are seeking 10 percent 
reductions in energy use at state facilities, and I believe this would 
be an appropriate goal for federal facilities as well.
  The federal government is also a major producer of electricity in the 
Western United States. Much of that generation is from hydroelectric 
facilities.
  I have expressed concern over the last several weeks that the 
Columbia and Snake River hydropower facilities not be operated in a 
manner that jeopardizes salmon recovery efforts in what is shaping up 
to be a poor water year in the Basin.
  However, there are many other federal generation facilities 
throughout the 12 western states that are interconnected by the high-
voltage transmission system.
  Therefore, I asked that the Energy Department be directed to 
undertake an immediate review of all of these facilities to ensure they 
are providing as much power as possible during this crisis.
  It is not just California that needs additional generation, however. 
According to a recent study by the Northwest Power Planning Council, 
the Pacific Northwest faces a 25 percent chance of power shortages 
during this and coming winters.
  To reduce this probability to a more acceptable level of five 
percent, the Northwest needs nearly 3,000 megawatts of new generating 
resources, conservation, or short-term demand management.
  This report, however, assumed that all the other generation remained 
equal. Yet in recent years there have been calls to close the nuclear 
plant WNP2, with a capacity of 1,250 megawatts.
  Breaching the four lower Snake River dams, which I oppose, would 
reduce capacity by another 1,200 megawatts, enough power for Seattle.
  In addition, almost 12,000 megawatts of non-federal hydroelectric 
power in

[[Page 668]]

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, is up for relicensing 
between now and 2010. More stringent operating criteria could reduce 
the total amount of power available.
  New licenses will probably also reduce the operational flexibility of 
these facilities that makes hydropower so valuable in meeting daily 
peaks in energy demand.
  In the face of the numbers I just quoted, I believe it is the height 
of irresponsibility to even be discussing breaching the four lower 
Snake River dams. The Endangered Species Act was never intended to 
force us, as Americans, to dismantle the infrastructure that our 
parents and grandparents worked so hard to build.
  The Bush administration is going to have to clean up a huge mess that 
is not of their making. The assault on domestic energy production and 
the lack of a national energy strategy over the last eight years are 
finally coming home to roost. This nation is more dependent on foreign 
oil than at any time in its history, and crude oil prices are rising as 
foreign nations are reducing production. Natural gas prices have 
doubled in recent months. Electricity prices on the West Coast have 
skyrocketed, and they remain high in the Northeast.
  The previous administration started out wanting to tax energy 
production through a BTU tax, as a way to force Americans to conserve. 
When that wasn't enacted, the past administration went about a 
systematic assault on energy production. They went after coal-fired 
plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants.
  They opposed the siting of new natural gas pipelines and the 
expansion of oil refining capacity. They put millions of acres of land 
off-limits to oil, gas, and coal exploration. The economy, particularly 
on the west coast, is just beginning to feel the cumulative effects of 
these actions.
  The U.S. economy needs energy. It needs abundant, reasonably priced 
oil, gas and electricity if our economic prosperity is to continue.
  I want to thank the leadership of the Senate for efforts to craft an 
energy bill. I know that the Bush administration will work with the 
Congress to achieve more energy production and more conservation.
  But I say to my fellow Oregonians and Americans everywhere who care 
about this issue that we must reconnect the reality dots between the 
lives we live and the natural resources we demand.
  At the end of the day, power is not created by hitting a light 
switch. Food does not come from Safeway. Gasoline does not come from a 
filling station. These are all things we need, and we must be good 
stewards of the environment but also remember that using the land does 
not have to equal abusing the land. But those who advocate that all 
must be shut down are simply the ones who would visit this trauma that 
we are now seeing in California on the rest of us as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 172

       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 ``Electric Reliability Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Affiliated regional reliability entity.--The term 
     `affiliated regional reliability entity' means an entity 
     delegated authority under subsection (h).
       ``(2) Bulk-power system.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `bulk-power system' means all 
     facilities and control systems necessary for operating an 
     interconnected electric power transmission grid or any 
     portion of an interconnected electric power transmission 
     grid.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `bulk-power system' includes--
       ``(i) high voltage transmission lines, substations, control 
     centers, communications, data, and operations planning 
     facilities necessary for the operation of all or any part of 
     the interconnected electric power transmission grid; and
       ``(ii) the output of generating units necessary to maintain 
     the reliability of the interconnected electric power 
     transmission grid.
       ``(3) Bulk-power system user.--The term `bulk-power system 
     user' means an entity that--
       ``(A) sells, purchases, or transmits electric energy over a 
     bulk-power system;
       ``(B) owns, operates, or maintains facilities or control 
     systems that are part of a bulk-power system; or
       ``(C) is a system operator.
       ``(4) Electric reliability organization.--The term 
     `electric reliability organization' means the organization 
     designated by the Commission under subsection (d).
       ``(5) Entity rule.--The term `entity rule' means a rule 
     adopted by an affiliated regional reliability entity for a 
     specific region and designed to implement or enforce 1 or 
     more organization standards.
       ``(6) Independent director.--The term `independent 
     director' means a person that--
       ``(A) is not an officer or employee of an entity that would 
     reasonably be perceived as having a direct financial interest 
     in the outcome of a decision by the board of directors of the 
     electric reliability organization; and
       ``(B) does not have a relationship that would interfere 
     with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of a director of the electric reliability 
     organization.
       ``(7) Industry sector.--The term `industry sector' means a 
     group of bulk-power system users with substantially similar 
     commercial interests, as determined by the board of directors 
     of the electric reliability organization.
       ``(8) Interconnection.--The term `interconnection' means a 
     geographic area in which the operation of bulk-power system 
     components is synchronized so that the failure of 1 or more 
     of the components may adversely affect the ability of the 
     operators of other components within the interconnection to 
     maintain safe and reliable operation of the facilities within 
     their control.
       ``(9) Organization standard.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `organization standard' means a 
     policy or standard adopted by the electric reliability 
     organization to provide for the reliable operation of a bulk-
     power system.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `organization standard' 
     includes--
       ``(i) an entity rule approved by the electric reliability 
     organization; and
       ``(ii) a variance approved by the electric reliability 
     organization.
       ``(10) Public interest group.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `public interest group' means a 
     nonprofit private or public organization that has an interest 
     in the activities of the electric reliability organization.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `public interest group' 
     includes--
       ``(i) a ratepayer advocate;
       ``(ii) an environmental group; and
       ``(iii) a State or local government organization that 
     regulates participants in, and promulgates government policy 
     with respect to, the market for electric energy.
       ``(11) System operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `system operator' means an 
     entity that operates or is responsible for the operation of a 
     bulk-power system.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `system operator' includes--
       ``(i) a control area operator;
       ``(ii) an independent system operator;
       ``(iii) a transmission company;
       ``(iv) a transmission system operator; and
       ``(v) a regional security coordinator.
       ``(12) Variance.--The term `variance' means an exception 
     from the requirements of an organization standard (including 
     a proposal for an organization standard in a case in which 
     there is no organization standard) that is adopted by an 
     affiliated regional reliability entity and is applicable to 
     all or a part of the region for which the affiliated regional 
     reliability entity is responsible.
       ``(b) Commission Authority.--
       ``(1) Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding section 201(f), within 
     the United States, the Commission shall have jurisdiction 
     over the electric reliability organization, all affiliated 
     regional reliability entities, all system operators, and all 
     bulk-power system users (including entities described in 
     section 201(f) for purposes of approving organization 
     standards and enforcing compliance with this section.
       ``(2) Definition of terms.--The Commission may by 
     regulation define any term used in this section consistent 
     with the definitions in subsection (a) and the purpose and 
     intent of this Act.
       ``(c) Existing Reliability Standards.--
       ``(1) Submission to the commission.--Before designation of 
     an electric reliability organization under subsection (d), 
     any person, including the North American Electric Reliability 
     Council and its member Regional Reliability Councils, may 
     submit to the Commission any reliability standard, guidance, 
     practice, or amendment to a reliability

[[Page 669]]

     standard, guidance, or practice that the person proposes to 
     be made mandatory and enforceable.
       ``(2) Review by the commission.--The Commission, after 
     allowing interested persons an opportunity to submit 
     comments, may approve a proposed mandatory standard, 
     guidance, practice, or amendment submitted under paragraph 
     (1) if the Commission finds that the standard, guidance, or 
     practice is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest.
       ``(3) Effect of approval.--A standard, guidance, or 
     practice shall be mandatory and applicable according to its 
     terms following approval by the Commission and shall remain 
     in effect until it is--
       ``(A) withdrawn, disapproved, or superseded by an 
     organization standard that is issued or approved by the 
     electric reliability organization and made effective by the 
     Commission under subsection (e); or
       ``(B) disapproved by the Commission if, on complaint or 
     upon motion by the Commission and after notice and an 
     opportunity for comment, the Commission finds the standard, 
     guidance, or practice to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, or not in the public 
     interest.
       ``(4) Enforceability.--A standard, guidance, or practice in 
     effect under this subsection shall be enforceable by the 
     Commission.
       ``(d) Designation of Electric Reliability Organization.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--
       ``(A) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall 
     propose regulations specifying procedures and requirements 
     for an entity to apply for designation as the electric 
     reliability organization.
       ``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall provide 
     notice and opportunity for comment on the proposed 
     regulations.
       ``(C) Final regulation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall 
     promulgate final regulations under this subsection.
       ``(2) Application.--
       ``(A) Submission.--Following the promulgation of final 
     regulations under paragraph (1), an entity may submit an 
     application to the Commission for designation as the electric 
     reliability organization.
       ``(B) Contents.--The applicant shall describe in the 
     application--
       ``(i) the governance and procedures of the applicant; and
       ``(ii) the funding mechanism and initial funding 
     requirements of the applicant.
       ``(3) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
       ``(A) provide public notice of the application; and
       ``(B) afford interested parties an opportunity to comment.
       ``(4) Designation of electric reliability organization.--
     The Commission shall designate the applicant as the electric 
     reliability organization if the Commission determines that 
     the applicant--
       ``(A) has the ability to develop, implement, and enforce 
     standards that provide for an adequate level of reliability 
     of bulk-power systems;
       ``(B) permits voluntary membership to any bulk-power system 
     user or public interest group;
       ``(C) ensures fair representation of its members in the 
     selection of its directors and fair management of its 
     affairs, taking into account the need for efficiency and 
     effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the 
     requirements for technical competency in the development of 
     organization standards and the exercise of oversight of bulk-
     power system reliability;
       ``(D) ensures that no 2 industry sectors have the ability 
     to control, and no 1 industry sector has the ability to veto, 
     the applicant's discharge of its responsibilities as the 
     electric reliability organization (including actions by 
     committees recommending standards for approval by the board 
     or other board actions to implement and enforce standards);
       ``(E) provides for governance by a board wholly comprised 
     of independent directors;
       ``(F) provides a funding mechanism and requirements that--
       ``(i) are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential and in the public interest; and
       ``(ii) satisfy the requirements of subsection (l);
       ``(G) has established procedures for development of 
     organization standards that--
       ``(i) provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, taking into account the need for efficiency and 
     effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the 
     requirements for technical competency in the development of 
     organization standards;
       ``(ii) ensure openness, a balancing of interests, and due 
     process; and
       ``(iii) includes alternative procedures to be followed in 
     emergencies;
       ``(H) has established fair and impartial procedures for 
     implementation and enforcement of organization standards, 
     either directly or through delegation to an affiliated 
     regional reliability entity, including the imposition of 
     penalties, limitations on activities, functions, or 
     operations, or other appropriate sanctions;
       ``(I) has established procedures for notice and opportunity 
     for public observation of all meetings, except that the 
     procedures for public observation may include alternative 
     procedures for emergencies or for the discussion of 
     information that the directors reasonably determine should 
     take place in closed session, such as litigation, personnel 
     actions, or commercially sensitive information;
       ``(J) provides for the consideration of recommendations of 
     States and State commissions; and
       ``(K) addresses other matters that the Commission considers 
     appropriate to ensure that the procedures, governance, and 
     funding of the electric reliability organization are just, 
     reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in 
     the public interest.
       ``(5) Exclusive designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall designate only 1 
     electric reliability organization.
       ``(B) Multiple applications.--If the Commission receives 2 
     or more timely applications that satisfy the requirements of 
     this subsection, the Commission shall approve only the 
     application that the Commission determines will best 
     implement this section.
       ``(e) Organization standards.--
       ``(1) Submission of proposals to commission.--
       ``(A) In general.--The electric reliability organization 
     shall submit to the Commission proposals for any new or 
     modified organization standards.
       ``(B) Contents.--A proposal submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include--
       ``(i) a concise statement of the purpose of the proposal; 
     and
       ``(ii) a record of any proceedings conducted with respect 
     to the proposal.
       ``(2) Review by the commission.--
       ``(A) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) provide notice of a proposal under paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) allow interested persons 30 days to submit comments 
     on the proposal.
       ``(B) Action by the commission.--
       ``(i) In general.--After taking into consideration any 
     submitted comments, the Commission shall approve or 
     disapprove a proposed organization standard not later than 
     the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the 
     deadline for the submission of comments, except that the 
     Commission may extend the 60-day period for an additional 90 
     days for good cause.
       ``(ii) Failure to act.--If the Commission does not approve 
     or disapprove a proposal within the period specified in 
     clause (i), the proposed organization standard shall go into 
     effect subject to its terms, without prejudice to the 
     authority of the Commission to modify the organization 
     standard in accordance with the standards and requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(C) Effective date.--An organization standard approved by 
     the Commission shall take effect not earlier than 30 days 
     after the date of the Commission's order of approval.
       ``(D) Standards for approval.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Commission shall approve a proposed 
     new or modified organization standard if the Commission 
     determines the organization standard to be just, reasonable, 
     not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public 
     interest.
       ``(ii) Considerations.--In the exercise of its review 
     responsibilities under this subsection, the Commission--

       ``(I) shall give due weight to the technical expertise of 
     the electric reliability organization with respect to the 
     content of a new or modified organization standard; but
       ``(II) shall not defer to the electric reliability 
     organization with respect to the effect of the organization 
     standard on competition.

       ``(E) Remand.--A proposed organization standard that is 
     disapproved in whole or in part by the Commission shall be 
     remanded to the electric reliability organization for further 
     consideration.
       ``(3) Orders to develop or modify organization standards.--
     The Commission, on complaint or on motion of the Commission, 
     may order the electric reliability organization to develop 
     and submit to the Commission, by a date specified in the 
     order, an organization standard or modification to an 
     existing organization standard to address a specific matter 
     if the Commission considers a new or modified organization 
     standard appropriate to carry out this section, and the 
     electric reliability organization shall develop and submit 
     the organization standard or modification to the Commission 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(4) Variances and entity rules.--
       ``(A) Proposal.--An affiliated regional reliability entity 
     may propose a variance or entity rule to the electric 
     reliability organization.
       ``(B) Expedited consideration.--If expedited consideration 
     is necessary to provide for bulk-power system reliability, 
     the affiliated regional reliability entity may--
       ``(i) request that the electric reliability organization 
     expedite consideration of the proposal; and
       ``(ii) file a notice of the request with the Commission.
       ``(C) Failure to act.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the electric reliability organization 
     fails to adopt the variance or

[[Page 670]]

     entity rule, in whole or in part, the affiliated regional 
     reliability entity may request that the Commission review the 
     proposal.
       ``(ii) Action by the commission.--If the Commission 
     determines, after a review of the request, that the action of 
     the electric reliability organization did not conform to the 
     applicable standards and procedures approved by the 
     Commission, or if the Commission determines that the variance 
     or entity rule is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory 
     or preferential, and in the public interest and that the 
     electric reliability organization has unreasonably rejected 
     or failed to act on the proposal, the Commission may--

       ``(I) remand the proposal for further consideration by the 
     electric reliability organization; or
       ``(II) order the electric reliability organization or the 
     affiliated regional reliability entity to develop a variance 
     or entity rule consistent with that requested by the 
     affiliated regional reliability entity.

       ``(D) Procedure.--A variance or entity rule proposed by an 
     affiliated regional reliability entity shall be submitted to 
     the electric reliability organization for review and 
     submission to the Commission in accordance with the 
     procedures specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(5) Immediate effectiveness.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection, a new or modified organization standard 
     shall take effect immediately on submission to the Commission 
     without notice or comment if the electric reliability 
     organization--
       ``(i) determines that an emergency exists requiring that 
     the new or modified organization standard take effect 
     immediately without notice or comment;
       ``(ii) notifies the Commission as soon as practicable after 
     making the determination;
       ``(iii) submits the new or modified organization standard 
     to the Commission not later than 5 days after making the 
     determination; and
       ``(iv) includes in the submission an explanation of the 
     need for immediate effectiveness.
       ``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) provide notice of the new or modified organization 
     standard or amendment for comment; and
       ``(ii) follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) for review of the new or modified organization 
     standard.
       ``(6) Compliance.--Each bulk power system user shall comply 
     with an organization standard that takes effect under this 
     section.
       ``(f) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--
       ``(1) Recognition.--The electric reliability organization 
     shall take all appropriate steps to gain recognition in 
     Canada and Mexico.
       ``(2) International agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall use best efforts to 
     enter into international agreements with the appropriate 
     governments in Canada and Mexico to provide for--
       ``(i) effective compliance with organization standards; and
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the electric reliability 
     organization in carrying out its mission and 
     responsibilities.
       ``(B) Compliance.--All actions taken by the electric 
     reliability organization, an affiliated regional reliability 
     entity, and the Commission shall be consistent with any 
     international agreement under subparagraph (A).
       ``(g) Changes in Procedure, Governance, or Funding.--
       ``(1) Submission to the commission.--The electric 
     reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
       ``(A) any proposed change in a procedure, governance, or 
     funding provision; or
       ``(B) any change in an affiliated regional reliability 
     entity's procedure, governance, or funding provision relating 
     to delegated functions.
       ``(2) Contents.--A submission under paragraph (1) shall 
     include an explanation of the basis and purpose for the 
     change.
       ``(3) Effectiveness.--
       ``(A) Changes in procedure.--
       ``(i) Changes constituting a statement of policy, practice, 
     or interpretation.--A proposed change in procedure shall take 
     effect 90 days after submission to the Commission if the 
     change constitutes a statement of policy, practice, or 
     interpretation with respect to the meaning or enforcement of 
     the procedure.
       ``(ii) Other changes.--A proposed change in procedure other 
     than a change described in clause (i) shall take effect on a 
     finding by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for 
     comment, that the change--

       ``(I) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest; and
       ``(II) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).

       ``(B) Changes in governance or funding.--A proposed change 
     in governance or funding shall not take effect unless the 
     Commission finds that the change--
       ``(i) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest; and
       ``(ii) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).
       ``(4) Order to Amend.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission, on complaint or on the 
     motion of the Commission, may require the electric 
     reliability organization to amend a procedural, governance, 
     or funding provision if the Commission determines that the 
     amendment is necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(B) Filing.--The electric reliability organization shall 
     submit the amendment in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(h) Delegations of Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Implementation and enforcement of compliance.--At the 
     request of an entity, the electric reliability organization 
     shall enter into an agreement with the entity for the 
     delegation of authority to implement and enforce compliance 
     with organization standards in a specified geographic area if 
     the electric reliability organization finds that--
       ``(i) the entity satisfies the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (F), (J), and (K) of 
     subsection (d)(4); and
       ``(ii) the delegation would promote the effective and 
     efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power 
     system reliability.
       ``(B) Other authority.--The electric reliability 
     organization may enter into an agreement to delegate to an 
     entity any other authority, except that the electric 
     reliability organization shall reserve the right to set and 
     approve standards for bulk-power system reliability.
       ``(2) Approval by the commission.--
       ``(A) Submission to the commission.--The electric 
     reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
       ``(i) any agreement entered into under this subsection; and
       ``(ii) any information the Commission requires with respect 
     to the affiliated regional reliability entity to which 
     authority is delegated.
       ``(B) Standards for approval.--The Commission shall approve 
     the agreement, following public notice and an opportunity for 
     comment, if the Commission finds that the agreement--
       ``(i) meets the requirements of paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest.
       ``(C) Rebuttable presumption.--A proposed delegation 
     agreement with an affiliated regional reliability entity 
     organized on an interconnection-wide basis shall be 
     rebuttably presumed by the Commission to promote the 
     effective and efficient implementation and administration of 
     the reliability of the bulk-power system.
       ``(D) Invalidity absent approval.--No delegation by the 
     electric reliability organization shall be valid unless the 
     delegation is approved by the Commission.
       ``(3) Procedures for entity rules and variances.--
       ``(A) In general.--A delegation agreement under this 
     subsection shall specify the procedures by which the 
     affiliated regional reliability entity may propose entity 
     rules or variances for review by the electric reliability 
     organization.
       ``(B) Interconnection-wide entity rules and variances.--In 
     the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that 
     would apply on an interconnection-wide basis, the electric 
     reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or 
     variance unless the electric reliability organization makes a 
     written finding that the entity rule or variance--
       ``(i) was not developed in a fair and open process that 
     provided an opportunity for all interested parties to 
     participate;
       ``(ii) would have a significant adverse impact on 
     reliability or commerce in other interconnections;
       ``(iii) fails to provide a level of reliability of the 
     bulk-power system within the interconnection such that the 
     entity rule or variance would be likely to cause a serious 
     and substantial threat to public health, safety, welfare, or 
     national security; or
       ``(iv) would create a serious and substantial burden on 
     competitive markets within the interconnection that is not 
     necessary for reliability.
       ``(C) Noninterconnection-wide entity rules and variances.--
     In the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that 
     would apply only to part of an interconnection, the electric 
     reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or 
     variance if the affiliated regional reliability entity 
     demonstrates that the proposal--
       ``(i) was developed in a fair and open process that 
     provided an opportunity for all interested parties to 
     participate;
       ``(ii) would not have an adverse impact on commerce that is 
     not necessary for reliability;
       ``(iii) provides a level of bulk-power system reliability 
     that is adequate to protect public health, safety, welfare, 
     and national security and would not have a significant 
     adverse impact on reliability; and
       ``(iv) in the case of a variance, is based on a justifiable 
     difference between regions or subregions within the 
     affiliated regional reliability entity's geographic area.
       ``(D) Action by the electric reliability organization.--
       ``(i) In general.--The electric reliability organization 
     shall approve or disapprove a proposal under subparagraph (A) 
     within 120 days after the proposal is submitted.

[[Page 671]]

       ``(ii) Failure to act.--If the electric reliability 
     organization fails to act within the time specified in clause 
     (i), the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved.
       ``(iii) Submission to the commission.--After approving a 
     proposal under subparagraph (A), the electric reliability 
     organization shall submit the proposal to the Commission for 
     approval under the procedures prescribed under subsection 
     (e).
       ``(E) Direct submissions.--An affiliated regional 
     reliability entity may not submit a proposal for approval 
     directly to the Commission except as provided in subsection 
     (e)(4).
       ``(4) Failure to reach delegation agreement.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an affiliated regional reliability 
     entity requests, consistent with paragraph (1), that the 
     electric reliability organization delegate authority to it, 
     but is unable within 180 days to reach agreement with the 
     electric reliability organization with respect to the 
     requested delegation, the entity may seek relief from the 
     Commission.
       ``(B) Review by the commission.--The Commission shall order 
     the electric reliability organization to enter into a 
     delegation agreement under terms specified by the Commission 
     if, after notice and opportunity for comment, the Commission 
     determines that--
       ``(i) a delegation to the affiliated regional reliability 
     entity would--

       ``(I) meet the requirements of paragraph (1); and
       ``(II) would be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory 
     or preferential, and in the public interest; and

       ``(ii) the electric reliability organization unreasonably 
     withheld the delegation.
       ``(5) Orders to modify delegation agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--On complaint, or on motion of the 
     Commission, after notice to the appropriate affiliated 
     regional reliability entity, the Commission may order the 
     electric reliability organization to propose a modification 
     to a delegation agreement under this subsection if the 
     Commission determines that--
       ``(i) the affiliated regional reliability entity--

       ``(I) no longer has the capacity to carry out effectively 
     or efficiently the implementation or enforcement 
     responsibilities under the delegation agreement;
       ``(II) has failed to meet its obligations under the 
     delegation agreement; or
       ``(III) has violated this section;

       ``(ii) the rules, practices, or procedures of the 
     affiliated regional reliability entity no longer provide for 
     fair and impartial discharge of the implementation or 
     enforcement responsibilities under the delegation agreement;
       ``(iii) the geographic boundary of a transmission entity 
     approved by the Commission is not wholly within the boundary 
     of an affiliated regional reliability entity, and the 
     difference in boundaries is inconsistent with the effective 
     and efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power 
     system reliability; or
       ``(iv) the agreement is inconsistent with a delegation 
     ordered by the Commission under paragraph (4).
       ``(B) Suspension.--
       ``(i) In general.--Following an order to modify a 
     delegation agreement under subparagraph (A), the Commission 
     may suspend the delegation agreement if the electric 
     reliability organization or the affiliated regional 
     reliability entity does not propose an appropriate and timely 
     modification.
       ``(ii) Assumption of responsibilities.--If a delegation 
     agreement is suspended, the electric reliability organization 
     shall assume the responsibilities delegated under the 
     delegation agreement.
       ``(iii) Organization Membership.--Each system operator 
     shall be a member of--
       ``(1) the electric reliability organization; and
       ``(2) any affiliated regional reliability entity operating 
     under an agreement effective under subsection (h) applicable 
     to the region in which the system operator operates, or is 
     responsible for the operation of, a transmission facility.
       ``(j) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Disciplinary actions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Consistent with procedures approved by 
     the Commission under subsection (d)(4)(H), the electric 
     reliability organization may impose a penalty, limitation on 
     activities, functions, or operations, or other disciplinary 
     action that the electric reliability organization finds 
     appropriate against a bulk-power system user if the electric 
     reliability organization, after notice and an opportunity for 
     interested parties to be heard, issues a finding in writing 
     that the bulk-power system user has violated an organization 
     standard.
       ``(B) Notification.--The electric reliability organization 
     shall immediately notify the Commission of any disciplinary 
     action imposed with respect to an act or failure to act of a 
     bulk-power system user that affected or threatened to affect 
     bulk-power system facilities located in the United States.
       ``(C) Right to petition.--A bulk-power system user that is 
     the subject of disciplinary action under paragraph (1) shall 
     have the right to petition the Commission for a modification 
     or rescission of the disciplinary action.
       ``(D) Injunctions.--If the electric reliability 
     organization finds it necessary to prevent a serious threat 
     to reliability, the electric reliability organization may 
     seek injunctive relief in the United States district court 
     for the district in which the affected facilities are 
     located.
       ``(E) Effective date.--
       ``(i) In general.--Unless the Commission, on motion of the 
     Commission or on application by the bulk-power system user 
     that is the subject of the disciplinary action, suspends the 
     effectiveness of a disciplinary action, the disciplinary 
     action shall take effect on the 30th day after the date on 
     which--

       ``(I) the electric reliability organization submits to the 
     Commission--

       ``(aa) a written finding that the bulk-power system user 
     violated an organization standard; and
       ``(bb) the record of proceedings before the electric 
     reliability organization; and

       ``(II) the Commission posts the written finding on the 
     Internet.

       ``(ii) Duration.--A disciplinary action shall remain in 
     effect or remain suspended unless the Commission, after 
     notice and opportunity for hearing, affirms, sets aside, 
     modifies, or reinstates the disciplinary action.
       ``(iii) Expedited consideration.--The Commission shall 
     conduct the hearing under procedures established to ensure 
     expedited consideration of the action taken.
       ``(2) Compliance orders.--The Commission, on complaint by 
     any person or on motion of the Commission, may order 
     compliance with an organization standard and may impose a 
     penalty, limitation on activities, functions, or operations, 
     or take such other disciplinary action as the Commission 
     finds appropriate, against a bulk-power system user with 
     respect to actions affecting or threatening to affect bulk-
     power system facilities located in the United States if the 
     Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, 
     that the bulk-power system user has violated or threatens to 
     violate an organization standard.
       ``(3) Other actions.--The Commission may take such action 
     as is necessary against the electric reliability organization 
     or an affiliated regional reliability entity to ensure 
     compliance with an organization standard, or any Commission 
     order affecting electric reliability organization or 
     affiliated regional reliability entity.
       ``(k) Reliability Reports.--The electric reliability 
     organization shall--
       ``(1) conduct periodic assessments of the reliability and 
     adequacy of the interconnected bulk-power system in North 
     America; and
       ``(2) report annually to the Secretary of Energy and the 
     Commission its findings and recommendations for monitoring or 
     improving system reliability and adequacy.
       ``(l) Assessment and Recovery of Certain Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The reasonable costs of the electric 
     reliability organization, and the reasonable costs of each 
     affiliated regional reliability entity that are related to 
     implementation or enforcement of organization standards or 
     other requirements contained in a delegation agreement 
     approved under subsection (h), shall be assessed by the 
     electric reliability organization and each affiliated 
     regional reliability entity, respectively, taking into 
     account the relationship of costs to each region and based on 
     an allocation that reflects an equitable sharing of the costs 
     among all electric energy consumers.
       ``(2) Rules.--The Commission shall provide by rule for the 
     review of costs and allocations under paragraph (1) in 
     accordance with the standards in this subsection and 
     subsection (d)(4)(F).
       ``(m) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the following activities are rebuttably presumed to be 
     in compliance with the antitrust laws of the United States:
       ``(A) Activities undertaken by the electric reliability 
     organization under this section or affiliated regional 
     reliability entity operating under a delegation agreement 
     under subsection (h).
       ``(B) Activities of a member of the electric reliability 
     organization or an affiliated regional reliability entity in 
     pursuit of the objectives of the electric reliability 
     organization or affiliated regional reliability entity under 
     this section undertaken in good faith under the rules of the 
     organization of the electric reliability organization or 
     affiliated regional reliability entity.
       ``(2) Availability of defenses.--In a civil action brought 
     by any person or entity against the electric reliability 
     organization or an affiliated regional reliability entity 
     alleging a violation of an antitrust law based on an activity 
     under this Act, the defenses of primary jurisdiction and 
     immunity from suit and other affirmative defenses shall be 
     available to the extent applicable.
       ``(n) Regional Advisory Role.--
       ``(1) Establishment of regional advisory body.--The 
     Commission shall establish a regional advisory body on the 
     petition of the Governors of at least two-thirds of the 
     States within a region that have more than one-half of their 
     electrical loads served within the region.
       ``(2) Membership.--A regional advisory body--

[[Page 672]]

       ``(A) shall be composed of 1 member from each State in the 
     region, appointed by the Governor of the State; and
       ``(B) may include representatives of agencies, States, and 
     Provinces outside the United States, on execution of an 
     appropriate international agreement described in subsection 
     (f).
       ``(3) Functions.--A regional advisory body may provide 
     advice to the electric reliability organization, an 
     affiliated regional reliability entity, or the Commission 
     regarding--
       ``(A) the governance of an affiliated regional reliability 
     entity existing or proposed within a region;
       ``(B) whether a standard proposed to apply within the 
     region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest; and
       ``(C) whether fees proposed to be assessed within the 
     region are--
       ``(i) just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest; and
       ``(ii) consistent with the requirements of subsection (l).
       ``(4) Deference.--In a case in which a regional advisory 
     body encompasses an entire interconnection, the Commission 
     may give deference to advice provided by the regional 
     advisory body under paragraph (3).
       ``(o) Applicability of Section.--This section does not 
     apply outside the 48 contiguous States.
       ``(p) Rehearings; Court Review of Orders.--Section 313 
     applies to an order of the Commission issued under this 
     section.
       ``(q) Preservation of State Authority.--
       ``(1) Extent of authority of the electric reliability 
     organization.--The electric reliability organization shall 
     have authority to develop, implement, and enforce compliance 
     with standards for the reliable operation of only the bulk-
     power system.
       ``(2) No authority with respect to adequacy or safety.--
     This section does not provide the electric reliability 
     organization or the Commission with the authority to 
     establish or enforce compliance with standards for adequacy 
     or safety of electric facilities or services.
       ``(3) No preemption.--
       ``(A) In general.--Nothing in this section preempts the 
     authority of any State to take action to ensure the safety, 
     adequacy, and reliability of electric service within the 
     State, so long as the action is not inconsistent with any 
     organization standard.
       ``(B) Consistency determination.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the electric reliability organization or any other 
     affected party submits to the Commission a petition for a 
     determination that a State action is inconsistent with an 
     organization standard, the Commission shall issue a final 
     order determining whether a State action is inconsistent with 
     an organization standard, after notice and opportunity for 
     comment, taking into consideration any recommendations of the 
     electric reliability organization.
       ``(C) Stay.--The Commission, after consultation with the 
     electric reliability organization, may stay the effectiveness 
     of any State action, pending the Commission's issuance of a 
     final order.''.
       (b) Enforcement.--
       (1) General penalties.--Section 316(c) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``or 214'' and inserting ``214, or 215''.
       (2) Certain provisions.--Section 316A of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 825o-1) is amended by striking ``or 214'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``214, or 215''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 173. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 
windfall profits adjustment on the production of domestic electricity 
and to use the resulting revenues to fund rebates for individual and 
business electricity consumers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced a bill to 
require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a Western 
Regional Rate Cap for the sale of electricity. This is a key component 
to bringing stability to the electricity market and an important step 
in solving California's electricity problems.
  Today, I am introducing the second in a series of bills to deal with 
this matter. The Consumer Utilities Turnback, CUT, Trust Fund Act would 
impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators, with the 
revenues from the tax going into a Trust Fund to provide rebates to 
consumers.
  Between the second quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of 2000, 
the overall net income for electricity producers based outside of 
California who sell to California increased 333 percent. Let me also 
mention a couple of specific companies. These figures compare the net 
income of the first three quarters of 1999 with the net income of the 
first three quarters of 2000. For NRG Energy Inc., it was a 386 percent 
increase. For the AES Corporation, it was a 262 percent increase. And 
for Dynegy Inc., the increase was 269 percent.
  While profits for producers are reaching record levels, consumers are 
being hit with higher prices. Recent action by the state's Public 
Utility Commission has resulted in increases in consumer electricity 
bills from 7 to 15 percent. While this action was done to help the 
state's utility companies in meeting the wholesale electricity costs, 
it means that consumers and businesses are shouldering the burden of 
the windfall profits being made by the generating companies.
  As I mentioned, the CUT Act would impose a windfall profits tax on 
electricity generators. Each year, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, FERC, would calculate the average level of ``reasonable 
profit'' determined by state Public Utility Commissions in states in 
which such a determination is made. Any profit above this average level 
would be windfall profit and would be subject to a 100 percent windfall 
profits tax.
  The monies raised from the tax would be placed in the CUT Trust Fund 
in order to provide rebates to consumers. Governors could request that 
FERC provide rebates for consumers and businesses because of high 
electricity costs. FERC would then be charged with distributing the 
rebates and would be required to provide refunds to consumers each year 
in an amount equal to the revenues of the windfall profits tax.
  Mr. President, this legislation highlights the dramatic difference 
between the burden California consumers are facing and the bountiful 
harvest being reaped by electricity generating companies. In dealing 
with the electricity situation in California, we must always keep this 
in mind.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wellstone, 
        Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 174. A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the 
microloan program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing a 
bill to improve the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, 
a program which makes a very big difference through very small loans of 
up to $35,000. We are very pleased that Senators Bond, Wellstone, 
Cleland, Landrieu, Harkin, Levin, Lieberman, Bingaman, Enzi, and Kohl 
are joining us and cosponsoring this bill.
  Senator Snowe and I have worked together many times on this program, 
pushing to make sure our country's smallest businesses have access to 
capital and business assistance. The changes we are introducing today 
are not controversial, and they are not new. In fact, they should sound 
familiar to all but our newest colleagues. First, they were part of the 
microloan provisions in the Senate version of last year's SBA 
Reauthorization bill. Second, our Committee and the full Senate voted 
unanimously to pass them. Further, they were drafted in cooperation 
with the Administration and with the folks who make the loans and 
provide the business training. The National Association of SBA 
Microloan Intermediaries (NASMI) and its members were full partners in 
shaping this legislation in the 106th Congress.
  These provisions were not included in the conference agreement on 
SBA's Reauthorization bill because the House Committee on Small 
Business wanted to postpone consideration of these changes until they 
could hold a hearing and their members could have a chance to weigh in 
on the program. I thank former House Small Business Committee Chairman 
Talent, and returning Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, for working with 
us on the microloan changes.
  These changes we are re-introducing today will make the SBA Microloan

[[Page 673]]

Program more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to 
microentrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined for lenders 
to make loans and provide management assistance. They complement the 
program and technical changes we made last year.
  The Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001 does the following:
  It allows microintermediaries to offer revolving lines of credit. 
Currently, microloans are short-term loans. Eliminating this 
requirement will allow intermediaries greater latitude in developing 
microloan products that best meet their community's needs by offering 
borrowers revolving lines of credit, such as for seasonal contract 
needs. Congress does not intend for this flexibility to be used to make 
loans with long terms, such as 15 and 30 years.
  It broadens the eligibility criteria for potential 
microintermediaries. Instead of requiring intermediaries to have one 
year of experience in making microloans to startup, newly established, 
or growing small businesses and providing technical assistance to its 
borrowers, this legislation would deem a prospective intermediary 
eligible if it has equivalent experience.
  It expands flexibility to intermediaries to subcontract out technical 
assistance. Currently, intermediaries are limited to using 25 percent 
of their funds to assist prospective borrowers. This change allows an 
intermediary to allocate as much technical assistance as appropriate. 
This subsection also increases the percentage of technical assistance 
grant funds that an intermediary can use to subcontract out technical 
assistance. Currently, intermediaries can only subcontract 25 percent, 
and this legislation would raise it to 35 percent.
  It establishes a peer-to-peer mentoring program to help new 
intermediaries provide the best possible service to microentrepreneurs. 
Specifically, SBA would be allowed to use up to $1 million of annual 
appropriations for technical assistance grants to provide peer-to-peer 
mentoring by subcontracting with one or more national trade 
associations of SBA microlending intermediaries, or subcontracting with 
entities knowledgeable of and experienced in microlending and related 
technical assistance. As Congress increases the number of lending 
intermediaries around the country to reach more people, we want to make 
sure that new intermediaries have the benefits of lessons learned by 
other more experienced lending intermediaries. Because the microlending 
industry is still very young, there are few sources of conventional 
training available to prospective and new intermediaries. According to 
the National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries, experienced 
SBA microlenders are called upon frequently to assist new 
intermediaries in addressing issues with their loan fund, from 
financial management and marketing to targeting loan funds effectively 
to a population or business sector. While these experienced 
intermediaries do their best to respond to the needs of their 
colleagues, they currently lack the resources to respond effectively 
and efficiently to the growing needs of the field.
  Before I wrap up my statement, I would like to quickly run through 
the changes we made and that President Clinton signed into law on 
December 21.
  Increases the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000;
  Increases the average loan size for each intermediary's portfolio 
from $10,000 to $15,000 and increases the average loan size for 
specialty lenders from $7,500 to $10,000;
  Raises the threshold for the comparable credit test from $15,000 to 
$20,000;
  Increases the number of non-lending technical assistance (TA) 
providers from 25 to 55 and raises the maximum grant amount to each TA 
provider from $125,000 to $200,000; and,
  Increases the number of intermediaries SBA is authorized to fund from 
200 to 300.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 174

       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 ``Microloan Program 
     Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. MICROLOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``short-term,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the period ``, 
     or equivalent experience, as determined by the 
     Administration'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)(E)--
       (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--Each intermediary may expend the grant 
     funds received under the program authorized by this 
     subsection to provide or arrange for loan technical 
     assistance to small business concerns that are borrowers or 
     prospective borrowers under this subsection.''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``25'' and inserting 
     ``35''; and
       (4) in paragraph (9), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Peer-to-peer capacity building and training.--The 
     Administrator may use not more than $1,000,000 of the annual 
     appropriation to the Administration for technical assistance 
     grants to subcontract with 1 or more national trade 
     associations of eligible intermediaries, or other entities 
     knowledgeable about and experienced in microlending and 
     related technical assistance, under this subsection to 
     provide peer-to-peer capacity building and training to 
     lenders under this subsection and organizations seeking to 
     become lenders under this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7(m)(11)(B) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(11)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``short-term,''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of 
the Senate to legislation vitally important to the success of the 
Microloan Program of the Small Business Administration. Congress 
created the Microloan Program to reach small businesses not being 
served by traditional lenders or other credit programs within the SBA. 
This program has successfully helped micro entrepreneurs, many of whom 
are minorities, women and low-income individuals, who otherwise would 
have been unable to achieve their goal of owning their own business. 
Due to weak or, merely, non-existent credit histories and limited 
borrowing experience, they were often labeled as unreliable or risky 
borrowers by traditional credit markets and, hence, unable to obtain 
loans to start businesses.
  To address this need and to fill the gap in micro enterprise lending, 
the Microloan Program was created to provide loans to non-profit 
intermediary lenders who, in turn, provide loans under $35,000 to very 
small businesses. In addition to financial resources, intermediary 
lenders provide technical assistance to these business owners, teaching 
them how to manage and run a successful business. Industry experts and 
micro borrowers have testified that supplementing financing with 
technical assistance is critical to the success of the micro enterprise 
and the likelihood of loan repayment.
  Not only crucial to the development of the business of the micro 
borrower, micro loans also serve to strengthen and build communities, 
both growing and those in need of resurgence. To date, lending 
intermediaries have made 10,230 loans, worth in the range of $105 
million. This money and business activity is stimulating many 
communities. As importantly, loans made by this Program have created 
new jobs. The Small Business Administration reports that for every loan 
made, 1.7 jobs have been created. Given the number of loans, this 
calculates to approximately 17,391 new jobs to strengthen the vitality 
of our communities.
  The legislation I am cosponsoring today makes programmatic and 
technical changes to the Small Business Administration's Microloan 
Program, making it more flexible. This flexibility will help the 
Program meet more credit needs, be more accessible to micro 
entrepreneurs across the country, and streamline procedures which 
increase lenders' ability to make loans and provide technical 
assistance to micro entrepreneurs.

[[Page 674]]

  The Microloan Program has had substantial achievements. In South 
Carolina, a small retail establishment's owner wished to sell his 
outlet to an employee, but traditional lenders balked. The Microloan 
Program gave the employee the helping hand he needed with a micro loan. 
He paid that initial loan back early, and a second micro loan, as well. 
The banks now knock on his door. In Virginia, a woman, whose husband 
became disabled and unable to support the family, used a micro loan to 
start a used car dealership. That business has succeeded. So much so 
that she has established a program in her community that helps other 
women get off welfare by providing the automobile transportation to get 
to and from work. I want to be able to cite similar examples in my own 
State of Louisiana. In Louisiana, currently, we do not have any micro 
lenders enrolled in the Program. However, I have fought for increased 
funding to make sure the Program is adequately funded so that 
nationwide we can provide more micro loans and technical assistance. In 
the last Congress, I voted for legislation that increased the number of 
intermediaries authorized from 200 to 300 so that we can reach more 
micro entrepreneurs across the country.
  And today, the proposed legislation will make the necessary changes 
to increase the attractiveness of the Program to prospective micro 
lenders in Louisiana and elsewhere around the country. The legislation 
being introduced today would broaden the eligibility criteria for 
intermediaries in an effort to bring lenders into the Program. This 
legislation would allow for intermediaries to have equivalent lending 
experience, rather than requiring exact micro lending experience. In 
addition, this legislation increases the amounts intermediaries can use 
to subcontract technical assistance, thus easing the burden on lenders 
in providing technical assistance. This legislation should encourage 
intermediaries to get involved in the SBA's Microloan Program in 
Louisiana. I urge lenders in my State to take note of the need for 
their future involvement in this Program. They could make big 
differences in their communities by making very small loans.
  I have consistently supported this Program since joining the 
Committee on Small Business, and will continue to do so because of the 
many benefits that the Microloan Program can provide to micro 
entrepreneurs and our communities. Passage of this legislation can 
continue the successes of the Microloan Program and extend its reach 
into many other communities, such as those in Louisiana. I thank 
Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their leadership on this 
legislation and encourage the Committee to act on this bill as soon as 
practicable.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 175. A bill to establish a national uniform poll closing time and 
uniform treatment of absentee ballots in Presidential general 
elections; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  S. 176. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
that will make much needed changes to our Presidential election system.
  If there was one message to come from the thirty-six day ordeal over 
counting the votes in this Presidential election--it was that reforms 
are needed in the manner of national elections.
  My bill would first establish a uniform poll closing time for the 
nation. I believe that 9 p.m. central standard time is the most 
appropriate time we can choose. The polls in California would close at 
seven. The polls in the east would close at ten. A uniform poll closing 
time is preferable to any kind of news blackout over election results. 
We live in a free society--we cannot withhold election results.
  But, in this time of instant communication, we cannot let news 
reporting affect our voting patterns. We all recall the 1980 election, 
when President Carter's early concession demoralized West Coast voters 
who thought their vote no longer counted. In this last election, we 
watched the state of Florida get called, when a significant part of the 
state had not even closed its polls. A uniform poll closing time, in my 
view, is the only way to avoid a repeat of this problem.
  A second difficulty that surfaced during this election cycle is the 
counting of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. Some states have 
moved to vote by mail. But I don't believe that in a national election, 
we can wait on the outcome of an election through such means. A major 
industrial nation, in the twenty-first century, shouldn't have to wait 
days or weeks to determine who won an election. Literally, the fate of 
the Presidency and the Senate depended on the counting of absentee and 
mail-in ballots days after the election was held. My legislation would 
require that, for Presidential elections, all ballots would have to be 
processed and recorded by election day. States can reserve the right to 
have mail-in voting. But it must be done in a manner that is respectful 
of the nation's right to know who the next President will be.
  Finally, and most importantly, I want to improve the treatment that 
overseas military absentee ballots are granted. We ask a lot of our men 
and women serving overseas. They put their lives on the line to protect 
our democratic values. And I was stunned to see their ballots cast 
aside like rubbish, purely for political opportunism, and secondly, 
because of so called ``technicalities.'' It was an insult to our armed 
forces. Never again should this happen. I will make sure that the 107th 
Congress acts to make sure it never happens again.
  In the past Congress has worked on this problem, but apparently we 
did not go far enough. We created a uniform absentee ballot for our 
military, if they couldn't get a ballot from their home state in a 
timely manner. We directed the Secretary of Defense to serve as the 
primary executive branch official charged with enforcing this Federal 
law.
  My legislation would broaden the Secretary's authority--and give him 
the power to develop, in consultation with the states, a standard, 
uniform method of treating ballots in Federal elections that come from 
our military serving overseas. This way, no soldier or sailor or airman 
serving overseas will have his or her vote disenfranchised because of a 
patchwork of fifty state laws with respect to absentee ballots. They 
protect our democracy. We have to protect their right to participate in 
it.
  Election reform will be an important issue for this Congress. There 
will be many proposals. I know that Senator McConnell, Chairman of the 
Rules Committee, will have a proposal to modernize voting procedures 
and machinery across our nation. I am certain that some of the reforms 
I am offering today will become part of the debate.
  Today, I am also introducing the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act 
of 2001, legislation that I believe addresses the most significant 
problems in our present system of Federal campaign finance laws.
  The bill will help level the playing field between challengers and 
incumbents and will target those areas of the law that have been 
subject to abuse and excess, without imposing a new, untested system of 
taxpayer funded campaign subsidies and regulations.
  I am today proposing a set of relatively simple and workable reforms 
that will curb the abuses undermining public confidence in the present 
system, that will make congressional races more competitive, and that 
will help return control of federal campaigns and elections to their 
rightful owners--the individual voters in our respective states.
  First, the bill requires that at least 60 percent of a Senate or 
House candidate's campaign funds come from individual residents of his 
or her state or congressional district. This will put the emphasis of 
fund-raising back home where it belongs, and will assist challengers, 
who rely more heavily on individual contributors.
  In addition, the bill will end the powerful incumbent advantage of 
the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which 
they are seeking re-election.

[[Page 675]]

  Next, the bill increases the individual contribution limit from $1000 
to $3000, per candidate, per election, while addressing the precipitous 
rise in the role of PACs in our existing system.
  PAC contributions to congressional candidates grew from $12.5 million 
in 1974 to almost $200 million in 1996, a constant dollar increase of 
over 400 percent. Moreover, almost 70 percent of that $200 million went 
to incumbents, further serving to tilt the system against challengers. 
While PACs can and should continue to provide a vehicle for groups of 
like minded individuals to leverage their support of particular 
candidates, this should not be allowed to undermine the candidate/voter 
relationship. The bill will help control this growing PAC influence by 
also limiting PAC contributions to $3000, the same limit as individuals 
under my bill.
  To help encourage candidates of average means to run for office 
against their wealthier opponents, the bill limits to $250,000 the 
amount a Senate campaign may reimburse a candidate, including immediate 
family, for loans the candidate makes to the campaign.
  The Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001 will also prohibit, 
once and for all, several abuses of the law that now plague our system: 
campaign contributions by non-citizens will be banned; the use of 
campaign funds for purposes that are inherently personal in nature will 
be denied; political parties will be prohibited from accepting 
contributions earmarked for specific candidates; and union members will 
be entitled to be made aware of, and to decline to contribute to, the 
rapidly growing political activities of their unions.
  Finally, the bill will encourage, not restrict, the volunteer-staffed 
political party building, ``get-out-the-vote,'' and other candidate 
support activities of state and local political parties that constitute 
the core of grassroots politics in America. These critical activities 
will be given greater latitude under the law by excluding them from the 
definition of campaign contributions.
  I realize that campaign finance reform is a contentious issue. 
However, if we are to restore the American people's confidence in the 
political process and make it more responsive to voters and accessible 
to candidates, we must take a hard look at those rules and attempt to 
fix what is broken. The Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act does 
just that, and in a way that I believe can garner the support of a 
decisive majority of Congress.
  Mr. President, both of these bills address issues that were raised 
during the campaign. I wanted to put these ideas forward today so that 
they can become part of the debate when we consider these issues.

                          ____________________